Um, I didn’t make post #202, and you didn’t make post # 201. Seriously, are you OK? 
Did you actually read the link that was provided? It would answer both of your questions.
I don’t know, did they? And does any serious person think the Israeli military willfully and knowingly targeted an American ship?
And did American Christians and American atheists criticize the U.S. when it downed Iran Air Flight 655? I may have forgotten to do so; let me do so now.
The U.S. also killed nine British soldiers during the Gulf War; will you denounce that, fedman?
Be that as it may, the word itself has too much baggage. The whole, “I’m not anti-Jewish, I’m anti-Zionist” simply smacks of “I’m not a bigot, BUT…”.
(Traditionally, didn’t “Zionist” simply mean a supporter of Israel?)
It depends when you ask. Prior to 1948, Zionist meant a Jewish supporter of the establishment of a Jewish state. Nowadays, for most Israelis it’s just the local word for “patriot”, with the added wrinkle of supporting Jewish immigration to Israel.
That said, like patriotism, Zionism can have different meanings dependent on a person’s political leanings. To the far right, settling the West Bank is an essential part of what they define as their Zionism. I consider myself a Zionist too, and I think the whole settlement enterprise was a huge mistake. Like anywhere else, a great deal of the political debate in this country is defining what exactly it means to love your country.
I’m starting to come around to the idea that Omar is becoming a “whipping boy” for American conservatives (à la AOC). She has said some pretty harsh things about other countries too.
Somalia
[
](https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/248911112416940032)
Saudi Arabia
[
](https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/289225140506599425)[
](https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1052046943369789440)[
](https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1100522084030185473)
I hope Omar continues to speak her mind and not be bullied into silence.
Well, you are correct. I actually never realized it was restricted to Jews.
All that said, whoever says it and for whatever reason, it is not unreasonable to say that Israel might well be buying off American politicians. If we can accuse Trump and his congressional minions of taking Russian, or Saudi, or Omani, or Ukrainian or whoever money and being thereby influenced, there seems no reason why we can’t (if evidence exists) accuse some lawmakers of being likely to be under the influence of Israeli or Jewish contributors.
The NRA is a lobby that encourages the use of devices that kill by homicide over 10000 Americans every year, three or four times what the toll was on 9/11, yet we have a clear political and moral divide between Americans whether that is a problem worthy of calling out politicians who take NRA money.
One could even go to an extreme and say that Warren or Sanders, asking for small donations only, could be accused of then being influenced to take money from wealthy Americans and give it to poor ones. Some folks think that is a great idea, others, not so much.
Yes, I did, I was looking to see if those who had made the respective claims had actually read or understood the links that they had provided, as the claims that they had made were not supported by the information contained in those links.
And the answer is: apparently not.
It does mean a supporter of Israel, but it traditionally means a supporter of a state in Eretz Ysrael (the land of Israel) which includes all of Israel and Palestine, as well as parts of Sinai, Jordan and Lebanon. The modern state of Israel doesn’t have ambitions on any of Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt (and actually ceded Sinai to Egypt in a peace agreement), but the idea that Palestine shouldn’t be a state is still rooted in the original concept.
Sorry, but that’s just not true. The “whole Israel” policy was never a base tenet of Zionism. Israel’s founding fathers and mothers - most of whom were left-wing, BTW -were willing to accept a Jewish state in part, not all, of the historic Land of Israel (although admittedly it wasn’t their first preference). Claiming that a two-state solution is anti-Zionist is just another piece of right-wing bullshit.
Obviously that’s not the purpose of the NRA, but they actually spend very little on lobbying, comparatively, they are not in the Top 50 lobby groups. They dont need to, they have millions of single issue voters.
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big
*Fifty companies and industry groups shelled out more than $716 million to lobby the federal government and Congress last year, according to data provided to The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The five biggest spenders in lobbying last year, in descending order, were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Realtors, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the American Hospital Association and the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America.
Rounding out the top 10 were the American Medical Association, Boeing, the National Association of Broadcasters, AT&T and Business Roundtable.*
Zionism originally is the belief in greater Israel. The modern state of Israel was founded as a compromise, and the two state solution (which is not something Israeli policy has ever been in favor of) isn’t anti-Zionist; it’s a pragmatic compromise position that achieves some of the goals of Zionism but isn’t a complete victory.
This isn’t my understanding of Zionism – my understanding that is that it’s merely the belief that there should be a Jewish state to serve as a safe place for Jews, in a world that’s largely been hostile to their (our) existence. Like many philosophies and ideologies, there are many sects, factions, and “flavors” within the larger philosophy/ideology, but I consider myself a Zionist based on this definition, purely because history has demonstrated that the Jews so often are not safe as a minority in other countries.
To me the word has connotations of “believing in a religious mandate to occupy the land.” But it’s problematic then if it’s mis-applied to people who are secular, because it then misrepresents their motivations. That’s leaving aside the (large) number of anti-Semitic cranks who have simply been using the term as a shorthand for “Jews” and then trying to claim plausible deniability (David Duke comes to mind.) I just don’t see the word Zionist as being conducive to discussions about America’s relations with Israel in most cases.
There are many types of Zionism (Types of Zionism - Wikipedia), but the advocacy for what is now the modern state of Israel were originally pragmatic forms that did believe in creating a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael, but saw a partition as a positive compromise step. Immediately prior to 1948, the main factions were David Ben Gurion’s “Practical Zionism” and the Irgun’s “Revisionist Zionism”.
David Ben Gurion advocated for the partition in the 30’s saying, “This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.”
-citatoins for the exert and full letter:
http://www.palestineremembered.com/download/B-G%20LetterTranslation.pdf
Da’hell kind of website is that? “The Spartan Jew”? “Biblical and Holocaust Exploitation”?
:dubious:
Jesus Christ.
(I am NOT saying there are not aggressive, imperialistic Zionists, such as Netanyahu.)
Not going to pretend it isn’t a biased website lol. Wikipedia did have two other cites for that exerpt (possibly because that website is not particularly trustworthy. The other online cite seemed like it was just as biased, and the paper one I’m obviously not going to find.
I’m actually not sure what Netanyahu’s real motivation is. I think it’s likely that it’s simply to remain in power at all costs.
– Paul Krugman
He meant post 2oo and post 201. He made a simple slip-up.
You…you seriously needed this explained to you?