@lain keep it up with these gifs

Gm

I should sleep so I can do actual "work" tomorrow

@Kazak if the soviets "brutally genocided" Lithuanians and its so undeniable you laugh, where's the article in any reliable encyclopedia? you seem to think its about the holodomor, it isnt.

@bajax @Kazak I want to note that this doesnt include the holodomor, which is not denied. its mostly used by Lithuanians who dont want to feel guilty about killing more of their jewish neighbors than the Germans themselves did. and it doesnt just mean soviets, it usually means to imply that jews specifically committed a genocide against the Lithuanian nation.

@subnetter @Ree @patchuun @scathach
when I said I have a nuanced view, I was setting myself apart from those mostly influenced by the cold war dipole between zionist-american historiography and soviet-arab historiography (and the many leftist westerners who became sympathetic to the latter such). both sides are very biased towards their certain set of facts, and you seem to be latter. thats okay, because youre not irrational.
for instance, you dont deny jews are descended from canaanites when pressed, hm???
I'll address your points now.

the "jews living in harmony with christians and muslims" is a popular idea in palestinian historiography, to the extent they called jews established in palestine before 1947 "palestinians" (even though they overwhelmingly identify as jews and Israelis, and include and are no different from ashkenazi, sephardic, and mizrahi jews). the fact is that the jewish population in palestine has fluctuated a great deal after the roman expulsions and since the christian and islamic conquests. while the christians and the crusaders expelled the jews from jerusalem, under Islamic rule those jews were tolerated as dhimmis. they were a minority who acted like it and who didnt seek representation in the form of statehood. once their sizes grew enough though, the pogroms and boycotts of jewish businesses began. and it wasnt violence they were protesting, at this point most violence was pogroms against jews (for jews were outnumbered). it was the jewish immigration they protested, which I would definitely call settlement but not colonialism. to explain why, i disagree with calling it colonialism from the beginning because the jews were a stateless people, not a colony of any nation, what you mustve picked up on is that I noted it was influenced by european colonialism, and it was, but it was also influenced by a jewish nationalism as old as the hasmoneans. I only start to call it colonialist when the Israelis sought to form colonies of the state of israel in other nations and to-be nations. so zionism now is colonialist I would say, but I would not say it began as such. this isnt just a semantic matter, it rests on a denial of jewish peoplehood independent from where we lived (which at least you didnt deny) and jewish origins in Canaan (which you also didnt deny).

the comparison to the native americans (calling it a "holocaust" instead of just a genocide is frankly invidious and provocative in this context) is incredibly flawed. first off, as ive said you did not contest, both jews and palestinians are native to palestine. but perhaps the biggest flaw of course in an overarching genocide narrative is that the population of palestinians has consistently grown, whereas the native americans shrunk to practically nothing due mostly to diseases, but also due to forced marches and recognized genocidal acts particularly in the case of the trail of tears. the current war in gaza is genocidal because of the bombing of hospitals and other civilian services and the restriction of food and medicine, but it overall has a death toll nowhere near rivaling the total deaths of native americans.
another distinction is that we subjected native americans to cultural genocide. compare native americans on reservations forced to be reeducated in white schools to palestinians in israel or even in refugee camps who almost always are educated by other palestinians (this brings up UNRWA, which exists to keep palestinians dispossessed not to resettle them unlike every other refugee the UN serves). now ive heard complaints of Israeli cultural appropriation of arab things, especially arab food, which has merit, but only when you forget that half of Israels jews come from arab countries and ate that arab food. what else on this subject? both americans and jews were influenced by a sort of manifest destiny in their expanding settlements, and youre right that both oppressed a native people and left them confined to certain areas of autonomy. jewish expansionism is motivated by revanchism in particular, thats a fairly minor but notable difference.

anyway, were probably not going to agree on this topic. ive found I disagree with most people and half agree with many people because most people accept one set of narratives and facts while I accept both.

@Kazak keep calling me names buddy. see how it helps your "cause". literally all of those countries I mentioned treat christians better than jews and many have rights of returns for christians but not for jews. youre so biased you can't see the obvious. hell Lithuania even promotes borderline holocaust denial, the "double genocide" theory.

sorry to my sister for accusing her of taking my kale salad

the red vs blue discourse is heating up

@Kazak those countries favor whites over jews like you said, if your real interest is genocide denial I can't help you, european countries care more about preventing future atrocities than about free speech. its just white culture to be compassionate like that, hmm?

@subnetter @Ree @patchuun @scathach you neglect an important fact. the Roma are originally an indian people and if they chose a place to live in india and didnt displace anyone I would support their desire for statehood. the jews are a canaanite people who also preserved the canaanite language and religion and likewise if zionists hadnt displaced anyone in canaan I'd support them.

@Kazak literally every southern european, baltic and slavic country. enjoy!

if my sister took my FUCKING kale salad I'm gonna flip

@meowski @yakmacker @technolyze "I'm half jewish" too bad youre 100% wrong on this and many other issues

@Kazak you have lots of sovereign white states, enjoy!

