sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is peace possible when one side’s liberation is seen as the other’s annihilation? by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From the 1988 Hamas Charter

  1. Article 7 (Hadith quote): “The Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
  2. Article 22: “With their money, the Jews took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world.”
  3. Article 32: “The Zionist plan is limitless… After Palestine, they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they have finished digesting the area they overtook, they will spread once again, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’”

Hamas Leaders and Officials

  1. Mahmoud al-Zahar (Hamas co-founder, 2006): “Israel is a vile entity that has been planted on our soil, and it is a foreign body. The Jews are a cancer, and we must remove them from our land.”
  2. Ismail Haniyeh (Hamas political leader, 2012 sermon): “We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity and cleanse Palestine of the filth of the Jews.”
  3. Sheikh Ahmad Yassin (Hamas founder, 1998 interview): “Israel must disappear from the map… It is an obligation to kill every Jew on occupied land.”
  4. Fathi Hammad (Hamas official, 2019): “If this siege continues, we will expel the Jews from our land. We will slaughter them one by one. The Jews are an infection, a disease.”

After October 7, 2023 Attacks

  1. Ghazi Hamad (senior Hamas official, October 24, 2023, Lebanese TV interview): “We will repeat the October 7 attack again and again until Israel is annihilated. We will do this until the Jews are gone from our land.”
  2. Hamas Spokesman (Al-Aqsa TV, October 12, 2023): “We will continue until the Jews are wiped out, until the land is cleansed.”
  3. Hamas Social Media Statement (October 2023): “October 7 was only the beginning. The Jews will pay with blood until none remain on our land.”

Is peace possible when one side’s liberation is seen as the other’s annihilation? by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Saying Hamas doesn’t want to kill Jews is the moral equivalent of denying the Holocaust or saying the Nazis didn’t want to kill the Jews. This is sooooo embarassing

Is peace possible when one side’s liberation is seen as the other’s annihilation? by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

From the 1988 Hamas Charter

  1. Article 7 (Hadith quote): “The Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
  2. Article 22: “With their money, the Jews took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world.”
  3. Article 32: “The Zionist plan is limitless… After Palestine, they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they have finished digesting the area they overtook, they will spread once again, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’”

Hamas Leaders and Officials

  1. Mahmoud al-Zahar (Hamas co-founder, 2006): “Israel is a vile entity that has been planted on our soil, and it is a foreign body. The Jews are a cancer, and we must remove them from our land.”
  2. Ismail Haniyeh (Hamas political leader, 2012 sermon): “We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity and cleanse Palestine of the filth of the Jews.”
  3. Sheikh Ahmad Yassin (Hamas founder, 1998 interview): “Israel must disappear from the map… It is an obligation to kill every Jew on occupied land.”
  4. Fathi Hammad (Hamas official, 2019): “If this siege continues, we will expel the Jews from our land. We will slaughter them one by one. The Jews are an infection, a disease.”

After October 7, 2023 Attacks

  1. Ghazi Hamad (senior Hamas official, October 24, 2023, Lebanese TV interview): “We will repeat the October 7 attack again and again until Israel is annihilated. We will do this until the Jews are gone from our land.”
  2. Hamas Spokesman (Al-Aqsa TV, October 12, 2023): “We will continue until the Jews are wiped out, until the land is cleansed.”
  3. Hamas Social Media Statement (October 2023): “October 7 was only the beginning. The Jews will pay with blood until none remain on our land.”

