Maturin

Because like 95% of the churches should already lose their tax-exempt status over this and they don't enforce it anyway

The 74-40 tomatoes being unpeeled and unsliced in the picture is very confusing

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.

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.

Much more nuanced. Doesn’t hit it square on the nose by saying “she was, at base, a liberal bourgeois academic who never fully opened her eyes to it even after nearly being ground in the gears of that system” but basically hints at that. The end of that one even says that you should read her despite her, shall we say, banal liberal racism/orientalism (including, famously, against poor, Eastern European Jews). But the context helps to understand when she is making valid observations and decent (and sometimes controversial) insights and when she misses the mark because of her prejudices.

That first article is about as terrible as one comes to expect from the Jerusalem post. I’m not saying there isn’t much to criticize in Arendt’s writings (particularly if your criticism comes from the left) but a Zionist spin article about a prominent anti-Zionist Jewish political scientist (who did admiral work pointing out the Zionist connections to the Nazi death machine) falls pretty flat. And it follows such a traditional Zionist pattern: have you considered that this anti-Zionist Jew is the real racist and this we should not pay attention when she reports on Eichmann’s warm and collaborative relationship with the Zionist partisans that formed the political core of the colony?

Hell yeah. I made the screenshot.

Bleak

Now now, maybe the other papers published by the bluesky account are just that terrible