For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
(Source. Spotted here. For the context wherein Trump applied the stereotype, see here.)
Remember: words like ‘intifada’, phrases like ‘from the river to the sea’, and even stuffed animals in the form of octopodes are all ways of secretly calling for another Shoah, no matter how many times Palestinians say otherwise. On the other hand, when a Herzlian like Trump applies an infamous stereotype to somebody…
I guess I’m confused about how that’s distinct from anti Zionism. Wikipedia says they support Jewish settlement in Palestine but won’t come on aliyah? Sounds like Zionism with extra steps
There is not a really clear line between "non-Zionist" and "anti-Zionist" but, with Zionism being a political ideology and Judaism being a religion, a "non-Zionist Jew" could be used to describe a member of the Jewish religion whose Jewish identity and religious belief does not involve any Zionism while an "anti-Zionist Jew" is a Jewish person who takes an affirmative political or ideological stance against Zionism. And of course there would be significant overlap between the two.
So “opposition to Israel” would be antizionist (including non Zionist anti Zionists), but those who solely identify as nonzionist would, to me, fall in the “neither for or against” ethnostate fencesitting.
I think opposition to Israel - as in "Israel should not exist as a "Jewish State"" - is anti-Zionism. I think "fence sitting" could be a bit harsh on non-Zionists if applied to all of them. "Israel has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with Israel why are you even asking me about it?" could be an example of a legitimate non-Zionist position that is not fence sitting (especially outside of the US, where your other status as a US tax-payer puts you back squarely in the middle of the issue).
As an illustration, if a person from, say, Honduras said "I don't understand the Russia/Ukraine thing, it has nothing to do with me, it is on the other side of the world" would you say they are "fence sitting"? Even if their great-great-great-great grandfather was Ukrainian?
I think the point I'm trying to make about non-Zionist Jews is that there is no affirmative obligation for someone to be involved in or have a deep understanding of the politics and ideology of Zionism solely because they are Jewish. In the US, UK, and Palestine, not having a position on that becomes harder to justify, not because of one's Jewishness but because of one's participation in the political system that supports Zionism.
Maybe I’m blinded by the western positionality, but dusting your hands and saying “nothing to do with me” re the apartheid state that’s doing the genocide in the name of your religion does seem like fencesitting. Obviously Israel is lying and weaponizing Judaism, but declaring yourself non-Zionist seems to opt out of the argument entirely
I think you're entitled to think of it this way for westerners. The way I became aware of the distinction at all was because of Judith Butler explaining their position (they consider themself a liberal zionist so obviously take all of it with a grain of salt, never let the enemy define the terms etc etc). You'd probably be right to say that, in the US and Europe, a nonzionist and a zionist are the same person but just at different stages of embarrassment.