What is 'Zionism'?

[rosends]

View attachment 1236318

Looks like there's a new defitnion to add to your list.

Really? Where?

 

[Churchill]

Really? Where?

W

Post in thread 'What is 'Zionism'?'

Mar 24, 2026

Maybe you should learn to read, you apparently didn't read the op.

Everyone agrees on the definition that you posted? Why don't you ask, that's why I started the thread.

If you have nothing else to offer, leave.

I believe that is a pretty good definition. Zionism is the belief that Jews are "entitled" to Israel, from the river to the sea, yeah, I said it. But at it's most simple, Zionist are no different than those in the desert that were making golden cows. They believe they can "take'' their promised land, they don't need to keep their end of the bargain. Who needs God to...

• Winston

• 
• 

As you said there are many defintions of "Zionism"

 

[rosends]

W

Post in thread 'What is 'Zionism'?'

Mar 24, 2026

Maybe you should learn to read, you apparently didn't read the op.

Everyone agrees on the definition that you posted? Why don't you ask, that's why I started the thread.

If you have nothing else to offer, leave.

I believe that is a pretty good definition. Zionism is the belief that Jews are "entitled" to Israel, from the river to the sea, yeah, I said it. But at it's most simple, Zionist are no different than those in the desert that were making golden cows. They believe they can "take'' their promised land, they don't need to keep their end of the bargain. Who needs God to...

• Winston

• 
• 

As you said there are many defintions of "Zionism"

And some that are wrong.

 

[Churchill]

And some that are wrong.

But nobody here takes seriously the intimation that you have the authority to decide that.

 

[rosends]

But nobody here takes seriously the intimation that you have the authority to decide that.

I can't control what other people think about me. It just so happens that I have a bit of experience and training in the field, but if people want to avoid a voice based in actual knowledge and prefer others' from-the-hip ignorance-based opinions, I can't help that.

I post for people who are open minded and rational, not those who say things that are patently wrong simply because they want to hate and enjoy parading ignorance. Good luck to you.

 

[Churchill]

I can't control what other people think about me. It just so happens that I have a bit of experience and training in the field, but if people want to avoid a voice based in actual knowledge and prefer others' from-the-hip ignorance-based opinions, I can't help that.

Why do you assume a person disagreeing with you has less knowledge? are only able to speak from "ignorance"?

I post for people who are open minded and rational, not those who say things that are patently wrong simply because they want to hate and enjoy parading ignorance. Good luck to you.

We're not discussing mathematics here or science, where right/wrong have a more or less accepted meaning. In some mind's Zionism is a benevolent aspiration and their defintion of it will reflect that.

In other minds a state based on that aspiration exhibits malevolence and suffering because that is their personal experience and so their definition will reflect that.

Your position is that such experiences are not actually anything to do with Zionism at all but experiences due to other factors, this serves to absolve the supporters of Zionism from any culpability.

Just as the Nazis never described their political aspirations as being to exterminate all Euorpean Jewry, that doesn't alter the fact that that was precisely one of the objectives of the Third Reich (unless you accept Netanyahu's claims to the contrary) as we now know.

I think we can forgive victims of Nazism for defining it as a system that sought to murder millions of Jews even though no Nazi ever included that as a defining aspect of Nazism.

 

[rosends]

Why do you assume a person disagreeing with you has less knowledge? are only able to speak from "ignorance"?

Simply put, because if what is said is patently wrong, I assume the speaker doesn't know what he is talking about. If someone came in here insisting that 2+2=5 would you say "no that's wrong" not "maybe he knows what he is talking about.." Wrong is still wrong.

In other minds a state based on that aspiration exhibits malevolence and suffering because that is their personal experience and so their definition will reflect that.

except that someone's personal experience doesn't create for a definition of an ideology. I had a bad experience with a green person, therefore a definition of "green" is "mean to people." That logic fails.

Your position is that such experiences are not actually anything to do with Zionism at all but experiences due to other factors, this serves to absolve the supporters of Zionism from any culpability.

well, since nothing is tied to a definition of Zionism other than the personal feelings of individuals, why should it impact Zionism?

Just as the Nazis never described their political aspirations as being to exterminate all Euorpean Jewry, that doesn't alter the fact that that was precisely one of the objectives of the Third Reich (unless you accept Netanyahu's claims to the contrary) as we now know.

So you are equating Zionism with Nazism? That's a road I won't go down. Have fun with that.

 

[Churchill]

Simply put, because if what is said is patently wrong, I assume the speaker doesn't know what he is talking about. If someone came in here insisting that 2+2=5 would you say "no that's wrong" not "maybe he knows what he is talking about.." Wrong is still wrong.

except that someone's personal experience doesn't create for a definition of an ideology. I had a bad experience with a green person, therefore a definition of "green" is "mean to people." That logic fails.

well, since nothing is tied to a definition of Zionism other than the personal feelings of individuals, why should it impact Zionism?

