War in the Middle East, again

[Travis B.]

Ugh. That is awful.

This UK LFI group really is a wonderful bunch of people.

[Ares Land]

How charming.

[bradrn]

Sorry for reviving this thread after such a long intermission, but I just have to note how sick* I find this: Pro-Israel guy in the UK claims that starving people is good for them because it reduces obesity: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... ty-in-gaza

Rest assured that I find it just as awful. So would every Zionist I know, I suspect.

[Lērisama]

Rest assured that I find it just as awful. So would every Zionist I know, I suspect.

I considered putting this in the English Questions thread, but given the political sense I suspect it will fit better here.

---

How exactly would you define a Zionist¹. I'm rather skeptical of actually looking this one up, because people who are interested in defining Zionist are likely to have an agenda of some kind, and usually seem to have an inherant morality implied in their definition.

I am aware of 3 modern uses of the word

• A reasonable, sensible person who supports the existance of Israel in the face of [insert current bad thing done by Hamas or other Palestinian group to Israel/Israelis]
• An evil, horrible person who supports everything the Israeli government is doing in its [insert current bad thing done by Israeli government to Palestinians]
• A dog-whistle for Jew, sometimes³ merged with the preceding

As well as the historical

• Person who supports Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine (and predecessors), or the creation of a Jewish⁴ state in that region

But I've never actually had a good understanding of what a modern-day Zionist is⁵, and since yours doesn't seem to neatly fit into any of the uses above, I would like a modern, less partisan definition if possible.

¹ In the sense in which you are describing you and/or people you know²
² The quoted sentence is unclear on that front, not that it needed to be for what you were saying
³ To be very clear, I have approximately zero idea of how common this particular charming use is, but I'm aware of it as a use, and anti-semitism being what it is, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the total occurances were near zero
⁴ Or not entirely Arab?
⁵ Even English Wiktionary goes from the historical use straight to “(Internet slang, chiefly derogatory or euphemistic, sometimes offensive) A Jewish person or an Israeli”

[Raphael]

I'd say in our time, it comes down to the argument between the three definitions you list. And I don't think it's possible to give a "purely linguistic" definition of politically loaded terms.

(This might be another case where zompist's old "Never define" rant is relevant: https://www.zompist.com/rants05.html#6)

[Lērisama]

That's fair. I suppose I was asking more what do you intend to convey by using the word Zionist, because its politicisation has entirely robbed it of meaning other than signalling a political camp and I want to understand what you wanted to convey by using it¹. Of course it's going to be limited, incomplete, and not particularly useful, but hopefully less so than my already known about uses.

¹ Although, now I think about it some more, it probably was signifying a political camp – a nebulous cluster of people who ‘support Israel’ in any one of many ways, but it's too late now.

[bradrn]

How exactly would you define a Zionist¹. I'm rather skeptical of actually looking this one up, because people who are interested in defining Zionist are likely to have an agenda of some kind, and usually seem to have an inherant morality implied in their definition.

I am aware of 3 modern uses of the word

• A reasonable, sensible person who supports the existance of Israel in the face of [insert current bad thing done by Hamas or other Palestinian group to Israel/Israelis]
• An evil, horrible person who supports everything the Israeli government is doing in its [insert current bad thing done by Israeli government to Palestinians]
• A dog-whistle for Jew, sometimes³ merged with the preceding

As well as the historical

• Person who supports Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine (and predecessors), or the creation of a Jewish⁴ state in that region

But I've never actually had a good understanding of what a modern-day Zionist is⁵, and since yours doesn't seem to neatly fit into any of the uses above, I would like a modern, less partisan definition if possible.

All of these feel somewhat slanted. To me, Zionism is simply about supporting the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with supporting any particular Israeli government, or for that matter opposing any particular Palestinian group (though it would seem contradictory to, say, support Hamas and Israel at the same time). And it certainly has nothing to do with one’s own religion.

That said, I agree with Raphael that definitions become tricky in these sorts of intense political discussions. I’m sure you can find people who have used the term ‘Zionist’ in all four of those senses you list.

(I’m pretty sure this topic has come up in this thread before, though I’m not going to bother finding it again just right now.)

[Lērisama]

Thank you.

(I have a vague memory of that too, but I also wasn't going to search through >500 dense posts to find it, especially since it was very vague and possibly misremembered)

[Travis B.]

How exactly would you define a Zionist¹. I'm rather skeptical of actually looking this one up, because people who are interested in defining Zionist are likely to have an agenda of some kind, and usually seem to have an inherant morality implied in their definition.

I am aware of 3 modern uses of the word

• A reasonable, sensible person who supports the existance of Israel in the face of [insert current bad thing done by Hamas or other Palestinian group to Israel/Israelis]
• An evil, horrible person who supports everything the Israeli government is doing in its [insert current bad thing done by Israeli government to Palestinians]
• A dog-whistle for Jew, sometimes³ merged with the preceding

As well as the historical

• Person who supports Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine (and predecessors), or the creation of a Jewish⁴ state in that region

But I've never actually had a good understanding of what a modern-day Zionist is⁵, and since yours doesn't seem to neatly fit into any of the uses above, I would like a modern, less partisan definition if possible.

