Also notice that he taken more money since the start of the Gaza slaughter
Zionism doesn't imply Genocide
The fact is, however, that they impinge— as they always have— on the Arab residents of the territories, and then they have a distinct cutting edge to them. Both in theory and in practice their effectiveness lies in how they Judaize territory coterminously with de-Arabizing it.
There is privileged evidence of this fact, I think, in what Joseph Weitz had to say. From 1932 on, Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund; in 1965 his diaries and papers, My Diary, and Letters to the Children, were published in Israel. On December 19, 1940, he wrote:
_". . . after the Second World War the question of the land of Israel and the question of the Jews would be raised beyond the framework of “ development"; amongst ourselves. !t must be clear that there is no room for hoth peoples in this country. No 'development' will bring us closer to our aim. To be an independent people in this small country. If the Arabs leave the country, it will be broad and wide-open for us. And if the Arabs stay, the country will remain narrow and miserable.
When the War is over and the English have won, and when the judges sit on the throne of Law, our people must bring theirpetitions and their claim before them; and the only solution is Eretz Israel, or at least Western Eretz Israel, without Arabs. There is no room for compromise on this point! The Zionist enterprise so far, in terms of preparing the ground and paving the way for the creation of the Hebrew State in the land of Israel, has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with ‘‘land-buying ’— but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all: except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a singlevillage, not a single tribe. And the transfer must be directed to Iraq, to Syria, and even to Transjordan. For that purpose we’ll find money, and a lot of money. And only with such a transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers, and the Jewish question shall be solved, once and for all. There is no other way out."_
These are not only prophetic remarks about what was going to happen; they are also policy statements, in which Weitz spoke with the voice of the Zionist consensus. There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists, beginning with Herzl. and when ‘salvation' came it was with those ideas in mind that the conquest of Palestine, and the eviction of its Arabs, was carried out.
~The Question of Palestine, Edward Said
There's literally dozens of other quotes like this one from people instrumental in the founding of Israel in this chapter, and they are similarly genocidal. It was honestly pretty transparent what they were going for.
The existence of Zionists who wish to erase Palestine (of which there are many) does not change the situation.
The end goal of a Jewish homeland has always been genocide of Arabs?
I suspect that isn't true but am willing to read whatever you are basing this claim off of.
Well, when you want to establish your homeland somewhere that people are already living, yeah it takes displacement. But they're not just displacing them, they're killing them.
Trusting Google results? In the days of the LLM takeover? Nah
You don't trust the Google result for defining a word? Really? You think this is an LLM mediated result? Really?
Where else were the survivors of the holocaust credibly being offered the establishment of their own government beside their actual homeland?
If being a victim of the Holocaust entitles you to your own government, how comes you've never argued for establishing a homeland of the Romani people?
What are you suggesting should have been done with the Jewish survivors if returning to their homeland itself is unacceptable to you?
For a person born in Germany, raised in Germany, taught to speak, read and write German, their homeland is Germany. German Jewish victims of the Holocaust ought to have been extraordinarily repaired, and given the pleasure of seeing their victimizers fallen in disgrace, tried, condemned and punished (part of which did happen), not told to pack their bags and leave to a country they've never set a foot in. The idea that someone who's born in a specific ethnic group has their "homeland" at some special, historical place is an extremely ideological view that has much more to do with nazism than with the ideals of freedom and human rights.
By the way, you haven't answered my question. In your racist worldview that ethnicities belong to specific strips of land, where do the Romani belong?
Well, Germany was split in two after the war, and most Jews who survived the holocaust weren't German Jews, so if we were to send all of European Jews to West Germany, you are still having to deal woth the displacement aspect that you are currently using to build a case for genocide.
I'm also going to set aside your childish accusations of racism, because it isn't true. You willingly chose to enter a discussion, the bare minimum is mutual respect and if you can't accomplish that, there will be no discussion going forward. As for the Romani people, the Romania's homeland wasn't still under British rule, and thus couldn't offer to have them go back India. I'm not even sure the Romani people wanted to return to India. Is that something they were pushing for or are you just making a hypothetical?
Can you connect two and two? I used German Jews as an example, didn't say that Polish Jews or Russian Jews or French Jews should have been taken to Germany. Also you can migrate to a country, rather than occupy it and have the population that already lived there displaced, as the colonizers who founded the State of Israel did with Palestinians. I genuinely cannot believe you wrote this:
you are still having to deal woth the displacement aspect that you are currently using to build a case for genocide.
