Virginia Delegate Sam Rasoul, whose family was displaced by Israel, wrote about the āevilsā of Zionism, prompting a flurry of attacks from Tim Kaine, Abigail Spanberger, and other party colleagues.
Virginia Delegate Sam Rasoul, whose family was displaced by Israel, wrote about the āevilsā of Zionism, prompting a flurry of attacks from Tim Kaine, Abigail Spanberger, and other party colleagues.
Iām not talking to Palestinians, Iām talking to you. Iām pretty sure I explicitly said that I get why this person would say things that way. Sure, heās allowed. Youāre not. For you, I feel like itās fine for me to point out when youāre using language that can be used in a careless way that can (and does) hinder the Palestinian cause by being used to attack their defenders. Right?
I would never dream of responding to this personās post by trying to tone-police him. Iām responding to the OP article, which is describing some people as ātop Democratsā who are not top Democrats, putting their statements next to statements from the ADL to create an overall gestalt about āDemocratsā by bringing in other things from other sources, other dishonest things. And Iām responding to you. Again, he gets to say these things in the way he wants to say them, itās fine, heās earned it. You have not. I get to disagree with you about your use of language.
I feel like Iāve reiterated enough at this point what my issue is. One person in the article is describing Zionism as āa supremacist ideology created to destroy and conquer everything and everyone in its way.ā Pretty much everyone in this conversation, I think, is against that. One other person is describing it as āthe desire of Jewish people to have a state of Israel.ā Some people might be against that, for valid reasons at this point, but I donāt think it is fair to attack someone who wants the second thing as if they were supporting the first thing. Using one word for both of those things and saying things like that itās the job of the āhonest universalist democratic zionistsā to make you stop, and otherwise youāre going to continue with it, is just weird.
Youāre talking about Zionism as if itās a single international club, with central definitions and leadership that can include or exclude particular people. Honestly you seem like youāre just persistently missing the point of what Iām trying to say. Iāve said it a few different times at this point, and it seems like youāre still not grasping what Iām saying, so Iām going to give up trying. Cheers.
Well, we have spent the last few comments discussing what other zionisms could be like, so I donāt know where the idea that I am asserting zionism in the abstract is a monolith is coming from. But it is actually true that zionism in the concrete, or āreally existing zionismā if you will, has certain characteristics and is in fact the current ideological basis for an ongoing genocide. Abstract vs concrete. It matters.
Other than that, I think we are confusing a couple of things.
I disagree with your reading of the article as somehow smearing āDemocratsā. Itās about Virginia politics. Top democrats in Virginia talking about a Virginia delegate. Virginia, Virginia, Virginia. Nothing dishonest about focusing on Virginia. It is in that context that my comments refer, in that context that the word zionism is being used, not to this discussion between us. Anyway, nice talking to you.
No, you spent the last few comments saying that. I was saying something totally different from that. What was I saying? I am curious about your reading comprehension.
You also still havenāt answered my question, I donāt think. Am I a Zionist? Is Bernie Sanders? You really want to be able to use this terminology, say that particular people are or are not Zionists (in the āreally existingā form), so I am curious to hear how you would apply it when youāre not trying to construct the exact messaging thatās your favorite messaging to construct with it.
Nothing in the headline says āVirginia.ā Actually, if it said āTop Virginia Democratsā I would think it would be significantly less dishonest. But theyāre clearly trying to paint a particular picture, through creative use of ambiguous language and editing the boundaries of the picture creatively. Hence my objection.
You are saying that the word means too many different things to too many different people and therefore is not helpful to be used. Did I get it right?
I did answer, I told you I donāt care.
Point out to me where I applied the term it to any particular person.
People who say they are zionists are zionists. So, to get back to your question (āAm I a Zionist? Is Bernie Sanders?ā): do you identify as one? Then you are one. Does Bernie identify as one? Then he is one.
100% right. Doesnāt that make sense, though? You donāt necessarily have to agree with me that itās not helpful, but isnāt it weird to just kind of keep using it and acting like weāre talking about what the ārealā definition of it should be when you know that thatās my argument?
Soā¦ youāre on board with defining some people as āevil,ā but you couldnāt care less whether any particular people are or are not in that category that youāre calling āevil.ā You just know that people in this vague category are evil. Sterling. Iāve literally never heard of that working out bad for any reason, in history or anywhere else.