So you are equating Zionism with Nazism? That's a road I won't go down. Have fun with that.

I note the selective quoting.

I chose a well understood example of advocates defining a system in benevolent terms while victims define it based on its malevolence and their personal experiences.

So in that sense Zionism shares that characteristic with Nazism, advocates define it one way and victims define it another way, who here is right? who is wrong?

Just as we can't say victims are "wrong" to define Nazism that way, we also can't say victims are "wrong" to define Zionism that way.

Therefore your argument that only "knowledgable" people can be trusted to define a system, stands refuted.

 

[rosends]

I note the selective quoting.

I chose a well understood example of advocates defining a system in benevolent terms while victims define it based on its malevolence and their personal experiences.

So in that sense Zionism shares that characteristic with Nazism, advocates define it one way and victims define it another way, who here is right? who is wrong?

Just as we can't say victims are "wrong" to define Nazism that way, we also can't say victims are "wrong" to define Zionism that way.

Therefore your argument that only "knowledgable" people can be trusted to define a system, stands refuted.

Except that relying on the victims allows anyone to define anything. One victim sees it one way and another defines it differently. Thing is, none of those are actually definitions of an ideology, just observations of behavior. If you can't see that distinction then I can't help you.

 

[Churchill]

Except that relying on the victims allows anyone to define anything. One victim sees it one way and another defines it differently. Thing is, none of those are actually definitions of an ideology, just observations of behavior. If you can't see that distinction then I can't help you.

I judge a tree by its fruit.

 

[rosends]

I judge a tree by its fruit.

you confuse the fruit for the tree. If a Nazi helped me sell my sweater, that doesn't mean that the definition of Nazi includes wardrobe sales. Deciding what is the fruit of an ideology and what isn't can be fraught with error.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Zionism is the keyword for antisemitism to hide

 

[Lisa558]

Zionism is the keyword for antisemitism to hide

And “Zionists” is the code word for Jews.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

And “Zionists” is the code word for Jews.

It's tiresome. Just tiresome.

No Jew has ever done anything to me

 

[Lisa558]

It's tiresome. Just tiresome.

No Jew has ever done anything to me

Honestly, all we want is to be left alone to observe our religion.

Wednesday night is Seder #1. My rabbi hired a retired military man who will be there with a bomb-sniffing dog.

Sad, huh?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Honestly, all we want is to be left alone to observe our religion.

Wednesday night is Seder #1. My rabbi hired a retired military man who will be there with a bomb-sniffing dog.

Sad, huh?

I don't understand it.

 

[Churchill]

you confuse the fruit for the tree. If a Nazi helped me sell my sweater, that doesn't mean that the definition of Nazi includes wardrobe sales. Deciding what is the fruit of an ideology and what isn't can be fraught with error.

By extension then, that line of reasoning means that if a Nazi herded Jews into a gas chamber in 1944 that doesn't mean the definition of Nazi includes extermination? Wow, you really are an experienced apologist if your brain works like that.

 

[rosends]

By extension then, that line of reasoning means that if a Nazi herded Jews into a gas chamber in 1944 that doesn't mean the definition of Nazi includes extermination?

It means that the means by which Nazi ideology is expressed includes mass killings, not that a definition of "Nazi" is "someone who performs mass killings". What about the Nazi who didn't get involved in herding anyone anywhere because his job was to buy beets. Does that mean that the definition of "Nazi" is "someone who buys beets"? A Nazi did that so the beets are the demonstrated expression of his Nazi ideology? You don't really understand what a prescriptive definition is as opposed to a descriptive one, and what the value of each is.

 

[PeterPilot]

I can't control what other people think about me. It just so happens that I have a bit of experience and training in the field, but if people want to avoid a voice based in actual knowledge and prefer others' from-the-hip ignorance-based opinions, I can't help that.

I post for people who are open minded and rational, not those who say things that are patently wrong simply because they want to hate and enjoy parading ignorance. Good luck to you.

Open minded and rational people WHO KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG cannot possibly support genocide.

 

[Churchill]

It means that the means by which Nazi ideology is expressed includes mass killings, not that a definition of "Nazi" is "someone who performs mass killings".

So who performed them then if not Nazis?

What about the Nazi who didn't get involved in herding anyone anywhere because his job was to buy beets.

There characteristics exhibited by a group never means that every member of said group possesses every characteristic.

Does that mean that the definition of "Nazi" is "someone who buys beets"?

I don't know, I'd need more data.

A Nazi did that so the beets are the demonstrated expression of his Nazi ideology? You don't really understand what a prescriptive definition is as opposed to a descriptive one, and what the value of each is.

You never mentioned that until now, of course I'm using a descriptive definition of Nazism and Zionism. The Israelis are experts at prescriptively describing Zionism, as are you. You can talk all day about what you belive it aspires to be, I'm talking about something else, what it actually is.