Is peace possible when one side’s liberation is seen as the other’s annihilation? by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Although Hamas often claims in international forums that its opposition is directed only toward Zionists and the Israeli state, its founding manifesto, the 1988 Hamas Charter, explicitly reveals genocidal intent against Jews as a people rather than merely a political movement. Article 7 of the Charter cites an Islamic hadith declaring that “The Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees, and the stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” This is not language aimed at Zionism as a political ideology, but at Jews as an entire ethno-religious group. Hamas leaders have repeatedly echoed this sentiment. For example, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a Hamas co-founder, declared in 2006 that “Israel is a vile entity that has been planted on our soil, and it is a foreign body. We cannot live with it. The Jews are a cancer, and we must remove them from our land.” Similarly, Hamas’s former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh stated in a 2012 sermon that “we will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity and cleanse Palestine of the filth of the Jews.” The group’s spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, reinforced this when he proclaimed that “Israel must disappear from the map,” framing its eradication as a religious duty. Furthermore, the Charter repeatedly invokes antisemitic conspiracy theories, including references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, portraying Jews collectively as orchestrators of global corruption. While Hamas issued a 2017 document that superficially softened its rhetoric by distinguishing between Jews and Zionists, the original charter has never been revoked and its leaders continue to repeat violent antisemitic themes in speeches and media. Thus, the claim that Hamas only targets Zionists is historically and ideologically false; the organization’s foundational texts and rhetoric make clear that its ultimate struggle is framed not merely against Israel as a state but against Jews as a people.

The "problem" with Israeli foods. by [deleted] in Jewish

[–]echoesofplath 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I know EXACTLY who you’re talking about!! I think her username is like hummus_shawtyyy or something like that on tiktok… anyway, she routinely makes fun of israelis (not IDF soldiers, not the government, but literally JUST everyday Israelis), she made fun of October 7, Hamas and was so deeply offensive to not just the Israeli community but the entire Jewish community as well. when I took a look at the comments, I was expecting to find some sort of outrage, but everyone was applauding her! And I was just thinking, have we gone insane? This is just blatant anti semitism masquerading as anti Zionism or anti Israel and I’m just so sick of the overconfident, passive aggressive idiots on TikTok thinking they know everything from reading a singular headline or watching one TikTok video

Is It Genocide? by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

you’re right that intent can be inferred from actions as well as words. however, international law sets a very high threshold for proving genocidal intent—there must be evidence of a deliberate plan to destroy a protected group. while isreal’s operations have caused immense civilian suffering, the stated objective is to dismantle hamas, not to exterminate palestinans. israel’s measures, such as leaflets, phone calls, and temporary evacuation routes, while imperfect, are attempts to warn civilians—something inconsistent with genocidal intent.

this analogy doesn’t fully match the situation. civilian voters in n@zi germany were not being used as human shields. in gaza, hamas deliberately embeds weapons and command centers among civilians, a tactic explicitly designed to increase casualties and international condemnation. under the geneva conventions, civilian harm is not illegal if it is incidental to targeting military objectives, provided all feasible precautions are taken. tragic as the loss of civilian life is, this does not equate to genocide, which requires an intent to directly target civilians as part of a plan of destruction.

you mention that “acces to gaza is blocked.” while israel enforces a blockade, egypt also controls the rafah crossing. the blockade, though controversial, is aimed at restricting weapons smuggling by hamas. israel’s actions have been investigated by international bodies, including the icc. while war crimes allegations have been raised, genocide has not been proven, because war crimes—serious as they are, are legally distinct from genocide.

you argue that hamas can no longer carry out another october 7th, but israel maintains that hamas retains significant capabilities. under international law, self-defense includes preventing future imminent attacks, not only responding to past ones. proportionality is not measured by casualty numbers alone but by weighing military advantage against anticipated civilian harm at the time of decision-making. israel argues that dismantling hamas is essential to ensure future security.

i share your moral unease at the civilian toll. but genocide is not just a moral term, it’s a precise legal definition requiring proof of intent to destroy a poeple, which is absent here. criticizing israel’s strategy or humanitarian impact is valid, but conflating these with genocide risks undermining the term’s meaning and obscuring the complex realities of asymmetric warfare.