In good faith.
I’m also going to set aside your childish accusations of racism, because it isn’t true.
It is, you just don't understand it yet. A Romani born in Spain who wants to live in Spain has one homeland: Spain. As of today, they have nothing in common with India, nor did they 50, 100, 150 or 400 years ago - much like Ashkenazi Jews didn't have anything to do with Palestine in 1750. We just have the good sense to practice policies that allow for the healthiest pluralist society possible that respects both Romani and non-Romani, unlike 1940s dumbfuck Brits who thought that a sensible solution for Jews was to invite them to get the fuck out of Europe in a colonial project. Would you tell Italians living in the USA to leave to Italy during the time of the Italian mafias? Would you tell Arabs to go to the Middle East after the 9-11? If you don't think telling an immigrant ethnicity to leave after or during a tumultuous period where they have or might be the target of hate is usually a good idea, dogmatically changing that principle to argue that it was sensible to ethnically cleanse Palestinians after WWII is indeed a racist bias. But I have faith you will eventually outgrow it, after one month or fifty.
...so you would be against the Native Americans of the US and Canada being given their homeland back?
Ethnic nationalism is just racism, whether practiced by white supremacist MAGA Americans or Holocaust survivors. In a liberal democracy, the government serves all people regardless of race. I'm confused by your premise that Holocaust survivors were entitled to their own ethnic state for some reason.
Also, the Zionist movement was not a response to the Holocaust. It was a colonial enterprise that began well before the Holocaust in response to widespread persecution especially in Central Europe. Many Jews opposed the Jewish nationalism undergirding Zionism for the same reasons liberals today reject virtually all nationalist movements. Many emigrated to liberal democracies like the United States where they could live free of ethnic discrimination. Zionists instead chose to respond with their own ethnic persecution.
It is worth recalling in this connection that at the turn of the century,
Zionism's similarities to other projects of colonization were not a source of
embarrassment or shame for most of the movement's adherents; indeed, they
often saw them as a selling point. Zionist leaders studied and sought to learn
from the experience of European colonial-settlement enterprises in places like
Algeria, Rhodesia, and Kenya, and many imagined their own endeavor as
similar in certain ways. Moreover, the Zionist movement readily used such
terms as “colony,” “colonial,” and “colonization” to refer to its activities; thus,
for example, the original name of its financial arm was the Jewish Colonial
Trust. It was only later, after the First World War, that colonialism came to
have strongly pejorative connotations for many Europeans. As a consequence
the Zionist movement sought to dissociate itself from other European projects
of colonization and settlement, began to stress the uniqueness and noncolonial
character of its mission and methods, and stopped using such terms, at least
in languages other than Hebrew.
Zachary Lockman, Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in
Palestine, 1906-1948 (University of California Press, 1996) 21-57.
Why did you respond to a question yet refuse to answer the question?
of their own government
Dingdingding and there we have it, antisemitism by calling all Jews zionist.
What?
You're not going to get far using a definition of Zionism that practically vanished after WII and the founding of Israel, least of all in the current climate. Simply not the opportune moment.
Also already back then there were Zionists who saw it as an explicitly settler-colonial project.
Because the calculation has been made, he will lose more votes from people who support Israel than people who support Palestine because the first ones don't mind the alternative which will support Israel even more and the second ones will be in deep shit if Trump gets elected so they have no choice.
Are we always going to be prisoners to these types of choices?
No, you could also elect a dictator like China or Russia did.
That's what they're thinking at any rate. Unfortunately in Pennsylvania it doesn't seem to have been a campaign issue at all for the Pro Palestinian congresswoman and the Arab American demographics in the rust are what got Biden over the line there last time. There's a serious question as to whether the rust belt is now in play again because of this.
The man is from an era long past, when Israel was the USA's fault and responsibility, and when it's presence was necessary to defend against other world powers.
Because certain closely knit ethnicity has significant power and wealth in US economy, so neither Republicans or Democrats want to fuck with that setup?
I wouldn't say ethnic group.
To be more specific, the lobby group, AIPAC, has immense political power.
Also remember that whenever anyone tries to tell you that you shouldn't be bringing up Biden's genocide support because it might hurt his chances in the US election, they are also doing genocide denial. They are genocide deniers.
They may not be denying that the genocide is happening, they're just denying that we should talk about it. They're denying its importance.
