If Zionism (the belief in Jewish self-determination) is inherently violent, would you apply the same logic to Palestinian self-determination?

I keep hearing that because I’m a Zionist (a person who believes in Jewish self-detrmination), I must somehow support a violent ideology. Which I 1 million percent reject.

I believe Jews have a right to self-determination. I also believe Palestinians have that same right.

Jews have maintained a connection to the Land of Israel and a hope of return for centuries (Zionism). So what is it about the belief in Jewish self-determination (Zionism) itself that you think inherently requires violence?

People have also committed horrific violence while claiming to act for Palestinian liberation. Does that make the belief that Palestinians deserve self-determination inherently violent? Does everyone who supports that right to Palestinian liberation inherently endorse violence?

I would say no. Palestinians deserve self-determination, and I can support that right while condemning violence committed in its name.

I’m asking you to apply the same distinction to Jews. If you believe Jewish self-determination (zionism) is inherently violent but Palestinian self-determination isn’t, please explain why.

ETA: If you can't answer the questions, or don't want to, then just move along. No one is forcing you to answer the questions. Make your own post with your own questions if you feel like it, this is MY post with MY questions.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/golan-calls-for-bloc-to-unite-with-arab-parties-we-have-a-majority-of-65-seats-we-must-stop-being-afraid/

Democrats leader Yair Golan calls for the parties in the bloc led by Yashar’s Gadi Eisenkot to partner with the Arab parties and form a government, noting it would have a majority of seats.

“Netanyahu lost. I know how to count to 120. 65 is more than 55. That’s how Israeli democracy works. Period,” Golan writes on X.

“The reality must teach us one resounding lesson: We have no future here if we don’t stop being afraid. And if we don’t stop with the racism. We must no longer accept Netanyahu’s racist division between Jewish votes and Arab votes,” he says.

“And now let’s talk about Zionism. In Netanyahu’s bloc sit 16 Knesset members from non-Zionist Haredi parties, who promote mass draft evasion while our children are fighting and dying,” writes the former IDF deputy chief.

“If Netanyahu insists on counting only a Zionist majority, let him first subtract from his own bloc the 16 Knesset members from the non-Zionist Haredi parties. They won’t preach to us about Zionism,” he says.

“The change bloc has a Zionist majority: 49 against 39. The change bloc has an Israeli majority: 65 against 55,” Golan says.

“We have a majority. We have responsibility. And we have an opportunity to form a government of change in partnership with Israel’s Arab citizens. A government that will serve all Israeli citizens. Now we need courage. It takes leadership. It takes stopping the fear and starting to act,” he says.

Amid the ongoing count, Netanyahu’s bloc has 56 seats, Eisenkot’s has 48, and the Arab parties are at 16 seats.

Is Corey Gil-Shuster's The Ask Project hasbara? Because honestly after watching a few videos of him asking Palestinians questions.. it makes Palestinians look like they actually sort of want to wipe all the (specifically israeli) jews out or at least expel them. At least it really does not seem like they have any interest in coexistenc even if it is not a perfect solution in their eyes.

My question is, is he cherry picking answers or are Palestinians really as allergic to solutions as Israelis? ​

I know that Palestine is the occupied territory. but honestly with the answers I saw in these videos.. I cant say I blame them for having security concerns or thinking that btowdly Palestinians are a threat. Is this just the way it is going to be? Intractable as they say?

edit: I thank people for their thoughtful responses. I see that my use of hasbara has offended some people. What I mean by hasbara is the way un which israel uses media to influence public opinion. If you prefer propaganda that works too.

The day began on an optimistic note, with a high voter turnout within the bloc opposed to Bibi. I voted for Bennett-as did many other right-wingers-because we want a right-wing, capitalist, and socially liberal candidate who is not Netanyahu, someone who will clean up the corruption and our terrible govt and also not a leftist.

Over the last few hours, Netanyahu has been running an aggressive fear-mongering campaign—claiming that "the Left and the Arabs will steal the country," that "we are fighting for the very life of the nation," and that "the Palestinians will kill us if we don't vote for Likud", "The Leftist government will establish a Palestinian state"-and consequently, there has been an uptick in votes for Netanyahu. Some friends of mine, whom I consider to be intelligent people, surprised me by voting for Bibi.

