I'll address these point by point.
1. "I've said it before in this thread but I'm not saying this is a solution. It's part of the solution[...]"
The solution to what? Avoiding confusion surrounding the term, sure, not using it would achieve that - but is it the only solution or the best solution? If I understand this, you've zoomed in your argument to a hypothetical good faith individual - sure, I will agree that in that very focused situation, avoiding the use of charged political labels can be beneficial - but I would argue that this hypothetical individual could also be better educated instead of avoiding the term. Do you have a reason to believe avoidance is better than education? And, eventually, we still have to zoom out towards the wider reality of things too - there will be bad faith individuals and organizations, what is the solution to this? Maybe you think they are separate issues, but they are still both relevant. How will your approach play out in these situations?
2. "I think it's simple to demonstrate this[...]"
Note, I didn't ask you to demonstrate that using Zionist labels will turn people off your message - I asked you to demonstrate that her self-labeling as anti-Zionist would push more people away than the bad faith labeling of anti-Semitic by her political opponents already did. If the problem is conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, dropping the Zionist labels doesn't prevent this. As an aside, I would suggest that you being unwilling to "watch or read any content from creators who use that kind of terminology" kinda seems like you falling victim to labels instead of trying to reach the individual. Is this not a double-standard when compared to the good faith approach you are advocating for Zionists?
3. "It rains, so why even bother with an umbrella? Everything will get wet."
Well speaking of strawmen... is that really the argument you think I'm making? My argument is more along the lines of 'Your umbrella is full of holes, so why even bother with that umbrella? Everything will still get wet'. I guess, now that you've been clear that you've tailored your solution specifically towards people who are politically ignorant but open to discussion, I will agree that your umbrella will work for this situation - but I still don't think it's the only solution, nor the best solution. I think education is always better than avoidance. Anyways, looking at your last paragraph in this particular section, what kind of arguments do you think I'm proposing? I don't just say "I'm against Zionism" and leave it at that - I rarely speak in soundbites and those alternatives are already part of my language - our difference really comes from my refusal to remove Zionism from that language. Why? Two factor: (1) I think it is an accurate and useful label, and (2) I don't believe changing our language will prevent the conflation with anti-Semitism. The problem of conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism goes so far beyond the Zionist label. Once again, I believe that education, rather than avoidance, is the better response.
4. "I recommend looking at what actual Zionists define the term as, and what they believe[...]"
Assuming I haven't already? I'm asking you because my own efforts haven't found a manifestation of Zionism that isn't an ethnocultural nationalist colonial movement. Can you direct me to a specific type of Zionist ideology or at least an individual professing something that could be defined as such?
5. "I said trends, not origins[...]
Aaand it seems like we're back at my very first post. Where did I say origins? I'm asking for you to be more explicit about these trends you mentioned ("history + trends") that gives people a "a better, not perfect, understanding of the philosophy". Can you do that, instead of this vagueness? Waving your hand at American Story X as evidence that Zionist is the language of neo-Nazis? C'mon man... You really think that's a convincing trend? I'll once again direct you to the decades of anti-Zionism that isn't associated with neo-Nazis. Yes, Hitler and his neo-Nazi remnants spent a lot of time talking about Zionists - they also spend a lot of time talking about Jews but it's absurd to suggest that Jewishness is the language of neo-Nazis. They use these terms, but they're also well established terms outside of neo-Nazi rhetoric. Zionists self-identify as Zionists - it's an accurate label for a specific ideology. With all your talk of nuance, you really seem to be trying to paint over a century of anti-Zionist activism with the big brush of 'neo-Nazis'. Can you provide a better illustration of this trend other than a movie that was released nearly thirty years ago?
PS: The Nazis killed Jews, they didn't oppress with prescriptive definitions. Don't trivialize your argument with this absurdity.
6. "Well, the problem is they can't be grouped together under the banner of ethnocultural nationalist colonial movement[...]"
Still waiting to see the type of Zionism that can't be defined this way. I'm not interested in these continual vague references to "Some are not ethnoculturally minded. Some are not colonialist." Show me one of these groups - that might be something that would cause me to change my mind regarding my use of Zionist, but it's not something I've been able to find on my own. As for Rabbis4Ceasefire, I think you've once again committed your cardinal sin of hyper-focused labeling. I read through both the article you recommended and their 'About' section - the only mention of Zionism anywhere was this paragraph: "R4C understands that Judaism is not the same as Zionism or the State of Israel and we challenge their conflation. Resisting this conflation is strategically important to undermine the ways Judaism is used to justify Israel’s actions and is communally, individually, and morally important for Judaism’s future."
Seems like these anti-Zionists agree with me.
--------------------
Edited by shivas.wisdom (03/06/26 07:45 PM)
|