Fuck Hamas. They are not “resisting”, they killed innocent civilians, women and children, and don’t give a flying fuck about the Palestinian civilians either (cf Moussa Abu Marzouk’s declaration that they are not responsible for defending the civilians in Gaza). They are a creation of the Israeli apartheid regime’s own making when they were hoping to destroy the credibility of the PA, to perpetuate their colonialist narrative. Hamas and the Israeli apartheid are two sides of the same brutal, inhuman coin. Fuck Hamas as much as the Likud and the ultranationalist Israeli right to the seventh pit of hell.

I think you are talking about the PFLP? AFAIK, Fatah is still for the two state solution.

Not at all surprising that this would be the case, we are talking about Hamas after all, a murderous organization of extremists who carried out the October 7 atrocities. These people are amoral criminals.

Of course, this in no way justifies the Israeli apartheid regime’s own atrocities. They nurtured and supported Hamas hoping to destroy the credibility of the PA and perpetuate their colonialist narrative. And now they continue to use it to fulfill their extremist ultranationalistic/ fundamentalist religious delusions.

The PLO is the only sane party to this conflict, the only stakeholder with a sensible, reasonable and moderate position. Fuck the Israeli government and fuck Hamas.

So like, it was devalued.

According to the Russian president, Finland was “dragged” into Nato.

And who did the dragging Vlady?

Let’s start with the basic premise that German institutions don’t get to have a fucking little opinion about what a Jewish person may or may not say about the Holocaust.

All if this for a bunch of fucking hydrocarbons.

They want to provoke all out war. And American evangelicals are salivating…

Would be more credible if Bulgaria and Romania were not perpetually kept outside of Schengen for bullshit reasons.

All these are irrelevant when it comes to making peace.

Trump is literally a boomer.

History didn’t end with past failed negotiations.

You don’t have to like the PA in every way, you just need to have two parties ready to make peace. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

For the moment the PA is good enough to make peace. The Israeli government is not.

The PA recognizes the Two State Solution. Netanyahu doesn’t. It’s the Palestinians who are the reasonable ones and that don’t have an interlocutor in the other side. If someone like Barak were to take over in Israel we would be very close to peace.

I did not know the difference between the two types of dictionaries. I just used the last reference (#11) of the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Zionism.

But I don’t see how my argument is changed by the addition of the geographical component in the dictionary definition, which I already was assuming in my head at least. The Two State Solution is about two states in the areas that are currently Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

Until Bernie Sanders the word socialism was a dirty word in American politics. Now it’s a millennial and gen Z staple and does not connotate the soviet union and other cold war ghosts.

The fact that the kahanist Zionists are almost done eating up the word zionism doesn’t mean we should let them. We need to be appropriating the word back and putting it to good use.

Conceding Zionism to the extreme right (both in and out of Israel )is just a lack of political imagination, that condemns us to stay locked in the cycle.

The word Zionism can and should be réappropriated and made a tool for peace. It has a strong emotional attachment for Jews, while the majority of Palestinian political and civil society organizations have embraced its original and literal meaning in the sense of support for a Two State Solution. This means that Zionism can be a word that means the common sense of peace, justice and reconciliation. When the PLO and Fatah stand for the common sense solution, Palestinians have won.

Call me naive but I actually think that soon there will exist a brief window where peace will be more possible than it has been for a long time. So long as Israel, currently controlled by the kahanist virus, is not allowed to carry out genocide, that is. And as much as my commie ass hates to admit It, I kinda have a bit of faith on the Americans to play a good role in this.

My brother in Sigmar, I used the literal dictionary definition of the word.

OK, so hear me out: anyone who is for a Two State Solution can legitimately call themselves a zionist, because one of those two states is going to be Israel.

Zionism:

​a political movement that was originally begun in order to establish an independent state for Jewish people, and now supports the development and protection of the state of Israel

In current parlance, “zionism” has come be equated with kahanism and its variations, but that is wildly inaccurate. This is to say that Netanyahu’s and his allies’ brand of zionism is an extremist variant that threatens to subsume the whole.

But there are other brands of zionism that are peaceful and pro-palestinian. Namely: the zionism of Fatah and the PLO, who have accepted the 2 state solution.

I would even go so far as to claim that any One State Solution that envisions a pluralistic and democratic country shared in freedom and liberty between Jews, Muslims, Christians and others is also a zionist vision, as it assumes that this state would also be for the Jewish people (similar to how Canada is supposed to be also for the Quebecois people).

So, I am not sure why “zionism” should be a dirty word. Call the extremist zionists what they are: kahanists, reclaim the basic idea that zionism means that Jews also have the right to be safe in the lands of Israel-Palestine, and let’s have some peace and reconciliation.

I can very well imagine a scenario where Hamas had solely attacked military targets and this would have still happened. Israel is ruled by the extremist far right, the love this.

April 2023 riots in Sweden.

I reject however your framing as an association of Islam with violence. I reject the framing of making it about an entire religion. The framing I’m choosing is one of social peace and what endangers it.

Different than what? The law doesn’t single out Islam, it makes it illegal to publicly burn any religious text.

“Is Islam different”, such a weird question. As if there is one single “Islam”? And as if there is nothing unique about it, like what, are all religions interchangeable like Coca-Cola and Pepsi? This is an entirely pointless question. Unless you’re trying to tease out if I’m an extremist, either an islamophobe or an Islamist? In which case, ask your question directly, I guess?