OK, so hear me out: anyone who is for a Two State Solution can legitimately call themselves a zionist, because one of those two states is going to be Israel.
a political movement that was originally begun in order to establish an independent state for Jewish people, and now supports the development and protection of the state of Israel
In current parlance, “zionism” has come be equated with kahanism and its variations, but that is wildly inaccurate. This is to say that Netanyahu’s and his allies’ brand of zionism is an extremist variant that threatens to subsume the whole.
But there are other brands of zionism that are peaceful and pro-palestinian. Namely: the zionism of Fatah and the PLO, who have accepted the 2 state solution.
I would even go so far as to claim that any One State Solution that envisions a pluralistic and democratic country shared in freedom and liberty between Jews, Muslims, Christians and others is also a zionist vision, as it assumes that this state would also be for the Jewish people (similar to how Canada is supposed to be also for the Quebecois people).
So, I am not sure why “zionism” should be a dirty word. Call the extremist zionists what they are: kahanists, reclaim the basic idea that zionism means that Jews also have the right to be safe in the lands of Israel-Palestine, and let’s have some peace and reconciliation.
Why did you use the Oxford Leaner’s Dictionary to define Zionism, as opposed to the Oxford Reference? From the Oxford Reference, emphasis mine:
A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
In the same vein, why didn’t you use wikipedia to define Zionism like you did for for kahanism? FTA on Wikipedia about Zionism, emphasis mine:
Zionism (/ˈzaɪəˌnɪzəm/; Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsīyyonūt, [tsijoˈnut]; derived from Zion) is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.
What both of these definitions point out that the one you linked did not mention is that original Zionism was about more than just the creation of a Jewish state–it was about the creation of a Jewish state in the Jewish holy land. That last bit is important-- there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict if Israel was located in Idaho.
I did not know the difference between the two types of dictionaries. I just used the last reference (#11) of the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Zionism.
But I don’t see how my argument is changed by the addition of the geographical component in the dictionary definition, which I already was assuming in my head at least. The Two State Solution is about two states in the areas that are currently Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
You used a learner’s dictionary definition of the word, which is a little bit different. Learner’s dictionaries are for people who are first learning their first language, and give simple definitions using simple language. Think of it like comparing Wikipedia to Simple Wikipedia
That’s great, except it’s not how it’s actually used in either a geopolitical or casual context.
I doubt, very, very much Biden meant it that way either, because no one would ever use it that way in these circumstances without adding in your very explanation by requirement to make it clear they’re not calling for genocide.
Until Bernie Sanders the word socialism was a dirty word in American politics. Now it’s a millennial and gen Z staple and does not connotate the soviet union and other cold war ghosts.
The fact that the kahanist Zionists are almost done eating up the word zionism doesn’t mean we should let them. We need to be appropriating the word back and putting it to good use.
Conceding Zionism to the extreme right (both in and out of Israel )is just a lack of political imagination, that condemns us to stay locked in the cycle.
The word Zionism can and should be réappropriated and made a tool for peace. It has a strong emotional attachment for Jews, while the majority of Palestinian political and civil society organizations have embraced its original and literal meaning in the sense of support for a Two State Solution. This means that Zionism can be a word that means the common sense of peace, justice and reconciliation. When the PLO and Fatah stand for the common sense solution, Palestinians have won.
Call me naive but I actually think that soon there will exist a brief window where peace will be more possible than it has been for a long time. So long as Israel, currently controlled by the kahanist virus, is not allowed to carry out genocide, that is. And as much as my commie ass hates to admit It, I kinda have a bit of faith on the Americans to play a good role in this.
Socialism is still very demonized in American politics. Try to get into a position of power while describing yourself as a socialist (and I mean an actual socialist eg. ending the Cuban embargo, supporting left-wing movements across the world and advocating for the end of capitalism).
Also neither Bernie nor any democratic politician is a actually socialist, they are still very capitalist. At best they are for "capitalism with a human face)
Exactly, I’m also thinking Mercosur’s role in this conflict will be decisive! Or were you talking about the USA that has eaten up the word America?
I agree with your point though, words get eaten up all the time. It’s a very good strategy for capturing the attachment people have with the word. It’s been done with the word democracy as well.
Zionism has always had multiple different meanings, so this isn’t a new phenomenon. Humans made up every word in existence. There is no single definition for any word and there is no universal dictionary handed down by some higher power. We make up everything and write the rules ourselves. Pretending that isn’t how language works on a fundamental level is simply wrong.
OK, so hear me out: anyone who is for a Two State Solution can legitimately call themselves a zionist, because one of those two states is going to be Israel.