And sure, Trump would probably be worse at this, so vote. But if Biden genuinely needs widespread genocide denial to win then that is not only not an acceptable thing to ask of voters, it is also unhinged. People know about the genocide, they know Biden is dragging his feet on the issue and pretending that's not happening just to protect him makes his case look extremely weak.
If you really think that no amount of denouncement and excoriation will influence him to stop supporting genocide then again, you are saying awful things about him without realising it.
He also claimed there's no genocide
Why did he build the pier for aid?
To give the appearance of caring while not actually trying to improve the situation
Well, true. Pretty much everything he's done pro Palestine has been 99% performative. But my point was that it's bizarre to claim that Israel is not starving Palestinians while also building a pier because aid (including food) isn't getting rhrough
Several of the ships sent have been doing similar operations to the region for over a decade, so it probably wasn't a difficult move to make.
My point was that it shows he clearly understands that aid, mainly food, wasn't getting through. He's a liar
And mine was that he hasn't done much in general about the situation. I like the pier and airdrops as concepts but I don't think they were impactful to the scale of what we could accomplish if we really tried.
If he really wanted change he would pressure Israel. The US is the sole reason this situation hasn't ever resolved
Maybe he will change the function of the pier to "more efficient delivery of military aid to the israeli stormtroopers in Gaza." Those tank shells blowing up tents aren't gonna refill themselves.
Those get delivered to Israel thou
Conveniently we call weapons for Genocide "Aid packages" too.
Id trust the people on the streets there before any out of touch government second guesser
Yeah, but in typical c-suite fashion they (e.g., Biden in this case) listen but don’t hear or care what the people who are actually in the shit of it all think/say because agendas.
Says the guy who literally built a fucking pier to delivery food because Israel won't let trucks go through on the road.
To all those people who keep saying that in order to not have Trump back in 2025, everyone must suck it up and vote Biden, this is why that just can't happen.
Sure Trump is bad in many ways but Biden's insistence on helping Netenyahu no matter what will lose him the election.
I'm not making a case for Trump, btw. Both things can be bad at the same time. For people who are seeing Gazans die for no reason, Biden cannot come back into office again. Does that mean we want Trump? Of course not, and that's why voting for anyone else makes sense.
If voting for anyone else means you're voting for Trump, so be it!
People who get anxious at criticism of Biden should dedicate their energy to pressure the US government to grow some brain cells and stop behaving like lunatics, not at berating everyone who expresses angst at their complicity with genocide.
Democratic governments aren't some force of nature that will do as they please no matter the consequences. You, as their constituents, can signal to them that their actions may make them lose the next election. If you want young people to vote for Biden, what's more likely to do the trick, to endlessly argue with the few of them you'll find on Lemmy, or to have Biden stop ruining his own image for no gain?
Trump will be actively worse than Biden because he would bring the worst Israeli policies HERE.
Illegal invasion of Lebanon? Yeah, Trump wants that for Mexico.
Israel is not only starving Gazans, they've BEEN starving Gazans for DECADES.
That's been the whole point of the blockade.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
Why does Biden support genocide?
Because he's a self-proclaimed Zionist and the end goal of Zionism has always been genocide. Now, why is he a Zionist? shrugs
The world may never know
Also notice that he taken more money since the start of the Gaza slaughter
Zionism doesn't imply Genocide
The fact is, however, that they impinge— as they always have— on the Arab residents of the territories, and then they have a distinct cutting edge to them. Both in theory and in practice their effectiveness lies in how they Judaize territory coterminously with de-Arabizing it. There is privileged evidence of this fact, I think, in what Joseph Weitz had to say. From 1932 on, Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund; in 1965 his diaries and papers, My Diary, and Letters to the Children, were published in Israel. On December 19, 1940, he wrote:
_". . . after the Second World War the question of the land of Israel and the question of the Jews would be raised beyond the framework of “ development"; amongst ourselves. !t must be clear that there is no room for hoth peoples in this country. No 'development' will bring us closer to our aim. To be an independent people in this small country. If the Arabs leave the country, it will be broad and wide-open for us. And if the Arabs stay, the country will remain narrow and miserable.
These are not only prophetic remarks about what was going to happen; they are also policy statements, in which Weitz spoke with the voice of the Zionist consensus. There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists, beginning with Herzl. and when ‘salvation' came it was with those ideas in mind that the conquest of Palestine, and the eviction of its Arabs, was carried out.
~The Question of Palestine, Edward Said
There's literally dozens of other quotes like this one from people instrumental in the founding of Israel in this chapter, and they are similarly genocidal. It was honestly pretty transparent what they were going for.