Netanyahu himself is in a struggle against Ben-Gvir-who leads the new populist Right, a Right composed of thugs from the periphery who loathe the establishment, and nationalists whose traditionalism is performative rather than symbolic. Ben-Gvir offers a more extreme and populist approach than Netanyahu, whose own style is far more akin to that of a monarchical leader/white-collar elitist than a low-class populist. Ben-Gvir supporters are basically like trad catholic Catholic Young Rightwingers who are to the right of Trump and Ben-Gvir himself is now a rural populist for traditionalists from the periphery, the leader of the anarchic, neo-fascistic, populist, Post-Bibi right, As for Bibi himself, he is surrounded by something akin to a cult of personality-one that has permeated the mainstream-with followers who view him as a "king" and the nation's savior. The dynamic surrounding Bibi bears a striking resemblance to Homelander from *The Boys*: a sort of new religion has formed around him, worshipping him and regarding him as the nation’s messiah-a protector against enemies, whether from without or within. Some even claim that voting for Bibi is a Jewish obligation, and so on.

In 2015, Bibi was like 'Homelander Season 1', carefully polished image, more behind the scenes stuff while dog whistling and trying to maintain a clean image, he hid what we see now and was afraid of confronting the Israeli state institutions. He even halted attempts of Likud members to attack the Supreme court. In 2015, everyone mobilized against him; people were sure he would lose, and the next morning there was a turnaround, and he won and surprised everyone. From 2015, he realized that he could do whatever he wanted, and stopped being afraid of what he was afraid of doing in 2009-2014: He started to take control of the state systems and establish his own media outlets, but he was still held back by the public service and the protesters on the other side. If Bibi wins now, all opposition to him will collapse. The public will be exhausted, and he will receive a definitive mandate to do whatever he pleases-taking the final step toward transforming the state into an entity entirely aligned with him. From seizing control of the courts, dismissing legal advisors, and reshuffling the IDF’s top brass, to a "crypto-economy"- Israel will become the "Netanyahu family State."

In any case, I’m pessimistic; I think it will end in a tie.

The United States and the United Kingdom overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 because his government nationalized the Iranian oil.

Following the ousting of Mosaddegh and the consolidation of the Shah’s power, relations between Iran and Israel improved dramatically. From 1953 onward, Iran under the Shah became Israel’s primary oil supplier, and the two countries developed deep cooperation in military, intelligence (between the Mossad and the Iranian SAVAK), and commercial spheres, which lasted until the 1979 Revolution.

Given that Iran already possesses 440.9 kilograms of 60%-enriched uranium with which it could theoretically manufacture nuclear weapons and that if the United States were to launch a ground invasion with a million troops, it would take only one or two weeks to refine that material to 90%? Also, we do not know how many advanced centrifuges they still possess in deep bunkers and secret facilities after the war, and even before the 2025 and 2026 bombings, Iran's nuclear program was monitored (albeit with limitations) by the IAEA in known facilities like Natanz and Fordow. By destroying those surface complexes, the real result was pushing the entire program into absolute secrecy. The Iranian regime no longer has any reason to maintain its uranium at 60% as a bargaining chip; its top priority is now existential survival, which logically compels them to use those secret centrifuges to reach 90% enrichment as quickly as possible as the a deterrent against new attacks.

So what was Israel’s strategic rationale for risking global inflation and oil market disruptions caused by the conflict with Iran and the resulting blockades at the Bab el-Mandeb and Hormuz straits disruptions that were entirely predictable? Was the primary objective a preemptive strike to prevent Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank from operating under an Iranian nuclear umbrella thereby obstructing any potential strategic integration or territorial claims like South Lebanon,Syria and Judea and Samaria? Or does this reflect a far more complex geopolitical 200 IQ thinking we cant understand like pushing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon under military pressure from the strikes to fragment Arab support for the Palestinian cause, knowing that key Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan view the emergence of a nuclear-armed, Shiite-led Iran as an existential threat? Or did they expect the United States to carry out a full ground invasion of Iran to steal the uranium given that Donald Trump cancelled that mission due to the severe risks involved?

 Bibi doesn’t have 61, but it’s a disaster regardless, and it will be difficult for the opposing bloc to achieve a better result in the next elections. Through a fear-mongering campaign, Bibi siphoned votes from the other parties in his bloc and managed to achieve a result that no one thought he would- famously, in 1996, people thought Peres had won-only to wake up to a "Bibi" morning. The same thing happened in 2015: everyone believed Bibi had been defeated, but he managed to win by using a fear-based campaign.

