Anti Semitism to increase after the government sides with Islamists

But people will argue with you forever that 'from the river to the sea' is not antisemitic so I think we're going around in circles.

Oh good lord. Its not the concept that is unacceptable. Obviously. Why would I think that? What evidence do you have that that is not what I would want?

@SharonEllis, "where everyone miraculously lives peacefully together".
Why does it have to be miraculous for people of different faiths to live together peacefully? If that concept is totally unacceptable, what do you think is the solution to this conflict?

@SharonEllis ,

The ones chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ are antisemites. Clearly unacceptable (same for Israelis who have appropriated the chant to argue for the expulsion of Palestinians).

However, there is some subtlety here. Those arguing against Israel being a Jewish state and for having one state for all, are not antisemites unless they want to expel the Jews or for the Jews to have lesser rights.

I deeply disagree with the above view as I do think we do still need our own state in order to keep Jews safe. The fact I disagree with it doesn’t make it an antisemitic view, though.

Remember, the common dictionary definition of Zionism is for Jews to have self determination within the area now called Israel. This would be (theoretically) possible within a one state solution as @Squeezingwildoranges suggests. I disagree with her, but I see no evidence of her being antisemitic. It is a political framework which a lot of academics who have studied international studies/politics subscribe to.

I think I may be the poster you're referring to, and yes, this is exactly what I meant about trying to understand what somebody actually believes before deciding what label applies to them.

If someone tells me that by “anti-Zionist” they mean they oppose Israel's existence as a Jewish state, I understand why that raises a very different question from someone who tells me they use it to mean opposition to settlements or expansion into the occupied territories. I may think the second person is using the word inaccurately or unhelpfully, but I don't think it follows that they're secretly expressing the first belief. I'd rather ask them what they actually mean.

That's the bit I think gets lost in these discussions. We spend so much time telling each other what we must really mean instead of listening to what the other person is actually saying.

But Zionism with a capital Z is different to zionism with a small z. Most people wouldn't even know who Herzl is.

You say 'it has been redefined (in some dictionaries) as just believing in the Jews’ right to self determination within Israel. But, unless you are an antisemite, I don’t think anyone questions this, so it is meaningless.' I think lots of people question this. This is precisely the problem and it is very much not meaningless. All the countries that refuse to recognise Israel at the UN for a start. Lots of people on MN, on social media, in real life absolutely question Israel's right to exist. The whole application of the concept of settler colonialism is questioning the zionist premise. All the quibbling about which borders often actually cones down to a position of no acceptable borders. The often heard chant (and associated posters) 'Judaism yes, zionism no. The state of Israe has to go'. The people calling for one non-Jewish state from the river to the sea, where everyone miraculously lives peacefully together. And you say 'unless you are an antisemite' but it is antisemites who like to pretend zionism is much more than it is, so they can be 'anti' it.

‘Jew hate’

What is wrong with ‘antisemitism’, a word with a clear meaning that has worked for centuries?

I mostly see it used against left wingers whose views are ambivalent and not clear antisemitism (though it does sometimes spill over into it).

It’s not Jew hate to describe yourself as anti Zionist if you believe that Zionism is pro the expansion of Israel into the occupied territories. And that is why I don’t like the word.

i have Jewish friends who passionately believe that Israel is a perfect analogy for Apartheid South Africa. I disagree strongly with them, but they aren’t ’Jew Haters’ or ‘self-hating’ Jews (a pretty tough thing to be, really). They just have a different perspective to me.

As a poster said above (sorry not to link), if you don’t try to understand both sides of the discussion, things will never improve.

The above posts (and I guess my family’s personal history) is why I said that I am not sure that the term ‘Zionist’ is very helpful any more, as it has become freighted with a very different meaning than that envisaged by Theodore Herzl (inter alia).

Two of my grandparents were Zionists, pogrommed out of Eastern Europe and desperate to live in a Jewish state. Things happened and it didn’t quite work out that way. However, they ceased to call themselves Zionists after Israel was created because it was mission accomplished.