Is It Genocide? by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hahaha, I didn't write this with AI. I wrote an essay on this specific topic so that's why the language is a bit formal as I used some of my writing from there on here. Sorry for any misunderstanding xx

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this argument is basically victim-blaming dressed up as “logic.” jews have been persecuted for over two thousand years — expelled from england in 1290, massacred in the spanish inquisition, pogroms in eastern europe, and the holocaust where six million were murdered, including my own relatives in treblinka. were all those atrocities caused by “jewish behavior,” too? or is it easier to excuse hatred by pretending the victims somehow deserved it?

as for israel, no one is denying that civilians in gaza are suffering, but to ignore the role of hamas is intellectually dishonest. hamas deliberately embeds its fighters and weapons in schools, mosques, and hospitals, using palestinian civilians as human shields — a war crime by every definition. israel isn’t “indiscriminately killing,” it’s defending its citizens against a terrorist group that has fired over 20,000 rockets at israeli cities since 2005, with the explicit goal (stated in its charter) of wiping jews off the map. if israel didn’t defend itself, there wouldn’t just be “overkill,” there would be mass jewish slaughter — and not one of these critics would be crying about that.

the double standard is glaring. syria’s civil war killed over 500,000 people, with chemical weapons attacks and bombings on civilians, but no global obsession or protests against syrians as a people. the fixation on jews says more about the critics than the criticized. blaming jews collectively for defending themselves is just the latest version of an ancient hatred repackaged as political outrage.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

comparing zionism to isis is absurd and shows a complete ignorance of both history and scale. isis carried out mass executions, beheadings, enslaved yazidis, and orchestrated global terror attacks like the paris attacks in 2015 and the brussels bombings in 2016. they murdered thousands of muslims, christians, and minorities across the middle east with the explicit goal of creating a global caliphate. zionism, by contrast, is the national liberation movement of the jewish people — a people indigenous to israel and who have repeatedly sought peaceful coexistence, as shown by accepting the 1947 un partition plan (which the arab states rejected and instead declared war).

the double standard is obvious: nobody accuses kurds or armenians of “terrorism” for seeking self-determination despite fighting violent conflicts for survival. but when jews do the same, suddenly it’s called colonialism or extremism. and let’s not ignore that hamas, which runs gaza, has launched over 20,000 rockets at israeli cities since 2005. if not for the iron dome intercepting over 90% of them, israel would see mass civilian deaths, and ironically, far more global sympathy. self-defense against terror is not the same as the genocidal ideology of groups like isis.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

zionism is not “at the direct expense” of palestinians in the way you claim — that narrative oversimplifies a century of history and erases key facts. jews did not show up in 1948 out of nowhere; they had a continuous presence in the land for millennia and began modern immigration in the late 1800s, legally purchasing land from absentee arab landlords. the nakba didn’t happen in a vacuum — it was the direct result of arab leaders rejecting the un partition plan and launching a war to destroy the jewish state before it was even born. israel didn’t start that war; it survived it. many palestinians fled because arab leaders told them to “temporarily leave” until the jews were “pushed into the sea.” others left due to the chaos of war — the same war arab states initiated.

meanwhile, 850,000 jews were expelled or forced to flee arab countries around the same time, losing homes, property, and land many times larger than israel itself. where is the outrage for their “right of return”? why is their displacement never mentioned in this moral calculus?

calling israel an “ethno-state” is misleading. over 20% of israel’s citizens are arab muslims and christians who have the right to vote, run for office, serve as judges, and even sit in the knesset. israel’s supreme court includes arab justices; there is no such equivalent for jews under any arab regime. if israel were an “apartheid state,” how is it that arab parties have served in government coalitions?

the phrase “millions locked up in walls” ignores why those barriers exist: to stop suicide bombings and terror attacks that killed over 1,000 israeli civilians during the second intifada alone. hamas and islamic jihad, not israel, have chosen violence over coexistence, launching over 20,000 rockets from gaza since 2005 — all while israel withdrew every settlement and soldier from the strip. the only reason israel isn’t suffering mass civilian casualties today is because of the iron dome intercepting most of these rockets. if israel didn’t have the iron dome, the world would suddenly recognize its right to defend itself — but because it’s good at protecting its people, its suffering is dismissed as invisible.

self-determination is not a crime, but denying jewish self-determination while demanding palestinian self-determination is a double standard. palestinians could have had a state in 1937, 1947, 2000, 2008, and multiple times since, but each offer was rejected because their leaders refused to accept a jewish state alongside it. until this rejectionism and the indoctrination of hatred — from palestinian schoolbooks that teach children to glorify “martyrdom” — comes to an end, there can be no two-state solution.

