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.
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