 In 2015, everyone mobilized against him; people were sure he would lose, and the next morning there was a turnaround, and he won and surprised everyone. From 2015, he realized that he could do whatever he wanted, and stopped being afraid of what he was afraid of doing in 2009-2014: He started to take control of the state systems and establish his own media outlets, but he was still held back by the public service and the protesters on the other side. If Bibi wins now, all opposition to him will collapse. The public will be exhausted, and he will receive a definitive mandate to do whatever he pleases-taking the final step toward transforming the state into an entity entirely aligned with him. From seizing control of the courts, dismissing legal advisors, and reshuffling the IDF’s top brass, to a "crypto-economy"- Israel will become the "Netanyahu family State."

Netanyahu is a very effective fearmonger and despite the anti-Haredi sentiment, there will always be anti-Arab sentiment as well and obviously anti-Palestinian. Bibi's supporters are loyal as hell and see him as god, probably more than Trump's own supporters. Bibi’s cult of personality is now on track to become second only to North Korea’s. Any Israeli who knows Bibi supporters-and witnessed them yesterday-understands exactly what I’m talking about. He is one step away from being crowned a god. We are essentially entering Season 5 of The Boys, with a Homelander-style cult of personality. Incidentally, I believe Netanyahu’s supporters proved yesterday that they are even more loyal than Trump’s. They are arguably the most loyal base among all supporters of right-wing, authoritarian leaders worldwide.

My perspective is: Judaism is a religion; Jews are a religious tribe. Why shouldn't they be able to live together in a country (if they want to)? So they do. Israel. Its the only place and its not so big. There were displacements of populations to create it. Like when the USA was created and all of the Americas actually - remember the Americas are basically European countries on another continent. The British (I am British) organised the displacement I believe. There is ongoing conflict with neigbours and in the terrirories, but that is like other places (Northern Ireland). This is my perhaps simplistic view. And of course there are negative consequences for Arabs, but that is the case in the former British and French Empires and in the Americas with the indigenous populations when these countries were created. Also Arabs live in Israel and work and vote and have normal lives and can even do the IDF if they want. And Israel has existed since 1948. So why do so many people seem to be against Israel and Zionism (even before the war in Gaza)? Australia and New Zealand ans Canada exist and colonised land. Why not Israel?

Japan attacked first. Pearl Harbor killed about 2,400 Americans. The US response included the firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945, around 100,000 dead in a single night. Then Hiroshima and Nagasaki, between 110,000 and 210,000 dead by the end of 1945, mostly civilians. In total, US bombing killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. The casualty ratio was far more one-sided than in Gaza. Yet almost nobody calls Japan the victim of that war, and there were no mass pro-Japan protests, because of the Japanese regime's atrocities, terrorizing the whole region and joining the Axis. Having mass civilian casualties doesn't change who's in the wrong when you have a warmongering military dictatorship.

Korea. In 1950, North Korea invaded the South. US bombing destroyed most North Korean cities, and North Korean civilian deaths are estimated in the hundreds of thousands, possibly over a million. Again a huge imbalance in losses. And again, almost nobody thinks the North was in the right.

Civilian deaths are a tragedy in any war, and specific strikes can and should be criticized. But if counting bodies is your only argument, then by that logic you'd have to side with Imperial Japan and Kim Il Sung.

The conclusion is simple: a casualty ratio alone doesn't tell you who's right. What matters is who started the war, what kind of regime is on the other side, and what it takes to end the war.

For those who'll say the laws of war changed after WW2: true, and the modern rules don't ban civilian casualties. They ban attacks where expected civilian harm is excessive compared to the military gain, and they require precautions. That's a strike-by-strike standard, not a ratio. The same rules also ban fighting from among civilians and using them as shields, which Hamas does as a strategy.

For those who'll say the atomic bombings were war crimes too: then you agree a high civilian toll doesn't make the other side right. Nobody concludes from Hiroshima that Imperial Japan should've won.