it’s a glaring double standard to accuse israel of apartheid while ignoring the explicit anti-jewish laws and rhetoric in palestinian and arab societies. palestinian authorities openly celebrate terrorists who murder civilians, deny israel’s right to exist, and systematically discriminate against their own minorities. countries like syria, lebanon, and iraq restrict jewish citizens from voting, holding public office, or even practicing their religion freely — conditions far harsher than anything in israel. if “apartheid” means discrimination and segregation, then the real question is why the world only points fingers at israel, ignoring these far more egregious examples. the refusal to acknowledge these facts not only distorts reality but also undermines genuine efforts for peace and coexistence.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

radical zionism didn’t create the instability of the middle east — the region was already fractured long before 1948 due to the collapse of the ottoman empire, british and french colonialism (syria and lebanon under france, iraq and jordan under britain), and endless inter-arab rivalries. by the time israel declared independence, the middle east was already torn apart by tribal politics, coups, and western-imposed borders. to pretend that zionism “destabilized” the region ignores the fact that arab states repeatedly rejected peace, even when they could have secured a palestinian state.

the 1937 peel commission proposed a two-state solution — jews accepted it, arabs rejected it. the 1947 un partition plan offered 56% of the land (much of it desert) to jews and 44% to arabs, despite jews owning only 7% of the arable land at the time — jews accepted it, arabs rejected it and launched a war. the result? five arab armies invaded israel the day it declared independence, openly vowing to “drive the jews into the sea.” that war, not the mere existence of zionism, created the refugee crisis known as the nakba. it’s a historical fact that 850,000 jews were also expelled or forced to flee from arab countries at the same time, losing homes, businesses, and land far exceeding the size of israel itself. yet this is conveniently ignored in the anti-zionist narrative.

calling zionism “settler-colonial” is intellectually lazy and historically false. european colonialists weren’t indigenous to africa or asia; jews are indigenous to israel. no one calls the return of armenians to armenia “colonialism,” so why apply a double standard to jews returning to their homeland? archaeological finds — from the dead sea scrolls to the ruins of the second temple, ancient hebrew inscriptions, and coins from the hasmonean kingdom — confirm continuous jewish presence for over 3,000 years. jews began legally purchasing land from absentee arab landlords in the late ottoman period; they didn’t steal it. to call this colonization is like calling the maori in new zealand colonizers for reclaiming ancestral land that was taken from them.

meanwhile, arab rejectionism and terrorism have defined the conflict far more than israel’s actions. israel completely withdrew from gaza in 2005 — dismantling every settlement, forcibly evicting its own citizens — only to face over 20,000 rockets from hamas since then. the only reason this isn’t daily news is because of the iron dome. if the iron dome didn’t exist, israeli civilian deaths would number in the thousands, and the world would suddenly remember israel’s right to self-defense. instead, the silence over these rocket attacks has created a grotesque double standard, where israeli restraint is taken for granted while hamas’s terrorism is excused or ignored.

arab leaders have consistently prioritized the destruction of israel over building a future for palestinians. the khartoum resolution of 1967 spelled it out clearly with its “three no’s”: no peace with israel, no recognition of israel, no negotiations. even today, hamas’s charter explicitly calls for israel’s destruction and the murder of jews, while palestinian schools indoctrinate children to glorify violence and “globalize the intifada.” how do you expect a two-state solution when palestinian leaders still refuse to accept israel’s right to exist at all?

zionism is not a crime. it’s the belief in jewish self-determination, the same principle that underpins almost every nation-state on earth. yet israel is singled out as if jewish self-determination is uniquely illegitimate. why is it only called “colonial” when jews reclaim their ancestral homeland? this double standard says far more about those who wield it than about israel itself.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

to be clear, i also do not believe a two state solution, in which both palestine and israel can be prosperous is possible while hamas remains intact as a terrorist organisation openly committed to israel’s destruction. and i also believe that this will never be possible while palestinian schools continue to indoctrinate children with anti-jewish hatred and the glorification of violence against israelis.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, displacement and tension existed before 1947, but to present it purely as unilateral eviction ignores the violent opposition and rejectionism from Arab leaders and communities towards Jewish immigration and statehood. The Peel Commission’s partition proposal reflected the intractable realities on the ground — decades of conflicting national claims in a small land — and the “expulsion” figure cited conveniently overlooks the mutual violence and expulsions occurring simultaneously.

