Disgusting comments like this normalised

No one is saying don't self determine. The problem is that that self determination is at the expense of the Palestinians. Land grabbing, oppressive security measures, murder, torture, starvation. Is any of that fair, just, understandable? The politicians don't even pretend to have good intentions, they clearly state the Palestinians are animals, their children are terrorists and need to be eradicated. They don't want a Palestinian state, and they want to make life hell for them. International laws are broken time and time again without any care. If that is self determination, that is a massive problem.

People who say that they are antizionist want to remove it from them.

Palestinians should clearly have their own state too.

Israelis already have self determination. What about self determination for Palestinians?

Self determination for the Israelis. Some seem determined that their country shouldn’t exist, and they want a one state solution which is Palestine.

Self-determination is written into the Good Friday Agreement, NI can reunite with Ireland if the majority agree.

Self determination for who? Wrt NI, the British forces occupied for their own ends, to self determine. But that obviously led to great oppression for the Irish.

If we look at self-determination as in NI, or the Falklands, what to you think Israelis would vote for?

Although there has obviously been a ceasefire in NI, I think many would beg to differ that things have truly moved on. NI has one of the highest rates of adolescent mental health issues, and that is largely attributed to the ongoing effects of the Troubles, all of these years later. Britain has never fully acknowledged the harm it caused (and I'm British, so no skin in the game) and that continues to cause harm, resentment and opposition.
Of course Israel, like NI is (largely) recognized as a legitimate state on the global map, but that doesn't mean on a community or even individual level that people will accept that legitimacy, which I think is everyone's right.

ETA: I don't intend to further this conversation as it isn't exactly on topic, but I was pointing it out wrt the term 'zionist' not being straightforward, and why it might be inflammatory/triggering for some.

@poshsnobtwit sorry moving on from injustice was the wrong thing to say about Northern Ireland, move on from conflict despite the injustices is more what I meant. I do not think Palestinians should “just move on” either. It’s obviously not that simple.

Israel is a recognised legitimate state though. You can say it was created in an unjust way but it doesn’t take away from it’s legitimacy now. It’s not going to disappear. Having the position that it shouldn’t exist at all is not a position that will ever lead to peace.

That is the major point of conflict though - the choice of homeland has been the direct cause (and continues to be) of severe oppression to the people that are living there. They are expected to suck it up, because its apparently the Jewish birth right. This is what I understand that most people find so contentious about the term 'Zionist', because it's not just a home land, but land that was already lived on.
@israelilefty thanks for your reply. I know it was the British who mandated it, and they have huge reparations to make. Of course the Arabs refused the notion of the partition, if someone came into your home and said will you agree to partition half of your home, you'd obviously say no! Israel do not want a two state solution, but yet want to take more and more. Daniella Weiss openly said the settlements were strategically placed to prevent a Palestinian state being formed.
Re legitimacy. If someone stole my things, I would never say they are legitimately theirs, even if they were awarded them by the state. Upthread a poster mentioned Northern Ireland as an example of "a place where people can move on". This is categorically not true, I am from there and there are many people who do not accept the legitimacy of A British rule. They speak Irish, their children go to Irish schools, they refuse to even call if Northern Ireland. It's incredibly minimising and erasing of people to say "just move on" or "accept the legitimacy" when people have suffered so much as a result of occupation. This is why I have a problem with it being considered antisemitic to say that Israel is not a legitimate state. It might be according to past mandates, but ethically and morally it is wrong. The same for any other place that was taken by occupying forces.

I remind you that that UN decision called to partition Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states, and that the plan was rejected by the Palestinian side;

As a point of fact, the partition was rejected by both sides- the Arabs and Jews living in the Palestine Mandate.