All of these feel somewhat slanted. To me, Zionism is simply about supporting the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with supporting any particular Israeli government, or for that matter opposing any particular Palestinian group (though it would seem contradictory to, say, support Hamas and Israel at the same time). And it certainly has nothing to do with one’s own religion.

That said, I agree with Raphael that definitions become tricky in these sorts of intense political discussions. I’m sure you can find people who have used the term ‘Zionist’ in all four of those senses you list.

(I’m pretty sure this topic has come up in this thread before, though I’m not going to bother finding it again just right now.)

It seems that while your definition is probably the most neutral current definition, the use of 'Zionist' as a derogatory term meaning 'Jew' or 'Israeli' is really common in practice, which is really unfortunate as your definition is probably the most useful current one and we don't need more slurs for Jews.

[bradrn]

It seems that while your definition is probably the most neutral current definition, the use of 'Zionist' as a derogatory term meaning 'Jew' or 'Israeli' is really common in practice, which is really unfortunate as your definition is probably the most useful current one and we don't need more slurs for Jews.

Yes, agreed. Its use as a slur simply muddies the waters and makes it well-nigh impossible to have reasonable conversations.

(For that matter, the same goes for the anti-Palestinian use of ‘you’re not a true Zionist if you ever criticise Israel’.)

[Ares Land]

My own rule of thumb is that if the source is Jewish, they mean something close to bradrn's definition. If the source is not Jewish, it's probably a slur.

[Travis B.]

My own rule of thumb is that if the source is Jewish, they mean something close to bradrn's definition. If the source is not Jewish, it's probably a slur.

Yeah, that is pretty close to how I see it too.

[Torco]

obviously both the first and second definition are zionists, and people, as with any other ideology, move between them. certainly all zionists don't tolerate or condone all of israel's crimes against humanity, but plenty support some (examples abound of iraeli jews calling for broad ethnic cleansing and/or extermination, celebrating the starving of the gazans, saying "they all need to die" etcetera), just like not all pro-us people are positive about everything the us does, but they do think some of what it does is good - enough, at least, to be pro us. I think broadly we can call zionists people who think that the zionist project (to establish a jewish ethnostate in the holy land blabla) is a good thing.

saying all non-jewish uses to the word zionist amount to antisemitic dogwhistles is... well, the old line. anyone who doesn't support the genocide and all the rest of it is antisemitic. this is also untenable, since plenty of non-zionist jews use zionist in the same way as non-jewish non-zionists use it: to mean people who support israel or the zionist project in general. this is the line the genociders always want the public to take, i.e. criticize us and you're evil. then again, of course, there's plenty of genuine use of zionist as a dogwhistle for jew.

[Travis B.]

saying all non-jewish uses to the word zionist amount to antisemitic dogwhistles is... well, the old line. anyone who doesn't support the genocide and all the rest of it is antisemitic. this is also untenable, since plenty of non-zionist jews use zionist in the same way as non-jewish non-zionists use it: to mean people who support israel or the zionist project in general. this is the line the genociders always want the public to take, i.e. criticize us and you're evil. then again, of course, there's plenty of genuine use of zionist as a dogwhistle for jew.

I would make a significant difference between how non-Zionist Jews use the word "Zionist" and its frequent use as an anti-Semitic dogwhistle. Its use as a anti-Semitic dogwhistle is a direct outgrowth of the accusation that if you're a Jew you must somehow support everything bad and wrong with what the State of Israel does. In many ways it is akin to the old accusation of Jews having "dual loyalty" and like.

[Ares Land]

saying all non-jewish uses to the word zionist amount to antisemitic dogwhistles is... well, the old line. anyone who doesn't support the genocide and all the rest of it is antisemitic.

Probably not all uses of the word, but often enough that it's a reliable heuristic.

[Raphael]

Although I briefly took part in this particular sub-discussion myself, I still don't really like how it's now turned into a rather technical discussion of the "proper" definition or meaning of term like "Zionism" or "Zionist". It makes me think of (presumably anti-Zionist) Nathan Goldwag's comment on the matter:

Like many Americans, I’ve spent much of the last six months arguing about Israel and Palestine online. In doing so, I’ve found myself perennially frustrated by how abstract the discussions always seem to be. No matter what, we end up arguing about the philosophical basis on Zionism or the minutiae of historical atrocities, or whether or not specific slogans are antisemitic or not. To me, this is mostly besides the point. The central question of “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” is whether or not there is a legitimate justification for a state to indefinitely maintain a third of its population under military rule without self-government, self-determination, or political rights. Everything else is commentary.

https://nathangoldwag.wordpress.com/202 ... israel-do/

[Ares Land]

There's no question that the Israeli government has no justification in what it's doing.
The question is: what can I do about it? Not much, it turns out. Though as a citizen of a country that is moderately influent in the Middle East, I can vote or protest and hope my actions and that of like-minded have some influence on my country's foreign policy.