The existence of Zionists who wish to erase Palestine (of which there are many) does not change the situation.
The end goal of a Jewish homeland has always been genocide of Arabs?
I suspect that isn't true but am willing to read whatever you are basing this claim off of.
Well, when you want to establish your homeland somewhere that people are already living, yeah it takes displacement. But they're not just displacing them, they're killing them.
www.google.com/search?q=define+zionism
Trusting Google results? In the days of the LLM takeover? Nah
You don't trust the Google result for defining a word? Really? You think this is an LLM mediated result? Really?
Where else were the survivors of the holocaust credibly being offered the establishment of their own government beside their actual homeland?
If being a victim of the Holocaust entitles you to your own government, how comes you've never argued for establishing a homeland of the Romani people?
What are you suggesting should have been done with the Jewish survivors if returning to their homeland itself is unacceptable to you?
For a person born in Germany, raised in Germany, taught to speak, read and write German, their homeland is Germany. German Jewish victims of the Holocaust ought to have been extraordinarily repaired, and given the pleasure of seeing their victimizers fallen in disgrace, tried, condemned and punished (part of which did happen), not told to pack their bags and leave to a country they've never set a foot in. The idea that someone who's born in a specific ethnic group has their "homeland" at some special, historical place is an extremely ideological view that has much more to do with nazism than with the ideals of freedom and human rights.
By the way, you haven't answered my question. In your racist worldview that ethnicities belong to specific strips of land, where do the Romani belong?
Well, Germany was split in two after the war, and most Jews who survived the holocaust weren't German Jews, so if we were to send all of European Jews to West Germany, you are still having to deal woth the displacement aspect that you are currently using to build a case for genocide.
I'm also going to set aside your childish accusations of racism, because it isn't true. You willingly chose to enter a discussion, the bare minimum is mutual respect and if you can't accomplish that, there will be no discussion going forward. As for the Romani people, the Romania's homeland wasn't still under British rule, and thus couldn't offer to have them go back India. I'm not even sure the Romani people wanted to return to India. Is that something they were pushing for or are you just making a hypothetical?
Can you connect two and two? I used German Jews as an example, didn't say that Polish Jews or Russian Jews or French Jews should have been taken to Germany. Also you can migrate to a country, rather than occupy it and have the population that already lived there displaced, as the colonizers who founded the State of Israel did with Palestinians. I genuinely cannot believe you wrote this:
In good faith.
It is, you just don't understand it yet. A Romani born in Spain who wants to live in Spain has one homeland: Spain. As of today, they have nothing in common with India, nor did they 50, 100, 150 or 400 years ago - much like Ashkenazi Jews didn't have anything to do with Palestine in 1750. We just have the good sense to practice policies that allow for the healthiest pluralist society possible that respects both Romani and non-Romani, unlike 1940s dumbfuck Brits who thought that a sensible solution for Jews was to invite them to get the fuck out of Europe in a colonial project. Would you tell Italians living in the USA to leave to Italy during the time of the Italian mafias? Would you tell Arabs to go to the Middle East after the 9-11? If you don't think telling an immigrant ethnicity to leave after or during a tumultuous period where they have or might be the target of hate is usually a good idea, dogmatically changing that principle to argue that it was sensible to ethnically cleanse Palestinians after WWII is indeed a racist bias. But I have faith you will eventually outgrow it, after one month or fifty.
...so you would be against the Native Americans of the US and Canada being given their homeland back?
Ethnic nationalism is just racism, whether practiced by white supremacist MAGA Americans or Holocaust survivors. In a liberal democracy, the government serves all people regardless of race. I'm confused by your premise that Holocaust survivors were entitled to their own ethnic state for some reason.
Also, the Zionist movement was not a response to the Holocaust. It was a colonial enterprise that began well before the Holocaust in response to widespread persecution especially in Central Europe. Many Jews opposed the Jewish nationalism undergirding Zionism for the same reasons liberals today reject virtually all nationalist movements. Many emigrated to liberal democracies like the United States where they could live free of ethnic discrimination. Zionists instead chose to respond with their own ethnic persecution.
Zachary Lockman, Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in Palestine, 1906-1948 (University of California Press, 1996) 21-57.
Why did you respond to a question yet refuse to answer the question?
Dingdingding and there we have it, antisemitism by calling all Jews zionist.
What?
You're not going to get far using a definition of Zionism that practically vanished after WII and the founding of Israel, least of all in the current climate. Simply not the opportune moment.