It has been redefined (in some dictionaries) as just believing in the Jews’ right to self determination within Israel. But, unless you are an antisemite, I don’t think anyone questions this, so it is meaningless.

And then you get the modern definitions and the takeover by the left/right divide. Both are equally guilty here. It is as bizarre to me to see non Jews passionately declaring their Zionist credentials as non Palestinians (and those who have no skin in the game) passionately marching week after week under the Palestinian flag. They are both more like football supporters to me than people who genuinely care for the lives of the people in the area.

I thought that the link I provided to a site where the definition of Zionism was discussed by a university teacher of Israeli studies was interesting. I wonder how many read it with an open mind.

Exactly. Obviously Jews will debate what it means to them but its blatantly obvious why the anti-Israel movement has chosen, deliberately and sometimes unknowingly to foreground a redefinition of zionism to allow them to say things that otherwise would be open Jew hate. Nobody has to do this. It is perfectly possible to keep using zionism to mean its basic, agreed definition. You dont have to add new meanings to it. You don't have to accept those new meanings. There is no agreed definition of those new meanings. So, like I said. If you are in favour of settlements, say so. If you arent say so. Im not, on the whole, talking about academic debates here. That is different. I am talking about shorthand in conversation, on placards and in chants. And a good rule of thumb is, if you are confused by a word, don't use it

I think there is a difference between the meaning of a word evolving gradually within the group it’s describing (like whether or not it implies that all Jews move to Israel) and changes imposed from outside by people who keep using the word incorrectly.

Why is that do you think? What is the one difference between Palestinians living in Gaza, or the West bank, and the Palestinians you describe as living happily in Israel.

Some Palestinians do live happily in Israel. Israelis living in Gaza would be killed.

So don't use it.

I don't use the term anti zionist it because I know it is offensive to Jewish people who would assume I was anti israel's existence, but I also hate when someone does use it and they are instantly called antisemitic it just shuts down discussion and further entrenches views.

The only reason for non Jewish people to obscure the meaning of zionism is to provide cover for antisemitism. There is no need to play the game unless you want to.
Comments like this are achieving absolutelty nothing and assuming a whole host of things about people which are often wrong

There is no need to play the game unless you want to.
edited to add what does this even mean?

I know it sounds Utopian but as I have said before, Deir Yassin and Givet Shaul lived happily as neighbours for decades. If you told a black South African in early 1993 that in a years time you would be voting in the countries elections, they would not have believed a word of it. They would have thought it would be an impossible dream.

"I don’t see how your proposed solution would ever guarantee security for Jewish people." All though I understand the sentiment and appreciate it after what happened in the holocaust, that really is going to be the biggest stumbling block to peace. As long as Israel believes that the only path to security is total hegemony, there will never be peace. At some point there has to be a level of trust and I believe that would be achieved much faster if some Israeli's lived happily in the Palestinian state and some Palestinians lived happily in the Israeli state.

This really isnt hard. A Jewish zionist person in the diaspora believes Israel should exist and that it exists for the self determination of the Jewish people if they want it. It doesn't mean they all have to go and live there.

I think there's a difference between saying that the word Zionism has acquired different connotations for different people, which I agree it has, and actually redefining what Zionism means. @Newbutoldfather has just told you what being a Zionist means to them: Israel continuing to exist as a Jewish state, within the 1967 borders. That isn't some new definition of Zionism. You can disagree with Zionism, but I don't think it's reasonable to tell someone who identifies as a Zionist that what they really believe in is expansion, settlements and the expulsion of Palestinians when they've just explicitly told you that they don't.
And I think this comes back to what I was saying earlier about listening to what people on the other side actually say they believe, rather than assigning a whole set of beliefs to them because of a label.