Zionism:
In current parlance, “zionism” has come be equated with kahanism and its variations, but that is wildly inaccurate. This is to say that Netanyahu’s and his allies’ brand of zionism is an extremist variant that threatens to subsume the whole.
But there are other brands of zionism that are peaceful and pro-palestinian. Namely: the zionism of Fatah and the PLO, who have accepted the 2 state solution.
I would even go so far as to claim that any One State Solution that envisions a pluralistic and democratic country shared in freedom and liberty between Jews, Muslims, Christians and others is also a zionist vision, as it assumes that this state would also be for the Jewish people (similar to how Canada is supposed to be also for the Quebecois people).
So, I am not sure why “zionism” should be a dirty word. Call the extremist zionists what they are: kahanists, reclaim the basic idea that zionism means that Jews also have the right to be safe in the lands of Israel-Palestine, and let’s have some peace and reconciliation.
Why did you use the Oxford Leaner’s Dictionary to define Zionism, as opposed to the Oxford Reference? From the Oxford Reference, emphasis mine:
In the same vein, why didn’t you use wikipedia to define Zionism like you did for for kahanism? FTA on Wikipedia about Zionism, emphasis mine:
What both of these definitions point out that the one you linked did not mention is that original Zionism was about more than just the creation of a Jewish state–it was about the creation of a Jewish state in the Jewish holy land. That last bit is important-- there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict if Israel was located in Idaho.
I did not know the difference between the two types of dictionaries. I just used the last reference (#11) of the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Zionism.
But I don’t see how my argument is changed by the addition of the geographical component in the dictionary definition, which I already was assuming in my head at least. The Two State Solution is about two states in the areas that are currently Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
That’s kinda funny, I also found that Oxford Reference page by checking wikipedia citations. It’s #5 in the same article
A reasonable response? On Lemmy? Inconceivable.
All you have to do is pretend words don’t mean what they do.
My brother in Sigmar, I used the literal dictionary definition of the word.
You used a learner’s dictionary definition of the word, which is a little bit different. Learner’s dictionaries are for people who are first learning their first language, and give simple definitions using simple language. Think of it like comparing Wikipedia to Simple Wikipedia
That’s great, except it’s not how it’s actually used in either a geopolitical or casual context.
I doubt, very, very much Biden meant it that way either, because no one would ever use it that way in these circumstances without adding in your very explanation by requirement to make it clear they’re not calling for genocide.
Until Bernie Sanders the word socialism was a dirty word in American politics. Now it’s a millennial and gen Z staple and does not connotate the soviet union and other cold war ghosts.
The fact that the kahanist Zionists are almost done eating up the word zionism doesn’t mean we should let them. We need to be appropriating the word back and putting it to good use.
Conceding Zionism to the extreme right (both in and out of Israel )is just a lack of political imagination, that condemns us to stay locked in the cycle.
The word Zionism can and should be réappropriated and made a tool for peace. It has a strong emotional attachment for Jews, while the majority of Palestinian political and civil society organizations have embraced its original and literal meaning in the sense of support for a Two State Solution. This means that Zionism can be a word that means the common sense of peace, justice and reconciliation. When the PLO and Fatah stand for the common sense solution, Palestinians have won.
Call me naive but I actually think that soon there will exist a brief window where peace will be more possible than it has been for a long time. So long as Israel, currently controlled by the kahanist virus, is not allowed to carry out genocide, that is. And as much as my commie ass hates to admit It, I kinda have a bit of faith on the Americans to play a good role in this.
Socialism is still very demonized in American politics. Try to get into a position of power while describing yourself as a socialist (and I mean an actual socialist eg. ending the Cuban embargo, supporting left-wing movements across the world and advocating for the end of capitalism).
Also neither Bernie nor any democratic politician is a actually socialist, they are still very capitalist. At best they are for "capitalism with a human face)
I think you’re roughly doing the equivalent of trying to reclaim crusade and jihad but keep on tilting at that windmill I guess.
Exactly, I’m also thinking Mercosur’s role in this conflict will be decisive! Or were you talking about the USA that has eaten up the word America?
I agree with your point though, words get eaten up all the time. It’s a very good strategy for capturing the attachment people have with the word. It’s been done with the word democracy as well.
And provided the real word for extremist Zionists! 👏🏼 props :)
Zionism has always had multiple different meanings, so this isn’t a new phenomenon. Humans made up every word in existence. There is no single definition for any word and there is no universal dictionary handed down by some higher power. We make up everything and write the rules ourselves. Pretending that isn’t how language works on a fundamental level is simply wrong.
Cool.
Biden is not in favour of any of that.