The whole substance of the kerfuffle to me is that different people mean different things when they say it. Rasoul means one thing, and I get what his message means, it makes sense to me. But then some other people see it, and they think heās talking about a totally different group of people, and they get heated up about it, which also makes sense. Now youāre coming in with a third definition, which Iāve actually never heard before (Iāve actually seen people get accused of being Zionists and then extensive arguments about why they are Zionists and what it means, they definitely didnāt get to use your definition āwell I say Iām not, so that means Iām not.ā)
This is no way to run a railroad. The purpose of language is communication. Itās actually fine if different people mean different things when they use words, it doesnāt take too much to get to the heart of the issue and people can talk it out without the language getting in the way. But you seem totally unconcerned about any of this, and just kind of want to make a simplistic point without needing to define your words well or get everyone on the same page. I donāt think that will work, I donāt think itās a good way to try to type messages, thatās why I am disagreeing with you.
No it doesnāt make sense. I never pushed to you any ārealā definition, I specifically talked about multiple definitions. I donāt understand whatās āweirdā. If youāre touchy about the word, feel free to exit the discussion. Many words have multiple, often contradictory and historically loaded meanings: āchristianityā, āsocialismā, āhonourā. Whatās weird about talking about them?
Where the actual fuck did I do that?
The only time I mentioned the word āevilā was to say āthe vast majority of zionists who mean something completely different than you, and something much more sinister and evil,ā. I was referring to this: āNearly half of Israelis support army killing all Palestinians in Gaza, poll finds. An overwhelming number of Israelis, including seculars, back the forced transfer of Palestinians from Gaza and Israelā. I think we can we agree that forced transfer of population, i.e., ethnic cleansing, is evil, right? I am not ādefining people as evilā. I am saying that a majority Israelis define their zionism as including something sinister and evil: ethnic cleansing.
I already told you: āI personally donāt consider the word āzionistā to be a slur.ā I donāt use it as an accusation. So I donāt know what to do with your defensiveness here.
If somebody was writing about the āevilsā of socialism, I would actually have exactly the same complaint about it for exactly the same reason. I would actually fully expect people to have precisely Tim Kaineās reaction to it, basically to say āWhoa WTF are you talking about, I am socialist, and Iām not evil.ā Thatās actually a pretty good example to explain what I am trying to clarify with you.
Christianityās a little differentā¦ I think āhonorā actually has enough of an agreed-upon definition that you wouldnāt need to get tangled up in the definition of āhonor.ā Thatās actually another instructive example: Two people arguing about whether a third person āhas honorā are unlikely to be unintentionally wrangling about āwhat does honor mean,ā and so getting themselves confused about it in the same way that they might be if theyāre arguing about āZionismā or āsocialism,ā and so itās more likely to be productive. They might disagree, but they wonāt extensively go in circles about it. With these kind of broad and definition-varies-by-the-person definitions, you just have to be really careful with how you apply it and talk about it, especially when huge issues of good and evil are involved, or else youāre going to do material harm to people who are trying to help you, and make it more difficult for them to help you.
When you posted the article about āthe āevilsā of Zionismā along with āZionism has proven how evil our society can beā and āa supremacist ideology created to destroy and conquer everything and everyone in its way. This is Zionism.ā
Again, heās not wrong. I get what heās saying, it is accurate. But you can understand how someone who thinks āZionist = anyone who thinks Israel should be allowed to existā could read that and then object to it. Right? Or no? I feel like youāre having a lot of trouble grasping simple points here.
Advanced reading comprehension: Why did I bring this up? I get that you donāt know what to do with it, but what point was I trying to make when bringing up accusations of someone being a Zionist that Iāve seen before? Iāve touched on it and why it is important a few different times.
Alright, at this point Iāll disengage. Have a nice day.
Fwiw I read that as you apparently intended, and I think OP couldnāt allow for it and still support outrage for the āTop Democratsā complaints. Even though they apparently (sort of) agreed?
I got the impression no one ever really engaged them on why calling people evil Zionists would ever face pushback. I got the impression thatās the case for a lot of people raised by facebook, 4chan, and the exciting apps that now essentially make up āthe whole worldā.
Yeah. A lot of times itās pretty simplistic thinking. Anything that sounds vaguely like youāre saying that Israel isnāt evil can just get shouted down without getting engaged with, and usually people will cheer for that reaction.
Also people donāt like to āloseā internet arguments whatever are the facts of the matter, and me being an unrepentant dickhead during the disagreement definitely doesnāt help make it easier to have the conversation. Whatever man