Why do antisemites want zionism to mean something different? That's the question you need to ask yourself. People say they are confused, the word is changing. So don't use it. Say what you mean. If you object to settlements say, 'I object to settlements'. How does saying ' I am antizionist' and expecting people to know you are talking about settlements help.

The only reason for non Jewish people to obscure the meaning of zionism is to provide cover for antisemitism. There is no need to play the game unless you want to.

@SharonEllis ,

OK, apologies,

This is an interesting article on Zionism. The original Zionist movement believed that all Jews should move to Israel. Clearly diaspora zionists don’t believe this. It is written by someone who teaches Zionism at uni.

theconversation.com/what-is-zionism-the-different-meanings-of-a-contested-term-285771

So I don’t think Zionism is well defined.

I don’t think Zionist is a useful word any more.

I have to admit I get confused by it. It absolutely made sense before Israel was created, but Israel is here it exists and has done for long before I was born so many, understandably, feel that zionism has evolved to stand for the push for a greater Israel with the expulsion of Palestinians from the region. This is often why people claim to be anti-zionist because they no longer link it to the establishment of Israel but with the expansion of Israel and their illegal settlements. Constantly telling these people they are antisemitic is unhelpful when it is down to interpretation of the word and unfortunately the obvious current israeli expansionist plans

Thank you for you very personalised, but entirely misplaced advice. I am not Jewish.

I have noticed that redefining zionism has become a new ploy in this debate. I am not playing that game.

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

We’ve had this discussion before.

I don’t see how your proposed solution would ever guarantee security for Jewish people. Germany guaranteed rights for all pre the Holocaust, which was how Israel came into being.

The trust isn’t there and it’s not the reality on the ground anyway. It is too utopian. I appreciate its theoretical justice, but as long as people are people and antisemitism exists, we need a Jewish state run by Jewish leaders (not religious ideally).

@SharonEllis ,

I don’t think Zionist is a useful word any more. I am a Zionist in that I believe that Israel should exist within its 1967 borders and remain Jewish. But, like all words, its meanings change over time and many people think it means pro Israel come-what-may and even pro expansionism.

If you are ‘perfectly able’ to be critical, I suggest you go for it occasionally. I think it is behoven upon the diaspora to be critical, especially of the outright racist agenda of the religious parties (of Ben G’vir and Smotrich).

I've said it before but I don't believe a two state solution would work, certainly not in this climate. I can see Israel allowing another much larger Gaza as a Palestinian state where they totally dominate it. I cannot see them allowing a fully independent functioning state with all the associated characteristics such as a defense force, international airport, etc. The most interesting proposal I have seen is the "A Land for All" movement.
https://www.alandforall.org/english-vision/
If enough Palestinians and Israelis had the will, it could work.

Its also why posters are so often misunderstood. Once you say you are a zionist on here then you are in a box with a predetermined set of beliefs and attitudes. It wont matter how many times you say that you 'also believe Palestinians should have their own state, I oppose settlement expansion and I am perfectly capable of being highly critical of the Israeli government.'

I've been reading this thread rather than commenting because these discussions so often become unpleasant, but I do wish there was more willingness to understand what someone on the other side actually believes, even if you still completely disagree with them afterwards.

I'm Jewish and I would describe myself as a Zionist because I believe Israel should continue to exist as a Jewish state. I also believe Palestinians should have their own state, I oppose settlement expansion and I am perfectly capable of being highly critical of the Israeli government. None of those things feel remotely contradictory to me.

Someone else can understand that this is what I mean by Zionism and still think I'm completely wrong. That's fine. In the same way, I can try to understand what someone means when they describe themselves as anti-Zionist rather than assuming the worst possible interpretation of it.

What I find increasingly depressing is the insistence that everyone has to fit into one of two camps, with a whole set of beliefs then attributed to them accordingly. As Pink said this week about the Ed Sheeran concert, "I refuse the binary."
Understanding another person's position isn't the same thing as agreeing with it. I wish there was more of that in these discussions.