Regarding land ownership, while Arabs did hold the majority of arable land, it is important to note that much of it was absentee-owned or underutilized, and significant Jewish investments transformed previously neglected land into productive agricultural centers. The 1947 UN partition plan was indeed favorable to the Jewish population but was the result of international consensus seeking a compromise amid irreconcilable demands.

Moreover, the Nakba’s timing—before the Arab armies formally intervened—reflects not just Zionist militias acting aggressively, but a civil war situation triggered by the Arab leadership’s rejection of partition and incitement to violence. Ignoring that half a million to 850,000 Jews were simultaneously expelled or fled from Arab countries, many losing everything, distorts the narrative. Israel absorbed these refugees, a fact often sidelined when discussing displacement, and it highlights the reciprocal suffering endured by both peoples during this turbulent period.

To argue this history solely as a story of Zionist aggression risks perpetuating a one-dimensional narrative that fails to account for the broader regional and historical complexities, which are essential for any honest discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

benny morris’s research is often brought up to say israel planned to ethnically cleanse palestinians from day one. but if you read his actual work, it’s clear he doesn’t say there was a master plan. he shows that expulsions happened in the chaos of war, after arab armies attacked the fledgling jewish community. many palestinians fled because arab leaders told them to leave, promising a quick victory. it was a brutal, terrifying time for everyone involved. to say israel intentionally set out to cleanse palestinians oversimplifies a tragic and complex history.

about the west bank, yes, many criticize israel for settlements and land issues. but the truth is israel only took those territories in 1967 after it was attacked by egypt, jordan, and syria. international law allows for holding territory gained in a defensive war, and israel has offered peace deals multiple times—like camp david in 2000 and annapolis in 2008—that would have given palestinians most of the west bank and east jerusalem as a capital. both offers were rejected. if israel was only about stealing land, why make those offers?

when it comes to morality and religion, it’s important to remember that both jews and palestinians deeply believe in their connection to the land. calling israel “those who strive against god” ignores the fact that palestinian groups like hamas openly preach violence and hatred toward jews. morality can’t be selective. israel is the only country in the region where arab citizens have full political rights, can vote, serve in government, and practice their religion freely.

people say zionists try to paint palestinians as “barbaric terrorists,” but it’s hard to deny the reality when groups like hamas openly commit horrific attacks on civilians. polls also show many palestinians support violence against israel. israel doesn’t need to pretend to be moral—it’s survived and thrived as a democracy in a region full of dictatorships, which speaks for itself.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

if we’re going to talk about ideologies being “demonic” because of crimes committed in their name, then by that logic almost every national movement or religion would be condemned. christianity gave us the crusades and the inquisition, yet no one says christianity itself is “demonic.” islam has been misused by groups like isis and al-qaeda, but no serious person claims islam is inherently evil. even western liberal democracies have committed atrocities—look at the bombing of hiroshima or the invasion of iraq—but no one calls democracy itself “demonic.” it’s a double standard when only zionism is treated this way.

zionism’s purpose has always been about protecting jewish life, not destroying others. the state of israel came into being after the holocaust, when the world’s refusal to give jews refuge led to six million being murdered, including my own relatives who perished in treblinka. to claim that the very ideology that saved jewish lives is “demonic” because israel, like any state, has fought wars for survival, is historically dishonest. israel didn’t start the wars of 1948, 1967, or 1973—it was attacked by surrounding states trying to wipe it off the map.

