That’s like saying “I know the term ‘patriot’ as referring to the republican party in the US”.
Like, yes, the right tries to take over the term, thus making all other parties “anti-Zionists”/“anti-patriotic”. But in reality the term crosses political boundaries.
If anything, the far-religious-right parties are the only (non-Arab) parties that don’t refer to themselves as Zionists (they have some issues with Zionism being a secular movent)
The Wikipedia article isn’t really something I, as someone who’d describe himself as a Zionist, would agree too.
I’m not going to go through every point, but talking about Zionism in terms of ethnicity is… weird. Like, that’s technically right, in the scene that the Jewish people are “A group of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups.” (link), but you’re trying to use it in the context of race, and that’s factually wrong. Israel are probably is one of the most racially diverse countries in the world.
The translated Hebrew Wikipedia article hits closer to home IMO:
Zionism is a national movement and ideology that aims to establish a national home state for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The Zionist movement, as a Jewish national movement, arose in the last third of the 19th century, mainly in Central and Eastern Europe.
Shortly after the establishment of the Zionist movement, most of the movement’s leaders linked its main goal with the renewal of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel - the establishment of a Jewish state. With the establishment of the State of Israel, Zionism continues to work to support Israel, ensure its existence and strengthen it.
The roots of Zionism lie in age-old motives and values inherent in religious tradition on the one hand, and in the national ideologies that flourished in Europe in the 19th century on the other. Zionism as a popular political movement that developed among the Jews in Eastern Europe was spurred by outbreaks of anti-Semitism and was fueled by a process of secularization that intensified among the Jewish population from the mid-19th century, which also gave its signs in the secularization of the two-thousand-year-old religious longing for Zion. The modern world has led to the fact that on the one hand, religion has ceased to be a sufficient identity definer for them. This conflict has led to the creation of a new national self-definition[1].
From its beginning, the goals of Zionism were the return to Zion, the gathering of the exiles, the revival of Hebrew culture and language, the creation of a new Jew – muscular Judaism according to Max Nordau, and the establishment of independent Jewish sovereignty. According to Benjamin Zeev Theodor Herzl, who is considered the thinker of modern Zionism, Zionism is a broad tract of ideas, which includes not only the aspiration for a legally guaranteed political territory for the Jewish people, but also the aspiration for moral and spiritual perfection. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Zionist movement has continued to mainly support Israel and address threats to its existence and security.
From its beginning, Zionism was not homogeneous. Its ideology, leaders, and parties were different from each other and even contradictory. The need of the hour, along with the longing to return to the homeland of the ancestors, led to compromises and concessions for the sake of a common cultural and political goal.
Edit: The English Wikipedia article from mid 2023 is also good:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230312004301/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
My guess is that it’s been revised in the last year-and-a-half to retroactively make what’s happening in Gaza a natural extension of Zionism.
It’s not just the third one. A non-marginal minority of people will be hurt by valid criticism even if it meant to to help them (I’m saying this as a third party observer. This isn’t me telling someone “Hey, you’re an idiot. Whoa, why are you acting offended? I’m just trying to help you be less of an idiot! Wow, some people can’t take constructive criticism”).
I know I’m at the low end of caring what people think about me, and that other people will get offended by some things. That’s fine, not saying they’re wrong to feel one way or another. I just can’t empathize or model the mechanism that makes them feel that way.
Not technically a behavior, but - having hurt feelings over other people expressing their negative opinion about myself.
Like, say someone tells me I look bad of that I acted badly or whatever. I see three options:
I guess it’s some defense mechanism? I can see how that would work with people prone to narcissism, but having ones feeling hurt over things like that seems normalized in (most?) societies.
Oh, also religion. People believe in an all powerful being that personally cares about every person in the world, but is unwilling to reveal itself? Despite having zero corroborating evidence? And he’s responsible for every good thing that happens to me therefore I should see that as proof it exists and believe more, but if something bad happens that’s because I didn’t believe hard enough and should therefore believe more? And you’re sure about that and don’t see how that might be purely because this answers a psychological and social need? I understand I’m exaggerating a bit, and no offense to religious people, but… I don’t get it.