@joey sorry but youre very wrong, its an ethnoreligious group

@subnetter @Ree @patchuun @scathach a serious discussion of zionism requires the jewish peoples story, which is a long one. it also requires the palestinian (and if were REALLY being serious, the lebanese, jordanian, and egyptian stories, ancient and modern, and it requires a partial history of europe also) story, which is significantly shorter as a concise historiographical narrative based on national aspirations but longer if you want a history of various civilizations who played a role in the making of the modern Arab of filastin (once inseparably part of al-sham). all those stories also overlap way more than the two peoples admit, or at least than Zionists admit, some palestinian nationalists admit to being descended partly from jews now. but basically my thoughts are it addressed wrongs while creating other wrongs, and those wrongs continue to escalate rapidly and they should stop immediately and be promptly redressed. the jews were a stateless diaspora people and so they themselves cannot be said to be true colonists of any state, but they were settlers and their state could not have happened without the colonialism of the turks and british and without the european ideals of a kind of statehood and of socialism (israel was socialist originally and the kibbutz system was a very successful form of socialism). on the "legal" (how legal are laws written by colonial powers? ofc those were the only laws widely sanctioned then) side of zionism, disregarding major jewish communities in the holy cities which predate zionism, zionists ended up with what is now israel due to a mix of ottoman laws (buying some land from turks and with certain land considered property of the governing power), english laws (one promise to jews, another promise to arabs!), and ultimately international law (the new UN). the native arab people always rejected any jewish sovereignty, even as small as in the peel commissions plan, in what is now palestine israel and jordan, and that is their prerogative. but if they had accepted that of course, then the UN partition plan that established grounds for israeli statehood with 56 percent of the land going to jews, 43 percent of land going to arabs, and Jerusalem as an international zone wouldve never been approved by a majority of member nations (in the wake of the horror of the holocaust). while there was some violence before israel declared statehood (like pogroms that expelled many jews from jerusalem and hebron, often cited by zionists as "why we coudnt live in peace" while ignoring the rising jewish immigration that fueled it), zionism as a matter of jewish conquest and dispossession (not merely buying up a bunch of land or settling new land) begins in earnest with the nakba which destroyed many arab communities and expelled nearly a million from their homes. it was the palestinian national catastrophe that began decades of sufferings in several middle eastern states. of course, at the same time nearly a million jews were also being expelled from middle eastern countries that declared war on the new state of israel, this could be said to be israels fault for declaring independence (though it cant be denied they were dhimmis and christian euro antisemitism had influenced many middle easterners by that time). also the large jewish community in what would become (by jordanian occupation) east jerusalem was also destroyed, which is not often noted except by Zionists. the partition of palestine and ensuing middle eastern war was a lot like the partition of india--another former british colony with mutual religious violence and displacement that created a large current refugee population. except obviously the jews were the more recent arrivals in palestine and the far more successful displacer. now I'm not gonna talk about the wars after this one in 1948 and its ensuing nakba, israel has won all the important ones and thus jordanian and egyptian occupation of palestine ended and now we have the occupation of (and system of settler colonialism and apartheid in) the west bank and the gaza strip (the latter which had all settlements dismantled, but was blockaded and now faces a genocide).
when I say I'm a post-zionist I mean that i believe that Israels purpose was achieved when it became the sole jewish state within the sole place a true jewish state could be and accepted jews with nowhere else to go, and that it should have not gone beyond that purpose by claiming more land and admitting bougie expats who are motivated solely by nationalism, let alone by committing atrocities.

zionism is either really great or pure evil depending on who you'd ask. Id say it could be a good thing if it played real nice with arabs but turned out to have a lot of evil in it due to sheer rapaciousness, pride and complacence.
is zionism nazism? I'd say no, I'd say this comparison is disgusting and victim blaming, but we have a genocide going, so I'd say at its worst it can be somewhat like it.
is zionism racist? once a majority of the west and a majority of americas important civil rights leaders found this to be a trivialization of racism and a demonization of age-old jewish aspirations, but zionism as its currently enforced through settlement and apartheid IS racist.
is zionism an indigenous rights/national liberation movement, as Zionists say? it was undeniably (unless you deny the jews are a people) the national liberation movement of a stateless people, but it tramples on the rights of the palestinians who are native to palestine despite their culture being arabized, so it can't be called an indigenous rights movement without making a mockery of such.

dont really wanna say much more this post took too long and dwelling on the crimes of my people once known more as victim than as criminal makes me big sad

@Ree @subnetter @patchuun @scathach some would say so, I'm a post-zionist so I actually have a nuanced take on it.

depeche moder in denial that theyre peche

@ink @scathach let's be real almost all religions are phallic religions. with abrahamics its circumcision and church steeples, with hindus is the lingam. with pagans its priapus. you can't avoid the penis except through extreme terfery.