Which movement is more racist? (Israel-related)

[Vosem]

Zionism says 'we, as a people, would like to live here. We'll buy it if you're selling'. Anti-Zionism says 'we should drive all Israelis out of Israel.' One of these is harmless. The other is attempted genocide. Fortunately, Zionism has pretty much won, but some people instinctively root for an underdog, which anti-Zionism is nowadays (thankfully).

[Vosem]

Zionism says 'we, as a people, would like to live here. We'll buy it if you're selling'. Anti-Zionism says 'we should drive all Israelis out of Israel.' One of these is harmless. The other is attempted genocide. Fortunately, Zionism has pretty much won, but some people instinctively root for an underdog, which anti-Zionism is nowadays (thankfully).

I oppose Zionism, but I would not support driving Israelis out of their homes.  Nor would most anti-Zionists.  Though Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return, and something should be resolved about how there are people living on their (stolen) land.  I'm unsure about what should be done about the settlements.

And to chalk up opposition to Zionism to "instinctive rooting for an underdog" is stupid.  You're basically doing the arrogant "hurr hurr everyone who disagrees with me is just a dumb little teenager" thing.

I'm 14 and totally willing to admit I am the 'little teenager' in this argument -- it's the truth.

And while you're probably right that many (not sure about most) American anti-Zionists don't support driving Israelis out of their homes, that's pretty much the cause celebre of anti-Zionism in the actual Middle East. That's what Hamas and Hezbollah are trying to do (not very well, but still), and that was originally Fatah's goal, though they've figured out it's impossible. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood hasn't been actively fighting Israel (they know it's pointless) but I recall they've advocated this too. (Fun fact: when Fatah was formed in 1964, their party charter recognized Gaza as Egyptian and the West Bank as Jordanian, saying Palestine consisted solely of the territories captured by Israel after 1949). Even today, Fatah still wants a Palestine with no Jews in it. That is racism. Meanwhile 20% of Israel's citizens are Muslims.

And the reason I doubt the 'most', even in the US, is that lots of anti-Zionism is rooted in anti-Semitism. I'm willing to believe yours isn't (you don't seem to be that sort of anti-Zionist), but you can't dispute that's where a lot of it comes from.

'Stolen land' has always been a pretty stupid argument, because ultimately all land is stolen. We should give the Americas back to the Natives, Kaliningrad and Silesia back to Germany and Nablus back to the Samaritans. Demographics shift over time. If you really support getting rid of stolen land everywhere, then we should move the human race back to Ethiopia and do all those migrations right this time. That doesn't make stealing land moral, but when somebody immigrates (like Palestinians did after 1949 and 1967) the stuff they leave behind becomes government property. All countries do that. The government in Israel is elected, so it does whatever the voters want. Very few settlements were stolen from Palestinians from right under their feet. (Yes, this happened. But rarely).

Saying you're not sure about the settlements because really the Palestinians should get that land is like saying you're not sure about Tampa because really we should give it to the Seminoles. The act of stealing land is bad. Great-grandchildren should not be punished for it.

The problem with returning Palestinian refugees is of course that many support the end of the Israeli government, which is obviously something the government itself will strive to avoid. Most of the 'returning' refugees have never been to Israel. Ultimately, the 'fair' result (and what will happen eventually, I think) is that the West Bank will be partitioned, most of it going to a Palestinian state which will be able to set its own immigration policy but a large chunk going to Israel. I think I've posted my plan for the exact borders before.

And of course I never intended to come as arrogant.

[Vosem]

Saying you're not sure about the settlements because really the Palestinians should get that land is like saying you're not sure about Tampa because really we should give it to the Seminoles. The act of stealing land is bad. Great-grandchildren should not be punished for it.

Pretty sure there are people alive who remember 1967. Not so sure on 16th century Tocobaga.

That was more about '49 (which is also still remembered) than '67; in the latter case the Palestinians are still an ethnic majority in most of the West Bank. And the Seminoles were a majority in South Florida until well into the 19th century, as I recall.

[Vosem]

Saying you're not sure about the settlements because really the Palestinians should get that land is like saying you're not sure about Tampa because really we should give it to the Seminoles. The act of stealing land is bad. Great-grandchildren should not be punished for it.

Pretty sure there are people alive who remember 1967. Not so sure on 16th century Tocobaga.