Telegraph and wire transfers were a thing 100 years ago, you could say “Everyone have a telegraph at home. Private communication, for example orders to your bank to wire money, uses codes/cyphers that can be decoded if the third party was smart enough”.
You’d have to go back before the discovery of electricity, and even then you could make an analogy with lighthouses (which isn’t really a stretch, as fiber optic cables can be described as point-to-point light houses), and most people at most periods are probably familiar with the idea of talking in codes.
Technology isn’t really that hard to explain. Social change is much harder. Try explaining to someone from 1920 that the US had a black president and nothing catastrophical happened, or that all professions today are open to women and you’d have a much harder time.
For the same reason western European countries have roads connecting them to Russia.
To address your second point “not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump”; why isn’t the opposite true? “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris”, follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?
You’re missing some context - “not voting [instead of] for Harris is a vote for Trump”. If the dilemma is between not voting and voting Harris, choosing not to vote subtracts a vote from Harris.
Of course Harris got a boost in donations after she became the candidate - she appealed the the people who thought Biden was too conservative. That doesn’t mean conservative democrats are an insignificant demographic, they simply already donated earlier. The move towards the center is meant to not drive them away into not voting [instead of voting for Harris]. Obviously there will be some progressives and some conservatives who will decide to not vote [instead of voting for Harris], the goal is to move to the point where these margins from both sides will be minimal.
Volunteering?
There’s a good chance got them because dunkin donated them or because the cafe didn’t want to give cash for fear it could be construed as pay.
The point of gift cards is that they’re: a. Not money (when using money might have some sort of disadvantage for either side). b. Have restrictions that the person who gave it to you might want to impose. c. Are usually cheaper than paying money directly to the vendor.
And frankly, no one forced you to try and use them. They were given as a gesture of appreciation, and you could have given them to someone who would have been happy to have them, or just politely refuse to accept them. Also, not checking the expiration date is on you.
Yes, young people usually engage more in “forbidden” activities than older people.
Yes, Fatah is a relatively secular organization. And is absolutely a better start than Hamas.
You should to realign your metrics for the middle east if you think If “hooking up with Putin” is the worst thing someone can do there.
Are you thinking “young people” = “less religious”?
That’s mainly the case for Christians/the west, not Muslims in Muslim countries.
Which one, the west bank or Gaza?
Or do you think each one will get an autonomy in almost every aspect, but will still be part of the same state?
Depends on the starting conditions.
There are two main “forces” at play here:
Hamas, which is an fundamentalist, religious and military organization backed by Iran. If they were to gain power in a Palestinian state, it would look something like Hezbollah controlled areas in Lebanon. So… not good.
Fatah, on the other hand, is a (relatively) secular organization that’s in good relations with western countries. If they were to gain power, Palestine would be more open to western influence, and will probably treat women, secular people and minorities better. This version of Palestine will probably be the most pro-western Arab state, so it might be more influenced by western values more than other Arab states. Of course, in the mid- or long run it’s possible an extremist power will rise regardless of western backing (ex. Iran).
Assuming a you’re talking about the near future, which organization will have control largely depends on if Hamas would exist. If so, they’ll probably get the credit for a recognized state due to their “resistance”. Then again, it’s very possible one of the conditions for a universally recognized state will be the elimination of Hamas as a political (and obviously military) force.
I’m kinda ignoring the “including Israel” part of your question, as Israel would absolutely not accept any version of Palestine with Hamas.
Obviously, it would depend on which country you’re asking.
No idea about the US, but what you’re describing has kinda been done. The PIs were hired for a set amount of time to track some politicians during the day, and were supplemented by freedom of information requests and data from public sources.
Most of the findings were what you would expect (Some parliament members barely came to the parliament, some had days with mostly political activists/lobbing/business magnate). There were a few “out there” examples, as one parliament member was doing grocery shopping etc. Thing is, this method is pretty good to figure out what politicians work for the public and who works for private interests, but it’s nearly impossible to actually uncover anything that’s even skirting on the illegal. A PI can’t wiretap or search private property.
A tangent, but In the same spirit, there’s a crowdfunded lobbying agency called Lobby 99.