Now, as it happens, in my country, there's at least one major political force on the left that has an antisemitism problem it refuses to adress (it doesn't even admit it has one) and makes it painfully clear they don't understand the first thing about the Middle East. They also happen to be the most vocal on the Middle East situation.
So in the end, I care a lot whether the slogans are antisemitic are not. I wish I could take for granted that there's no antisemitism in there, but I can't. That's just the way it is.

Maybe that's a specific problem with French politicians. If the pro-Palestine movement where you live is entirely clear with that, excellent!
Alas, I don't think France is the only problem with an antisemitism problem and I do recognize the same dog-whistles in the Anglosphere.

So yes, what Nathan Goldwag's dismisses is important (though, I'll readily admit, something of a First World problem)

[Raphael]

If the pro-Palestine movement where you live is entirely clear with that, excellent!

It isn't, which is why I have no plans to attend any pro-Palestinian events. But that doesn't change the wrongness of what Goldwag describes.

Taking a step back for a moment, my take on pro-Palestinian activism and antisemitism is something like this:

1) It is perfectly well possible to criticize Israel - even Israel's very structure - without being antisemitic

2) It is, however, a delicate balancing act, the more delicate the more fundamental the criticism is

3) People can't and won't get a delicate balancing act right if they're in active denial about the fact that they're doing a delicate balancing act

And Point 3) is why it's so infuriating that such large parts of the Left have such an absolute certainty, such a complete conviction that the only way in which they could ever go wrong would be by being insufficiently dedicated to their various causes.

[Torco]

interesting polling results from penn u to the israeli population came out recently. I wish i had a better source, haarez apparently covered this as well but its website blocked me for some reason, and i don't read hebrew.

the tldr is: about 50% of israelis support the outright extermination of all palestinians in gaza, and a full 80% support the ethnic cleansing (removal, not necessarily extermination) of the palestinian people from the strip. more than half apparently support expelling all ethnic palestinians from israel, be they citizens or no.

so like... this may be fake news, I haven't found the survey report from the pollsters themselves, i can't audit the technical details but... assuming it's not, could we now say israel is a supremacist country bent on the destruction, or at least the race-based expulsion, of palestinians? or is that still antisemitic and lacking in nuance ? i don't know for sure but i don't think other countries have full halves of their population advocating the mass murder of an imprisoned ethnic minority numbering in the millions.

[bradrn]

interesting polling results from penn u to the israeli population came out recently. I wish i had a better source, haarez apparently covered this as well but its website blocked me for some reason, and i don't read hebrew.

the tldr is: about 50% of israelis support the outright extermination of all palestinians in gaza, and a full 80% support the ethnic cleansing (removal, not necessarily extermination) of the palestinian people from the strip. more than half apparently support expelling all ethnic palestinians from israel, be they citizens or no.

so like... this may be fake news, I haven't found the survey report from the pollsters themselves, i can't audit the technical details but... assuming it's not, could we now say israel is a supremacist country bent on the destruction, or at least the race-based expulsion, of palestinians? or is that still antisemitic and lacking in nuance ? i don't know for sure but i don't think other countries have full halves of their population advocating the mass murder of an imprisoned ethnic minority numbering in the millions.

The Haaretz article is accessible at https://archive.is/tAHLx. There is no English translation but Google Translate works well. I also can)t trace back the numbers to any published survey.

My first thought here is: 1005 people is not actually very many. And, given the massive and obvious divisions in Israeli society, uneven sampling could seriously distort the results. The Haaretz article is mostly an opinion article focussing on a few extreme rabbis, and the author’s most recent publication has the same focus; it therefore seems totally plausible to me that their sample may be tilted towards the Religious Zionist population, in which case the result is totally believable. On the other hand, I struggle to imagine that, say, the anti-government protesters would have these beliefs in these numbers.

It’s also worth mentioning some broader context. At the moment, there is a struggle going on within Israel to define its identity and future. On one hand you have the Religious Zionists and the Kahanists (and Netanyahu, sort of); on the other hand you have the leftists and Arabs, most prominent in the anti-government and anti-war protests; on the third hand you have the Haredim / Ultra-Orthodox population, which is rapidly expanding and not necessarily Zionist at all. The divisions between these sides are massive — arguably Israeli society is now even more divided than American society is.

Due to the above, I would say that any generalisation about ‘what sort of country Israel is’ is lacking in nuance and, yes, potentially antisemitic. Currently you just can’t make those sorts of sweeping generalisations about Israel. Yes, there is a horrifyingly large proportion of Israelis who believe things which I find immoral — but there is an equally large proportion who are actively fighting against those beliefs, spanning from grassroots activists to the highest levels of power. And the victor hasn’t been decided yet.

(Also worth considering: would you make these generalisations about any other country? >50% of American voters voted for Trump, yet ‘America is a fascist country’ is obviously false. The resistance is strong enough that that would be unfair, at least at the moment.)