Surely you have a policy because you think Zionism is racism? Not make that the policy itself.
Not saying I agree with the statement, just feels performative and stupid.
VreamCanMan on
Scottish greens looking at the greens and wondering why they cant be normal
denyer-no1-fan on
>defined Zionism – the Jewish right to self-determination
This is why the Telegraph is ill-suited to discuss the politics around Zionism. Jews around the world have the right to self-determination _where they live_. American Jews have the right in America, British Jews in Britain, and so on. But anyone with no immediate ties to historic Palestine, Jewish or otherwise, has the right to self determination in historic Palestine.
Zionism is fundamentally about the establishment and expansion of a nation-state for an ethnic group at a place that belongs to someone else – the Palestinians. It is NOT the Jewish right to self-determination, it is the right to establish a Jewish nation state in the land of Palestine.
FireZeLazer on
Complaining about Zionism in 2026 is a crazy thing, I really don’t understand it
HMWYA on
“The Greens are surging in popularity at present at a time when anti-Semitism in Britain on the rise.”
I mean, fucking hell, that is such appalling framing. Blatant propaganda, and it is insane to me that the British right-wing press are genuinely trying the antisemitism smears again against the one major political party with a Jewish leader. Farcical.
Darrenb209 on
>It also called for the abolition of the state of Israel and the establishment of a “single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital”.
As always with this type of thing, there’s something insane in the motion that people completely ignore.
You cannot turn back the clock or undo actions taken. *Any* single state solution would be a very bloody and horrific mess, never mind one formed from the explicit destruction of the other state.
Astriania on
The word ‘zionism’ needs to be put to bed. It describes an early 20th century movement to create an ethnonationalist state in Palestine, and unless you’re talking about that period of history, it has no meaning.
And two different types of people pick two different meanings as convenient for their argument, which makes it impossible to use the term honestly in the modern day. It’s either “respecting Israel’s right to exist”, or “supporting Israel in its expansionist occupation policies against its Arab neighbours” – and one of those is obviously a lot more racist and abhorrent than the other.
Any motion like this is going to descend into farcical semantic arguments about which of those two you’re talking about. Put the term away and criticise the latter explicitly, it doesn’t need a label.
7 Comments
Surely you have a policy because you think Zionism is racism? Not make that the policy itself.
Not saying I agree with the statement, just feels performative and stupid.
Scottish greens looking at the greens and wondering why they cant be normal
>defined Zionism – the Jewish right to self-determination
This is why the Telegraph is ill-suited to discuss the politics around Zionism. Jews around the world have the right to self-determination _where they live_. American Jews have the right in America, British Jews in Britain, and so on. But anyone with no immediate ties to historic Palestine, Jewish or otherwise, has the right to self determination in historic Palestine.
Zionism is fundamentally about the establishment and expansion of a nation-state for an ethnic group at a place that belongs to someone else – the Palestinians. It is NOT the Jewish right to self-determination, it is the right to establish a Jewish nation state in the land of Palestine.
Complaining about Zionism in 2026 is a crazy thing, I really don’t understand it
“The Greens are surging in popularity at present at a time when anti-Semitism in Britain on the rise.”
I mean, fucking hell, that is such appalling framing. Blatant propaganda, and it is insane to me that the British right-wing press are genuinely trying the antisemitism smears again against the one major political party with a Jewish leader. Farcical.
>It also called for the abolition of the state of Israel and the establishment of a “single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital”.
As always with this type of thing, there’s something insane in the motion that people completely ignore.
You cannot turn back the clock or undo actions taken. *Any* single state solution would be a very bloody and horrific mess, never mind one formed from the explicit destruction of the other state.
The word ‘zionism’ needs to be put to bed. It describes an early 20th century movement to create an ethnonationalist state in Palestine, and unless you’re talking about that period of history, it has no meaning.
And two different types of people pick two different meanings as convenient for their argument, which makes it impossible to use the term honestly in the modern day. It’s either “respecting Israel’s right to exist”, or “supporting Israel in its expansionist occupation policies against its Arab neighbours” – and one of those is obviously a lot more racist and abhorrent than the other.
Any motion like this is going to descend into farcical semantic arguments about which of those two you’re talking about. Put the term away and criticise the latter explicitly, it doesn’t need a label.