For those who'll say Israel started it all: look at the actual wars. In 1948 the UN proposed partition, the Jewish side accepted, the Arab side rejected it, and five Arab armies invaded the day after Israel declared independence. In 1973 Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Yom Kippur. On October 7 Hamas broke a ceasefire and killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians. Israel did strike first in 1967, but only after Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers, blockaded Israeli shipping and massed troops on the border. It also invaded Lebanon in 1982 after years of PLO attacks from there. You can argue about each of those, but "Israel started every war" just isn't the history. If anything, I would say the aggression has mostly come from the other side.

For those who'll say Israel doesn't belong in the region: Jews have lived there continuously for about 3,000 years, long before the Arab conquest. After 1948, around 850,000 Jews were pushed out of Arab and Muslim countries, and most went to Israel. Today roughly half of Israeli Jews have roots in the Middle East and North Africa, not Europe. Most modern states in the region were drawn up in the 20th century too, Jordan in 1921, Iraq and Syria from post-WW1 mandates. Israel has been a UN member since 1949 and has peace deals with Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco, so much of the region itself accepts it exists. And 10 million people, including 2 million Arab citizens, aren't going anywhere. The real question is how both peoples live there, not whether one of them should disappear.

And if you really care about civilians, criticize Hamas at your protests too. It started this war on October 7, killed around 1,200 people and dragged about 250 hostages into Gaza. It built a huge tunnel network under homes, schools and hospitals, for its fighters, not for civilians. It hasn't held an election since 2006 and still rules Gaza by force. When Gazans themselves protested against Hamas in 2025, it cracked down on them. If Palestinian lives are what you care about, Hamas belongs on your signs too. But most of you don't put it there.

Now let me be clear: Israel was a mistake and I do see it as an inferior society culturally.

What pushed me to make this post was a conversation I had with an anti Zionist a couple days. He was disgusted the israeli left didn’t go to war with the Israeli right after the assassination of Rabin in order to free, FREE PALESTINE like the northern states of America did with the confederacy.

And this got me thinking of a massive flaw in pro Palestinian advocacy in comparison to successful social justice movements.

They’ve not tried to get the dominant group that they acknowledge holds all the real power in the conflict to like Palestinians

Black Americans, gay Americans, made it a point to frame giving each group rights as beneficial to the dominant group or at least something that wouldn’t negatively impact them in any significant way.

The gay rights movement in the 90s made very very coordinated and careful messaging of just being regular people who’d like to get married and raise the children no one wants.

Gay guys could be a non-threatening male confidant to women even.

Black Americans made it apparent the political party most favorable to them would get their votes.

Palestinian aren’t offering any benefit to Israeli Jews.

The most popular group amongst them is promising to eradicate or expel or subjugate the majority of the population.

Hamas is often compared to the ANC. But the thing is even besides the fact the anc tried to be discriminatory in their violence they still preached coexistence and had members in their organization.

Also three years ago this group did murder and rape Israeli leftists and progressives at a music festival.

The most accommodating part of Israel society got the most vicious sort of violence.

The method trying to convince the dominant group of the utility of ending an oppression has gone out the window in recent years in the social justice scene.

People should be given rights merely because it is right.

Which I agree with.

But it wouldn’t be particularly convincing to many people who either hate or feel threaten by the group whose rights are supposedly being oppressed.

And if they’re currently in a situation wherein they think giving those rights to the people they hate will end with their murder and deaths they simply will not do it,

It doesn’t matter if you scream on social media about it or burn down a coffee shop in France for the fFREE FREE Palestine.

The vast majority of the Israeli population—-Israeli Jews will continue onward increasing the pressure on Palestinian society until either the neck breaks or they tap out in defeat.

Let's look at the mathematical absurdity of Israel's 'only democracy' in the Middle East: under full Israeli control live approximately 15.5 million people (10 million citizens and 5.5 million Palestinians in the occupied territories). However, only 7.3 million are eligible voters. This means that more than 52% of the population under their rule is politically completely disenfranchised and has absolutely no say regarding the laws that decisively shape and restrict their lives.

Around 350,000 Palestinians living in occupied East Jerusalem cannot vote in Israeli parliamentary elections, even though Israel annexed this part of Jerusalem after occupying it in the 1967 war, an action considered illegal, and views it as part of its territory. Israel granted Palestinians in East Jerusalem permanent residency status but did not grant them citizenship. On the other hand, Israeli residents of illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where more than 750,000 of them live, are permitted to vote in Israeli parliamentary elections.