Virginia Delegate Sam Rasoul, whose family was displaced by Israel, wrote about the ‘evils’ of Zionism, prompting a flurry of attacks from Tim Kaine, Abigail Spanberger, and other party colleagues.
Virginia Delegate Sam Rasoul, whose family was displaced by Israel, wrote about the ‘evils’ of Zionism, prompting a flurry of attacks from Tim Kaine, Abigail Spanberger, and other party colleagues.
I …don’t care? I personally don’t consider the word “zionist” to be a slur. If there is a version of zionism that can coexist with full Palestinian freedom, with full Israeli accountability for what they have done and are doing, and with fully equal democratic rights for all the people in Israel-Palestine regardless of creed and ethnic origin, including the right of return for all refugees as well as reparations in the context of a genuine Truth and Reconciliation process, then I have no problem being called that kind of a zionist too. I don’t see it, but if you have one that you can point at, sure, why not.
EDIT: to clarify: on the other hand if such a version of zionism does not (edit2: or cannot) exist, then why would anyone want to be associated with an ideology incompatible with universal freedom and democracy? The mere “existence” if this or that state is irrelevant, if such a state cannot be a free and democratic place for all the people in its territory. If Israel cannot be a democracy with human rights for all the people living under its power, then I honestly don’t care if it exists or not. As a gentile Canadian/European dual citizen, I would much rather spend my energy making Canada and Europe safe places for Jewish life and prosperity such that Jewish people can thrive and be happy here, than support some hopeless apartheid ethnostate.
So are you saying “not all Zionists,” then? I pretty much agree with everything you just said, I agree with all of that. Maybe more, truth and reconciliation is probably more productive, but my prescribed solution would be a little more inclusive of measured revenge to disincentivize repetition in the future. But yes we generally agree about all of that.
This was my central point: A lot of times, breaking down things into “isms” and “ists” can lead people to huge failures of thinking. I get why this Palestinian person is attacking Zionism. It makes sense to me. I’m just saying that once you start using a word that can both mean “a supremacist ideology created to destroy and conquer everything and everyone in its way” or also mean something so mild that you don’t mind being identified with one version of it, that starts to become a dangerous word to use, because it helps people become more confused instead of helping them understand what is happening and what you wanted to communicate.
Like I said, I’ve seen people attack Bernie Sanders for being anti-Palestinian, it’s not just some kind of idle speculation about how people could get confused by it.
To me this sounds like a problem of honest universalist democratic zionists (whoever those are) to be solving, and definitely not something to be foisted upon the Palestinians to figure out all the nuances of zionism. I don’t see value in tone policing the people speaking out for the victims. If honest democratic zionists haven’t been able to rebrand, redefine, salvage zionism, that’s their problem, not the Palestinians’. The Palestinians have other, more pressing problems. If you (not you personally, the generic “you”) honestly believe that zionism can be salvaged for democracy and universal human rights, your time would be much better spent yelling at the vast majority of zionists who mean something completely different than you, and something much more sinister and evil, that wagging fingers to Palestinians.
I’m not talking to Palestinians, I’m talking to you. I’m pretty sure I explicitly said that I get why this person would say things that way. Sure, he’s allowed. You’re not. For you, I feel like it’s fine for me to point out when you’re using language that can be used in a careless way that can (and does) hinder the Palestinian cause by being used to attack their defenders. Right?
I would never dream of responding to this person’s post by trying to tone-police him. I’m responding to the OP article, which is describing some people as “top Democrats” who are not top Democrats, putting their statements next to statements from the ADL to create an overall gestalt about “Democrats” by bringing in other things from other sources, other dishonest things. And I’m responding to you. Again, he gets to say these things in the way he wants to say them, it’s fine, he’s earned it. You have not. I get to disagree with you about your use of language.
I feel like I’ve reiterated enough at this point what my issue is. One person in the article is describing Zionism as “a supremacist ideology created to destroy and conquer everything and everyone in its way.” Pretty much everyone in this conversation, I think, is against that. One other person is describing it as “the desire of Jewish people to have a state of Israel.” Some people might be against that, for valid reasons at this point, but I don’t think it is fair to attack someone who wants the second thing as if they were supporting the first thing. Using one word for both of those things and saying things like that it’s the job of the “honest universalist democratic zionists” to make you stop, and otherwise you’re going to continue with it, is just weird.