OK, I’ll just answer plainly, and if I misunderstood you, feel free to correct me:
OP asked about the difference in Israel’s response to Munich and Gaza. I tried answering that to the best of my ability, as it seems most other answers didn’t correct the implicit assumption that Israel doesn’t go after Hamas’s leaders. If you think someone is “obsessed with Munich”, you should respond to the OP.
However, I get the feeling some people here took the question as “let’s use this question to further convince ourselves/others that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza”. In this context, your reply makes more sense when it’s addressed to me.
Err… did I misunderstood the question, or do (nearly?) all commenters have no idea what they’re talking about?
You’re asking why Israel doesn’t assassinate Hamas’s top leaders, right? Or did I misunderstood and you asking Israel doesn’t ONLY assassinate Hamas’s top leaders? Or are you asking why Israel responded differently to Munich?
To answer the first question, well… they are. Hamas’s top leaders according to BBC are:
Also, keep in mind that the response to the Munich massacre took about 2 decades.
As to why Israel dosen’t ONLY assassinate Hamas’s leadership, the simple answer is that it won’t solve anything. It won’t bring the hostages home (It will probably have opposite effect as a. it will leave Israel without a centralized entity with whom to negotiate and b. Sinwar might be using hostages as human shields, which also might explain why he’s still alive), and it will still leave Israel with a terrorist entity next door. The official Israeli version is that the assassinations, among other things, serve as leverage on Hamas leaders to secure a deal. Obviously, this is only effective if there is some leadership left.
If you’re asking why Israel responded differently to Munich, it’s because the situation is totally different in numerous ways. But the question itself is also factually wrong - Israel didn’t only assassinate the leaders of Black September. Firstly, the goal was to “assassinate individuals they accused of being involved in the 1972 Munich massacre”, not just the leaders. Not only that, Israel also responded with raids and bombings (for example: 1973 Israeli raid in Lebanon).
I have two main moral guidelines by which I try to live:
A. Try to leave everything better than it was before, or at least avoid making it worse. It doesn’t have to be by much, but if every person makes things just one tiny bit better, the culminating effect will be great. Do your part.
B. The difference between a moral person and an immoral one usually doesn’t lie in the ability/inability to know right from wrong, rather in the ability to rationalize their immoral actions. Therefore:
From there, there are a few rules that help me along the way:
Everyone are wrong. Assume you’re wrong about some important things/core beliefs, you’ve just yet to discover which ones. Don’t hesitate to act according to what you think is right, but understand you’re probably doing something wrong somewhere. Look for signs that show that’s the case.
Making mistakes is fine and inevitable. Reflect on your mistakes and try not to make the same mistake twice.
Use everything as an opportunity to learn. The best way to learn is from other people’s mistakes - it provides a visceral lesson without you having to pay the price.
People’s opinions of you are their business, not yours. Though you should choose to use them to improve yourself when applicable.
Admitting being wrong or admitting a mistake will not only improve things, but is a sign of strength. Not doing so is a sign of weakness. This is true both for yourself and for other people.
Give people the benefit of the doubt and don’t be quick to judge them. Wait until you have enough data and then come to conclusions.
No rule is correct in all situations.
External rules (and laws) exist for a reason. If you’re going to break one of them, first understand why it’s there in the first place and why it should be ignored. Do not assume you know better than the people who came up with it.
Blanket statements can be correct or incorrect for the most part, but they can’t be used to solely justify an action or an opinion.
You can use LLMs to, well, do what they’re designed to do - generate text. Need to write a marketing text? Summersie a meeting or make a summery more readable? Rewrite an “about” page to incorporate something new? Just be sure to read through the generated text and make sure it’s correct.
Cool. Thanks
Yeah, that’s what I meant by “My guess is that it’s been revised in the last year-and-a-half to retroactively make what’s happening in Gaza a natural extension of Zionism”.
You’re talking about the Israeli reaction to the Oct. 7th attack, not Zionism. Some people are trying to link these things together, making the very concept of a Jewish state in the area of Israel “genocidal” (while also tying it to white supremacy, as a bonus). That’s not the case.
Yes, some Zionists would like to kill as many Palestinians (a disproportional part of them are a part of the Israeli government). Then again, some people who like to put ketchup on their steaks would also like to kill as many Palestinians. That doesn’t mean liking ketchup on your steak makes you genocidal.