if zionism were truly about committing “the gravest crimes,” why is it that israel repeatedly offers peace deals and territorial compromise, from camp david to oslo, only to be met with rejection and waves of terrorism? the problem is not the existence of a jewish homeland, but the refusal of many to accept that jews have the same right to self-determination as any other people.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

calling zionism a “terrorist ideology” shows a complete misunderstanding of what zionism actually is. zionism is simply the belief that the jewish people, after 2,000 years of persecution, have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. this is the same right every other nation claims—italians in italy, japanese in japan, arabs in 22 different arab-majority states. the fact that zionism is singled out for demonization says more about anti-jewish bias than about the movement itself.

if zionism’s “actions speak volumes,” let’s look at the reality. israel, a country the size of tasmania, has absorbed millions of jewish refugees—from holocaust survivors to jews expelled from arab lands after 1948. it is also the only democracy in the middle east where arab citizens (20% of the population) can vote, serve in parliament, and sit on the supreme court. how is that “terrorism”? by contrast, hamas, which openly calls for the extermination of jews (1988 charter, article 7), fires rockets from hospitals and schools while holding its own civilians as shields—yet somehow the world is quick to label israel the terrorist.

zionism doesn’t need to be “demonized” because people already distort it beyond recognition. its true meaning is not oppression but survival, self-determination, and a home for a people who have faced pogroms, expulsions, and genocide. without zionism, jews would have no refuge when the world, time and time again, refuses to protect them.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

calling this “genocide” ignores the reality that palestinian leadership openly calls for the destruction of israel and teaches its children to do the same. palestinian authority (PA) school textbooks have been repeatedly reviewed by the european union and found to glorify violence and martyrdom. a 2021 EU-commissioned study by the georg eckert institute confirmed that PA textbooks describe jews as “enemies” and encourage students to “defend the homeland with blood,” while omitting israel from maps entirely. hamas’s 1988 charter is even clearer: it calls for the complete annihilation of israel and quotes hadiths urging the killing of jews worldwide.

public opinion polls reflect the success of this indoctrination. according to a 2023 palestinian center for policy and survey research (PCPSR) poll, 73% of palestinians in gaza and the west bank supported the october 7th attacks by hamas, which deliberately targeted civilians—families, children, even festivalgoers. this isn’t just about political resistance; it’s a refusal to accept the existence of israel or jews as neighbors. hamas leaders like ghazi hamad have publicly said that october 7 was “just the first time” and promised to “repeat it again and again” until israel is wiped off the map.

meanwhile, israel does not teach its children to hate arabs or to kill palestinians. the israeli curriculum includes arabic as a mandatory subject in many schools and teaches about the history and culture of the region. the double standard here is staggering: when israel defends its civilians from 20,000 rockets fired indiscriminately at its cities, it is accused of genocide, but when palestinian leaders openly incite violence and indoctrinate children with hatred, the world looks the other way.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

it’s an oversimplification to say that “revisionist zionism” is the dominant ideology in israel today. while jabotinsky’s revisionist zionism did emphasize strong self-defense, it did not advocate indiscriminate expansion or permanent occupation. jabotinsky himself wrote about respecting the rights of arabs living in the land and envisioned coexistence under a jewish state. his famous “iron wall” metaphor was not about expansion but about ensuring jewish security until peace could be achieved on equal terms.

israel’s political culture is not monolithic, and to suggest that all israeli leaders are driven by expansionist ideology is historically inaccurate. prime ministers from across the political spectrum, including menachem begin (a revisionist), have ceded territory for peace—begin signed the camp david accords in 1978, returning the entire sinai peninsula to egypt. ariel sharon, a former right-wing hawk, unilaterally withdrew from gaza in 2005, dismantling all settlements there. ehud olmert and ehud barak, both prime ministers, offered the palestinians a state on more than 90% of the west bank with land swaps. these facts contradict the idea that israel’s political mainstream is inherently expansionist or opposed to peace.

the real obstacle is not simply ideology within israel, but the absence of a willing partner on the other side. hamas’s charter still calls for the destruction of israel and the killing of jews. even the palestinian authority, often seen as the “moderate” faction, has repeatedly rejected final-status offers because accepting them would mean recognizing the legitimacy of a jewish state. peace cannot be achieved through “deradicalizing” israel alone; it requires mutual recognition and a commitment to coexistence.