You’re talking about Zionism as if it’s a single international club, with central definitions and leadership that can include or exclude particular people. Honestly you seem like you’re just persistently missing the point of what I’m trying to say. I’ve said it a few different times at this point, and it seems like you’re still not grasping what I’m saying, so I’m going to give up trying. Cheers.
Well, we have spent the last few comments discussing what other zionisms could be like, so I don’t know where the idea that I am asserting zionism in the abstract is a monolith is coming from. But it is actually true that zionism in the concrete, or “really existing zionism” if you will, has certain characteristics and is in fact the current ideological basis for an ongoing genocide. Abstract vs concrete. It matters.
Other than that, I think we are confusing a couple of things.
I disagree with your reading of the article as somehow smearing “Democrats”. It’s about Virginia politics. Top democrats in Virginia talking about a Virginia delegate. Virginia, Virginia, Virginia. Nothing dishonest about focusing on Virginia. It is in that context that my comments refer, in that context that the word zionism is being used, not to this discussion between us. Anyway, nice talking to you.
No, you spent the last few comments saying that. I was saying something totally different from that. What was I saying? I am curious about your reading comprehension.
You also still haven’t answered my question, I don’t think. Am I a Zionist? Is Bernie Sanders? You really want to be able to use this terminology, say that particular people are or are not Zionists (in the “really existing” form), so I am curious to hear how you would apply it when you’re not trying to construct the exact messaging that’s your favorite messaging to construct with it.
Nothing in the headline says “Virginia.” Actually, if it said “Top Virginia Democrats” I would think it would be significantly less dishonest. But they’re clearly trying to paint a particular picture, through creative use of ambiguous language and editing the boundaries of the picture creatively. Hence my objection.
You are saying that the word means too many different things to too many different people and therefore is not helpful to be used. Did I get it right?
I did answer, I told you I don’t care.
Point out to me where I applied the term it to any particular person.
People who say they are zionists are zionists. So, to get back to your question (“Am I a Zionist? Is Bernie Sanders?”): do you identify as one? Then you are one. Does Bernie identify as one? Then he is one.
100% right. Doesn’t that make sense, though? You don’t necessarily have to agree with me that it’s not helpful, but isn’t it weird to just kind of keep using it and acting like we’re talking about what the “real” definition of it should be when you know that that’s my argument?
So… you’re on board with defining some people as “evil,” but you couldn’t care less whether any particular people are or are not in that category that you’re calling “evil.” You just know that people in this vague category are evil. Sterling. I’ve literally never heard of that working out bad for any reason, in history or anywhere else.
The whole substance of the kerfuffle to me is that different people mean different things when they say it. Rasoul means one thing, and I get what his message means, it makes sense to me. But then some other people see it, and they think he’s talking about a totally different group of people, and they get heated up about it, which also makes sense. Now you’re coming in with a third definition, which I’ve actually never heard before (I’ve actually seen people get accused of being Zionists and then extensive arguments about why they are Zionists and what it means, they definitely didn’t get to use your definition “well I say I’m not, so that means I’m not.”)
This is no way to run a railroad. The purpose of language is communication. It’s actually fine if different people mean different things when they use words, it doesn’t take too much to get to the heart of the issue and people can talk it out without the language getting in the way. But you seem totally unconcerned about any of this, and just kind of want to make a simplistic point without needing to define your words well or get everyone on the same page. I don’t think that will work, I don’t think it’s a good way to try to type messages, that’s why I am disagreeing with you.
No it doesn’t make sense. I never pushed to you any “real” definition, I specifically talked about multiple definitions. I don’t understand what’s “weird”. If you’re touchy about the word, feel free to exit the discussion. Many words have multiple, often contradictory and historically loaded meanings: “christianity”, “socialism”, “honour”. What’s weird about talking about them?
Where the actual fuck did I do that?
The only time I mentioned the word “evil” was to say “the vast majority of zionists who mean something completely different than you, and something much more sinister and evil,”. I was referring to this: “Nearly half of Israelis support army killing all Palestinians in Gaza, poll finds. An overwhelming number of Israelis, including seculars, back the forced transfer of Palestinians from Gaza and Israel”. I think we can we agree that forced transfer of population, i.e., ethnic cleansing, is evil, right? I am not “defining people as evil”. I am saying that a majority Israelis define their zionism as including something sinister and evil: ethnic cleansing.
I already told you: “I personally don’t consider the word “zionist” to be a slur.” I don’t use it as an accusation. So I don’t know what to do with your defensiveness here.