#Define sovereignty

[siplifeslowly]

New Every Morning

https://www.canva.com/design/DAF7LytTIPQ/dYUCemLrz_AQLUaRqp9klw/watch His Mercies are New Every Morning by Angela Edmonds He is making all things new. Did you know that? And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Revelation 21:5a And this morning, this day, this moment- His mercies are new right now. You may be reading this in the middle of the night. Even…

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

"[We insist that God] must surely lead everyone as we believe He has led us. We refuse to allow God the freedom to deal with each of us as individuals. When we think like that, we are legalistic." - Jerry Bridges

[vamptastic]

Another thing that is driving me fucking insane is that the only thing the current rise in the anti-zionist movement is in agreement upon is a ceasefire. I think that's good in terms of organizing around one immediate, actionable change, but god it's going to be a fucking shitshow when a ceasefire does occur because there seems to be very little consensus on what should happen long-term. Not surprising, considering a lot of people are new to the cause and that their passion stems from the obvious atrocity currently happening, not a deeper connection or investment. Just bonkers to see people who want one 'secular, democratic' state (not a lot of elaboration on what that means) and people who want two independent states and people who want one Palestinian state (sometimes secular, sometimes not) all calling themselves one movement... I mean, where is all this support going to be channeled in the years to come?

[indecisiveavocado]

indigenousness, opression and sovereignty

I think a contributing factor--a small one, maybe, but still existent--as to why leftists who are all in favor of indigenous rights feel the urge to add a postscript of "Except the Jews" is because we did it without them. They want to get the feeling of helping, of being an Ally. But we already were sovereign in our own nation before they really got going.

They want to see indigenous people as oppressed and poor, so they can altruistically help them. And it sometimes feels like it gets baked into their definition. Indigenous people must be poor and oppressed and dominated by others. That's why most indigenous peoples in Europe typically aren't acknowledged. Is it because, say, Greeks aren't indigenous to Greece? No--it's because Greeks are sovereign and break the pattern they want of indigenous people needing help.

It's not a coincidence that the European groups who are sometimes recognized as indigenous--Sami, primarily, but occasionally Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Basque, and occasionally even Breton, who fled as refugees from the British Isles to France during Anglo-Saxon colonization (the name Breton and Brittany are related to Briton and Britain)--are those who have historically been subjected by other groups. The model of indigenousness the West developed was defined by being oppressed historically and, ideally, needing help.

And we were definitely oppressed--but not quite as much in the West when that movement for indigenous rights was starting to emerge. We were, generally, middle-class in the West, more easily identifiable as oppressors than oppressed.

And, of course, we had established a state, re-established our sovereignty, before the indigenous rights movement really got going. We could have been an accomplishment, but we did it without them.

And this poses a problem. If your view of indigenousness is based on indigenous people being oppressed and needing help, and Jews are, in the West, not nearly as oppressed and we have our own country, well, this poses problems. The simplest solution?

Declare us non-indigenous. Declare the sole indigenous people of the region the poorer, discriminated-against, group, without a state--the Palestinians. Because the white leftist definition of indigenous cannot stand independence, it cannot tolerate sovereignty. It must be able to see itself as savior, helper, altruist.

[psychotrenny]

I kinda hate it when ostensible leftists throw around meaningless Liberal criticisms. Like you can just condemn a state for the cruel and unjustifiable actions it's committing. Like Israel is an Imperialist Settler Colonist state that's been exploiting, ethnically cleansing and committing the genocide of indigenous Palestinians for it's entire existence with the intensity of this violence increasing in recent months as reprisals for recent acts of Palestinian resistance. It's not a fucking "illegitimate" or "terrorist" state because that's meaningless.

Whether a state is recognised as legitimate or not by under the Imperialist dominated world order means literally nothing about the morality of continued existence. And for what it's worth only 15% of UN member nations do not recognise the Sovereignty of Israel, meaning that by most definitions of the word it is in fact a legitimate nation; to be clear this demonstrates the uselessness of "legitimacy" as a concept rather than the righteousness of Israel's continued existence. Meanwhile the use of the word "Terrorism" has heavy connotation of non-state actors; while at it's broadest people may define it as "use of violence and intimidation to achieve political aims", but if such a broad definition was used in practice the term would be diluted beyond all meaning. The word "terrorism" is rarely used for the actions of states except as an extreme pejorative. The phrase "Terrorist State" is basically only used by Imperialists as a label they use to justify the violence they inflict on oppositional regimes. It's never used in a useful analytical or even descriptive way; it means nothing beyond being a pure insult and call to arms against the target.

Like you can condemn Israel for what it actually is using words that actually mean something; you don't have to keep repeating the same buzzwords that liberals use against states like Cuba and North Korea. You aren't gonna achieve much if you limit yourself to employing the language of Imperialism against it's masters. This rhetoric is rooted in a very specific ideology; it can't simply be pulled out and reversed

[dojewishuponastar]

an excellent question to ask yourself:

is this person really a zionist? or are they really a jew?