The only Jewish organisation that agreed to it were the American Zionists who presumed to make deals on behalf of Jews in Palestine,

We know they did not agree to the UN partition because there were numerous paramilitary organisations that objected to the partition and kicked off the Nakba, seizing lands that the UN had designated for Palestine.

the rejection (and continuing Palestinian rejections to adopt the two-state solution, most recently at Camp David)

As another point of fact, the PLO and Israel had both agreed to the two state solution in 1993 with the Oslo Accord. However the agreement did not turn out to be anything other than a way for Israel to continue land grabbing, as by 1995 Israel had taken Area C of the West Bank (70% of total WB land area) and banned Palestinians from 60% of the West Bank. Ilegal settlements were meant to be dismantled, but were instead accelerated. Final negotiations and statehood was supposed to be given no later than May 1999. The Camp David 2000 summit failed because Israel refused to give up the parts of the West Bank they had seized, even though the PLO offered a 1:1 land swap so that Israel could swap uninhabited Israeli land to keep the most populated illegal settlements in the West Bank. In addition, Israel wanted 100% of Jerusalem, but the Palestinians could not agree to surrendering East Jerusalem.

The failure of Oslo and Camp David was due to both sides digging in their heels and a climate of mistrust. Nethanyu was involved in these and once bragged about derailing the Oslo Accord as he is vehemently against a two state solution.

Both sides bear responsibility for the current situation.
Absolutely.

True, I would say he is an ethnonationalist.

Continuing to reply to @poshsnobtwit: But the issue here is that states can be criticized for their policies, and we can regret the violent circumstances of their founding, but that doesn't delegitimize the state itself. There was huge loss of life and expulsion in the partition between India and Pakistan in 1947, whose effects are still felt today, but nobody denies the right of either of those states to exist.

Like India and Pakistan, the state of Israel was established on lands formerly controlled by the British, by the decision of the UN General Assembly in 1947 calling for "the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel". I remind you that that UN decision called to partition Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states, and that the plan was rejected by the Palestinian side; the rejection (and continuing Palestinian rejections to adopt the two-state solution, most recently at Camp David), are at the core of the current conflict. Both sides bear responsibility for the current situation. The problem of violence in Israel/Palestine is not because it is a Jewish state (and by the way, over a quarter of Israelis are not Jewish) - it's because there is an ongoing conflict which neither side's politicians are in a hurry to end.

Sure. I’m not sure that captures the full extent of it though.

You don’t need to asterisk swearing on MN btw, it’s totally allowed.

Just a c*nt then?

Netanyahu isn’t an extreme Jew.

Yeah; I think there should be a word for such people as they should be called out.

I'm thinking something similar to Muslim extremists which is a term widely used.

I’m not defending the action of the aggressive settlers in the West Bank - I find that deplorable and I find the Israeli government’s contempt for West Bank Palestinians deplorable.
But I do think that it should be possible to condemn those actions but still respect the Zionist belief that the Jews have a right to a homeland and a right to protect that homeland.

If you want to call out people who specifically support Netanyahu, then calling them Netanyahu supporters would seem appropriate. I don’t think there’s that many of them, certainly not on MN.

Do we need a word to identify every single thought that exists?

What a weird question. Do you really think there is a specific term for supporters of conflict in each and every war torn region of the word? Or are you just being goady now that you've been called out on the way you use the word Zionist?

It seems like you are describing the situation in the WB here, which I have yet to see anyone on this board defend. That is not the same as the importance of the existence of Israel for Jewish people, which was established as a secular state for Jewish people escaping persecution.

Out of interest, and to ensure the correct terminology is used when addressing those that support the mass killing and starvation of civilians in Gaza - what should they be called?

I mean this respectfully and non provocatively, but the aspect of the Jewish right to a homeland is the difficult bit, not because they are Jewish or they don't deserve a homeland, but because that 'homeland' has been the direct cause of death and cleansing of thousands (and now tens of thousands in the last few months) of people who were already living there, and they have been told that they have no right to live on their land. The governments of that homeland have implemented 'security measures' that have tortured, raped, imprisoned men, women and children. Homes and land have been confiscated. It is quite unbelievable that someone can come from US, be 'given' a home that belongs to someone else and tell those inhabitants that they have no rights because God promised them this. This is what has been and is happening to this current day.

“the actions are what has caused the feeling not the religion.”
It seems as if all Israelis/ Jewish people/ zionists have been lumped together as if they are all responsible for events in Gaza.

Is it enough for a Jewish person to condemn the actions of Netanyahu and his government or must they also denounce Zionism and the Jewish right to a homeland?

Many? Just like you said many zionists want to kill all Palestinians? What else do we want to do, drink the blood of babies? Control the media and thr banks?