That was more about '49 (which is also still remembered) than '67; in the latter case the Palestinians are still an ethnic majority in most of the West Bank. And the Seminoles were a majority in South Florida until well into the 19th century, as I recall.

Yet only small patches of the West Bank are under Palestinian civilian control.

I find it amusing how Jews who have never stepped foot in Israel have a right of "return," yet Palestinians refugees and their children don't.

The Israeli government can set its own immigration policy, and it's not unreasonable to invite in people with a culture similar to that of regular Israelis while not allowing in those who would prefer to see the Israeli state cease to exist. So while you may find it amusing it is clearly the sensible policy.

[Vosem]

Saying you're not sure about the settlements because really the Palestinians should get that land is like saying you're not sure about Tampa because really we should give it to the Seminoles. The act of stealing land is bad. Great-grandchildren should not be punished for it.

Pretty sure there are people alive who remember 1967. Not so sure on 16th century Tocobaga.

That was more about '49 (which is also still remembered) than '67; in the latter case the Palestinians are still an ethnic majority in most of the West Bank. And the Seminoles were a majority in South Florida until well into the 19th century, as I recall.

Yet only small patches of the West Bank are under Palestinian civilian control.

I find it amusing how Jews who have never stepped foot in Israel have a right of "return," yet Palestinians refugees and their children don't.

The Israeli government can set its own immigration policy, and it's not unreasonable to invite in people with a culture similar to that of regular Israelis while not allowing in those who would prefer to see the Israeli state cease to exist. So while you may find it amusing it is clearly the sensible policy.

Hurr because all Palestinian refugees and their descendants want to see Israel destroyed.

There's a word to describe what you just posted: racism.

Because, yes, the large majority of Palestinian refugees and their descendants would like to see Israel destroyed -- that is racism. What I posted was common sense.

[Vosem]

Saying you're not sure about the settlements because really the Palestinians should get that land is like saying you're not sure about Tampa because really we should give it to the Seminoles. The act of stealing land is bad. Great-grandchildren should not be punished for it.

Pretty sure there are people alive who remember 1967. Not so sure on 16th century Tocobaga.

That was more about '49 (which is also still remembered) than '67; in the latter case the Palestinians are still an ethnic majority in most of the West Bank. And the Seminoles were a majority in South Florida until well into the 19th century, as I recall.

Yet only small patches of the West Bank are under Palestinian civilian control.

I find it amusing how Jews who have never stepped foot in Israel have a right of "return," yet Palestinians refugees and their children don't.

The Israeli government can set its own immigration policy, and it's not unreasonable to invite in people with a culture similar to that of regular Israelis while not allowing in those who would prefer to see the Israeli state cease to exist. So while you may find it amusing it is clearly the sensible policy.

Hurr because all Palestinian refugees and their descendants want to see Israel destroyed.

There's a word to describe what you just posted: racism.

Because, yes, the large majority of Palestinian refugees and their descendants would like to see Israel destroyed -- that is racism. What I posted was common sense.

O RLY?  Do you have a source?  Bonus points if you can find a source that isn't some zionist propaganda site.

I don't think a source is necessary to say something as simple as 'people who fled the territory of a government, and their descendants, would prefer that government not exist.' Palestinian refugees are disparate enough around the world that opinion polls of them pretty much don't exist, but I think that's an assumption that can be safely made.

Regardless, it's wrong as all bloody hell to ban an entire class of people just because of some view they might hold.  That's not "common sense."  That's racism.

It is common sense for a government to say 'we won't let you in if you don't think we should exist'.

  But it's okay, because it's racism in defense of your bloody thousand-mile-away imperialist state that's not even the size of Armenia that has not done one thing to deserve the religious support of you and millions of other Americans, to the insane extent that American teenagers volunteer for the IDF.

Speaking of Armenia, I wonder what your opinion is on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

In any case I don't think Israel is 'bloody' or 'imperialist', but then I'm sure you knew that. Again, Israel has, you know, strong cultural ties and a decades-old alliance with the US, but it really hasn't done anything to deserve US support. Clearly not. Speaking of US teenagers volunteering for the IDF, I've actually wondered about maybe doing Sar-El for three weeks the summer between my senior year of high school and freshman year of college, maybe convincing some buddies to come as well (it's free and open to any volunteers from anywhere). Three years into the future is a bit far to plan about this sort of thing, though.