I saw someone say it was because she’s supporting dems but that doesn’t seem like enough for the amount of dunking I’ve seen. Did y’all think she was so far to the left that that would be a betrayal? I’ve typically thought of her as a progressive more than a leftist. Is there some statement she made I’m not aware of?

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Yeah, there’s a reason why the main people ranting about Zionism this time last year were neo nazis. It’s a term which is commonly understood to suggest the dismantlement of the Jewish state, and all the violence that would surely entail. Even in the most linguistically favorable scenario, it’s just not a position any honest geopolitical observer could really put forward as a realistic solution, which causes many to assume it is a dog whistle.

    The palestine liberation movement would really do well to avoid some of the more problematic language they seem to have given a home. I honestly believe the reason this is happening is because a lot of this is being put forward by well intentioned young people who may not fully understand the implications of this linguistic history. The movement doesn’t need it, and would be stronger without it.

    • verdigris@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Objective application of international law puts the existence of the state of Israel on pretty shaky ground. It’s not an unreasonable position at all to support the dismantling of the state, as it’s an apartheid occupation engaged in active genocide by nearly global consensus. Jewish opposition to Zionism has been present since its inception. Any co-opting of the movement into anti-semitism is opportunistic and not inherent in any way.

      • socsa@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sure, there are arguments to be made that Israel is the original sin of the post war nation state, but it’s not realistic to expect that cat to go back in that bag. There is plenty of land for both an Islamic and Secular state in the levant, provided both agree to coexist, and the international community agrees to enforce international law evenly. And I really do emphasize that last point.

        • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          How? They’ve divided the land and are ensuring it stays that way by continuing to take land. And if one had the support of the US empire it would keep abusing Palestine even after statehood, like the US does to the global south today. It would be better as one big secular state, especially since you’re going to have to change a bunch of things to make a two state solution work anyway.

          A two state solution is better than what they have now and if they can get it, it’s progress, but ideally one state all the way, which requires dismantling Israel. Which happens all the time btw. South Africa completely changed its government. Israel as a country isn’t even that old. Neither is Russia or everything in the USSR, which I saw change. Or Yugoslavia, which was a country during my lifetime, too. The cat can totally go back in the bag, the structures of nation states isn’t set in some holy stone.