Also already back then there were Zionists who saw it as an explicitly settler-colonial project.
There’s almost 6 million reasons why.
Because the calculation has been made, he will lose more votes from people who support Israel than people who support Palestine because the first ones don't mind the alternative which will support Israel even more and the second ones will be in deep shit if Trump gets elected so they have no choice.
Are we always going to be prisoners to these types of choices?
No, you could also elect a dictator like China or Russia did.
That's what they're thinking at any rate. Unfortunately in Pennsylvania it doesn't seem to have been a campaign issue at all for the Pro Palestinian congresswoman and the Arab American demographics in the rust are what got Biden over the line there last time. There's a serious question as to whether the rust belt is now in play again because of this.
The man is from an era long past, when Israel was the USA's fault and responsibility, and when it's presence was necessary to defend against other world powers.
Because certain closely knit ethnicity has significant power and wealth in US economy, so neither Republicans or Democrats want to fuck with that setup?
I wouldn't say ethnic group.
To be more specific, the lobby group, AIPAC, has immense political power.
Black people?
This is genocide denial plain and simple.
Also remember that whenever anyone tries to tell you that you shouldn't be bringing up Biden's genocide support because it might hurt his chances in the US election, they are also doing genocide denial. They are genocide deniers.
They may not be denying that the genocide is happening, they're just denying that we should talk about it. They're denying its importance.
And sure, Trump would probably be worse at this, so vote. But if Biden genuinely needs widespread genocide denial to win then that is not only not an acceptable thing to ask of voters, it is also unhinged. People know about the genocide, they know Biden is dragging his feet on the issue and pretending that's not happening just to protect him makes his case look extremely weak.
If you really think that no amount of denouncement and excoriation will influence him to stop supporting genocide then again, you are saying awful things about him without realising it.
He also claimed there's no genocide
Why did he build the pier for aid?
To give the appearance of caring while not actually trying to improve the situation
Well, true. Pretty much everything he's done pro Palestine has been 99% performative. But my point was that it's bizarre to claim that Israel is not starving Palestinians while also building a pier because aid (including food) isn't getting rhrough
Several of the ships sent have been doing similar operations to the region for over a decade, so it probably wasn't a difficult move to make.
My point was that it shows he clearly understands that aid, mainly food, wasn't getting through. He's a liar
And mine was that he hasn't done much in general about the situation. I like the pier and airdrops as concepts but I don't think they were impactful to the scale of what we could accomplish if we really tried.
If he really wanted change he would pressure Israel. The US is the sole reason this situation hasn't ever resolved
Maybe he will change the function of the pier to "more efficient delivery of military aid to the israeli stormtroopers in Gaza." Those tank shells blowing up tents aren't gonna refill themselves.
Those get delivered to Israel thou
Conveniently we call weapons for Genocide "Aid packages" too.
Id trust the people on the streets there before any out of touch government second guesser
Yeah, but in typical c-suite fashion they (e.g., Biden in this case) listen but don’t hear or care what the people who are actually in the shit of it all think/say because agendas.
Says the guy who literally built a fucking pier to delivery food because Israel won't let trucks go through on the road.
To all those people who keep saying that in order to not have Trump back in 2025, everyone must suck it up and vote Biden, this is why that just can't happen.
Sure Trump is bad in many ways but Biden's insistence on helping Netenyahu no matter what will lose him the election.
I'm not making a case for Trump, btw. Both things can be bad at the same time. For people who are seeing Gazans die for no reason, Biden cannot come back into office again. Does that mean we want Trump? Of course not, and that's why voting for anyone else makes sense.
If voting for anyone else means you're voting for Trump, so be it!
People who get anxious at criticism of Biden should dedicate their energy to pressure the US government to grow some brain cells and stop behaving like lunatics, not at berating everyone who expresses angst at their complicity with genocide.
Democratic governments aren't some force of nature that will do as they please no matter the consequences. You, as their constituents, can signal to them that their actions may make them lose the next election. If you want young people to vote for Biden, what's more likely to do the trick, to endlessly argue with the few of them you'll find on Lemmy, or to have Biden stop ruining his own image for no gain?
Trump will be actively worse than Biden because he would bring the worst Israeli policies HERE.
Illegal invasion of Lebanon? Yeah, Trump wants that for Mexico.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-mexico-military-cartels-war-on-drugs-1234705804/
So, yeah, that's what you're voting for if you don't vote Biden.