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.
Usually, if someone requests something that annoys me and I’m in a position to refuse, I just go ahead and refuse or outright disregard the request.
Oh, come on…
From the link: “Video game available on Steam allows players to simulate being a Hamas teroist who k*lls Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar,’” the account posted. In November, Nijm released an update called the “Operation al-Aqsa Flood Update,” which alludes to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel by having Palestinian fighters paragliding into an Israeli military base.”
Fair enough. Have a good one.
No. You have given an opposite example.
I said “Would you be against […] a game glorifying the IDF as it fights against Hamas terrorists in Gaza?” (and I would link to that if I could figure out how to do that…).
The main part of your message is just you saying “Israel are Nazis!!!”, which is besides the point.
Panzer Corps probably glorifies Nazis as well.
Great. as I said earlier - I’m willing to put $1000 that this game doesn’t glorify Nazis, and $100 more that it actively makes it clear to the player that while the game is played from the Nazi perspective, the game isn’t intended to glorify Nazis. Would you be willing to take that bet?
Bliutzkrieg Poland: Heroes of the third reich” has a very explicit context. The third reich specifically refers to nazi Germany.
Sorry, but if you think “panzer corps” doesn’t specifically refers to Nazi Germany, that’s on you. The first line from Wikipedia reads: A panzer corps (German: Panzerkorps) was an armoured corps type in Nazi Germany’s Wehrmacht during World War II.
You just said you’d be okay with glorification of “theoretical” Nazis, but not if they hadn’t committed multiple war crimes, countless atrocities, murdering and incarcerating people based on mental health, ethnicity and sexual orientation. No, the thing you’re most with is that they didn’t have a good enough reason to invade Poland.
I lost interest in talking to you.
I’ve already given that example earlier…
What other comment?
Okay, let’s put that another way:
Do you agree that “Knights of al-Aqsa” probably glorifies Hamas?
Do you agree that “Panzer Corps” probably does not glorify the Nazis?
If you answered “yes” to both questions, do you understand the difference between both games?
If the Nazis had legitimate grievances against the Polish? Maybe.
Who decides what’s “legitimate”?
Parts of Poland belonged to the second Reich, but were taken away by force in the aftermath of WWI. From the Nazi perspective, they had every right to claim them back.
Edit: Wait, what just happened? Did you actually say saying you’d be okay with a game glorifying the Nazi invasion to Poland if they “had legitimate grievances against the Polish”? WTF?
Your premise is flawed in that it assumes everything a Palestinian resistance fighter does is terrorism that can’t ve glorified.
My premise assumes that every Hamas fighter that crossed into Israel on Oct. 7th is a terrorist. The “resistance fighters” that attacked military bases are the same people who raped party goers, burned to death civilians in their homes and kidnapped men, women, children and the elderly to be used as a bargaining chip and human shields.
Would I be for a ban of Fatah fighters attacking IDF bases? Maybe, maybe not. I probably wouldn’t argue over it with strangers on the internet, for what that’s worth.
Would you object to an Irish-made game that allows you to play as the IRA and car bomb the British?
Depends. is it called “Knights of the IRA” or glorify the IRA in any way? Then I would support the ban. Because the they were a terrorist movement that targeted civilians. Why would you even ask that? Are you seriously okay with glorifying terrorists if you happen to agree with their goals?
I’m willing to put $1000 that this game doesn’t glorify Nazis, and $100 more that it actively makes it clear to the player that while the game is played from the Nazi perspective, the game isn’t intended to glorify Nazis.
I said “glorifying the Nazi invasion”, not “play as a German soldier in World War 2”. These are two very different things. Why the hell do I even have to explain this?
The game is called “Fursan al-Aqsa: The Knights of the Al-Aqsa Mosque”. How about a game called “Bliutzkrieg Poland: Heroes of the third reich”? In what store can I buy that one?
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.
Let’s flip the question around.
Would you be against a video game glorifying the Nazi invasion to Poland if it didn’t show Nazis killing civilians?
How about a game glorifying the IDF as it fights against Hama’s terrorists in Gaza?
For the same reason western European countries have roads connecting them to Russia.
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.