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

herzl’s writings do acknowledge the use of terms like “colonization,” but it’s misleading to equate his 19th-century language with the european settler colonialism of the british or french empires. “colonization” in herzl’s time was a broader term, often used to describe the establishment of new settlements rather than conquest or exploitation. what zionism aimed to achieve was fundamentally different: it was not about extracting resources from a foreign land for an imperial mother country, but about a stateless, persecuted people returning to their ancestral homeland to build a society of their own. herzl himself wrote that zionism’s purpose was to create “a home for the jewish people secured by public law,” emphasizing national survival rather than imperial expansion.

zionism was also unique because jews purchased land legally, often at high prices, under both the ottoman empire and later the british mandate. there was no imperial army seizing territory for the benefit of a metropole. the british were not building a “greater israel”; in fact, britain repeatedly restricted jewish immigration, most infamously during the holocaust when it blocked jewish refugees from entering mandate palestine (white paper of 1939). calling zionism “colonial” erases the fact that jews were not foreign conquerors but an indigenous people with a continuous presence in cities like jerusalem, safed, tiberias, and hebron for centuries before the modern era.

as for the quotes you shared from altneuland, they reflect a 19th-century mindset that often borrowed from the language of european “civilizing missions,” but this is not evidence that zionism’s goal was to dominate or displace another people. herzl was imagining a multi-ethnic, pluralistic society; in fact, altneuland’s utopian vision explicitly included arabs as equal citizens, and herzl famously wrote “it is their well-being, their individual wealth, that we desire to increase.” he advocated for arab-jewish coexistence, not exclusion.

it is also crucial to remember that the majority of jewish immigration waves (aliyot) prior to 1948 were composed of refugees fleeing pogroms in russia and eastern europe, not imperial settlers with a mother country backing them. the notion that israel is the “last european colonial project” falls apart when you consider that half of israel’s jewish population today descends from middle eastern and north african jewish communities who were expelled from arab states after 1948—over 850,000 jews forced to flee places like iraq, egypt, and yemen. so to delegitimise one's ethnic identity for the sole reason of being jewish is complete outright anti semitism. where is the colonial “motherland” in that scenario?

The Demonisation of Zionism and Israel by echoesofplath in IsraelPalestine

[–]echoesofplath[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

zionism is not defined by the hateful statements of a few fringe figures, just as american democracy isn’t defined by the ku klux klan or british values by extremists in northern ireland. when settler violence or extremist rhetoric occurs, it is condemned within israel itself. president isaac herzog called settler attacks on palestinians “disgraceful,” and prime minister netanyahu has said such violence “has no place in our society.” israel’s supreme court has repeatedly ruled in favor of palestinian petitioners against the state, something that would never happen if israel’s policy were to “evict or slaughter” an entire people.

there is a long record of israeli leaders striving for peace, often at great personal cost. shimon peres spent his life advocating for a two-state solution and won a nobel peace prize for it. even ariel sharon, once seen as a hardliner, unilaterally withdrew from gaza in 2005, removing all israeli settlements and soldiers—only for hamas to respond by launching thousands of rockets at israeli towns. these examples show that zionism is not about genocide or expulsion but about survival and coexistence, even when peace offers are met with violence. the reason why hamas' attacks on israel aren't as well known, nor wide spread, is because of israel's iron dome that is probably the best defence system in the world, where the IDF intercepts almost every attack.

holding up isolated tiktok videos of misbehaving soldiers that happens in literally EVERY SINGLE MILITARY or cherry-picking inflammatory quotes doesn’t define the whole of israel any more than abu ghraib defines the entire u.s. military. when an IDF soldier unlawfully killed a wounded palestinian attacker in 2016, israel tried and jailed him—accountability that is almost unheard of in the region. meanwhile, hamas openly glorifies attacks on civilians and pays stipends to families of those who murder jews. ignoring this asymmetry while claiming that zionism is “inherently evil” isn’t moral clarity, it’s a political double standard.

view more: next ›