...moreover:

can I define zionism? where did I learn my definition? do I instinctually equate it with evil?

do I listen to jews when they offer to define zionism, its origins, and its cultural history? do I speak over them? do I assume they're lying or manipulating? do I assume a jew speaking about zionism is somehow advocating for war crimes?

do I understand jewish indigeneity and history in the levant? do I understand peoples can be co-indigenous to a land, all deserving sovereignty? do I support land back movements? do I deny the indigeneity of other peoples?

have I appropriated zionism from jews to redefine and wield as a cudgel against "bad" jews?

do I say zionist like a slur? could one easily substitute? do I justify violence by applying it?

when jews speak against antisemitism, how do I respond? do I react defensively? do I assume it's not that bad, or that it's a distraction from real oppression? do I assume they're lying?

how might my comrades answer the questions above? are there jews in our movements? can they openly speak? do we listen?

finally:

who benefits from my answers? who influenced them? and who suffers?

[heritageposts]

. . . But in 1948 Israel declared its sovereignty from the British Mandate through the besiegement of indigenous Palestinians. The new nation retained Regulation 133(3) with an important caveat: It was amended to give military commanders complete control over where a body is buried, as opposed to the original “community to which such person belongs.” This is the legal basis of postmortem detention, and over the last 80 years the scope of the law has expanded greatly. Namely, who is subject to postmortem detention by the military (from “enemy soldier” to the blanket term “terrorist”) and when the state is entitled to seize bodies (from “times of war” to “forever war on terror”). Regulation 133(3) can now impose restrictions on funerals when a body is returned to a family. When Palestinian prisoner Mustafa Arabat succumbed to torture in 1992, Israeli courts ruled in favor of the military to enforce that his funeral be held in the middle of the night and only attended by immediate family. Today, families whose bodies are eventually returned to them must abide by the military’s rules on how to express their final rites. Israeli law explicitly defines these funerals as a threat to “public order” and grants soldiers power over a family’s grieving.

. . . full article on The Nation (29 June, 2023)

[archived link]

[captainjonnitkessler]

What's your feelings on landback?

It's complicated! Especially since "landback" is used as an extremely vague catch-all term for a wide variety of action.

Some people define it as defending and expanding sovereignty over the land already controlled by indigenous tribes, forcing the US government to uphold its treaties, generally supporting and protecting indigenous cultures, and fighting for environmental protections and better stewardship of the earth, all of which I fully support.

Some people define it as "returning sovereignty of ancestral lands to the tribes who used to inhabit them" and tbqh I don't know how that's supposed to work. Kind of seems like any steps taken to ensure that native people retain control over the land/government would necessitate disenfranchising 98% of the country, and that seems pretty bad to me! And no, I don't think disenfranchising almost your entire population is an ethical or effective way to make reparations for past atrocities.

Most of the info I can find on the subject is very much style over substance and doesn't contain any actual plan of action, so it's hard to find concrete info on what the second group is actually proposing.

[opencommunion]

"While largely toothless as a democratic body—shorn of true legislative capacities and having never developed a genuine transnational dynamic—the European Parliament is nonetheless an important bellwether to track the continent’s political winds. As the results of the parliament’s June 6-9 elections confirm, those winds are blowing in a bleakly reactionary direction.

... There are two principal causes for this. First, the fact that for many decades now European national governments and federal European institutions have legitimized — through emergency measures, moral panics and murderous border policies that have led to thousands of migrant deaths in the Mediterranean — the far Right’s defining claim that migration threatens the material and cultural survival of white European civilization. The far Right’s obsessive talk of borders and births, and its promotion of the myth of the Great Replacement, were enabled by the EU’s political center. Governments across the continent advanced anti-migrant policies on the grounds that stricter regulations would sap the foundations of extremism. But it turns out voters often prefer the original brand, choosing bellicose nativism over technocratic repression when it comes to the ​'migration crisis.'

The second engine of Europe’s turn towards authoritarianism is the EU’s promotion of fiscal austerity policies that have particularly impacted Southern Europe and Ireland, but which have led to welfare state retrenchment across the board. Beyond eroding livelihoods and exacerbating inequality, austerity also led to the rise of multiple movements to reclaim national sovereignty, almost all of which (after the punishment and capitulation of Syriza’s left-wing government in Greece) are now monopolized by reactionaries. While all of Europe’s far-right parties have played on this supposedly populist register, none have challenged the hegemony of markets and the rating agencies that dictate cuts to social programs. ... The real social malaise that plagues so much of Europe — overburdened and privatized healthcare, labor precarity, anemic social security, accelerating climate-related emergencies — is projected onto the far Right’s favorite scapegoats: primarily migrants, but also ​'gender ideology' and its alleged assault on the family as Europe’s moral and material core."

[stillnaomi]

World War III and the Fall of Imperialism

A speech by Booker Ngesa Omole, The National Vice Chairperson of the Communist Party of Kenya

As we gather here at the 7th International Conference of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform, we stand at a critical juncture in our shared struggle against the scourge of imperialism. Today, I want to discuss a stark reality that looms over our world: the inevitability of World War III, driven by the unrelenting aggression of imperialist powers. This war is not a distant possibility but a present danger, rooted in the insatiable greed of monopoly capital.

Imperialism, in its various manifestations, poses an existential threat to the sovereignty of African nations. Initiatives such as AFRICOM serve as instruments of this imperialist agenda, undermining our autonomy and reducing our countries to mere pawns in the geopolitical chess game orchestrated by Western powers. These military strategies are designed not to protect our people but to secure the interests of the imperialist elite.

In Kenya alone, we host three foreign military bases, a glaring testament to the erosion of our sovereignty. These bases are not just symbols of military presence; they represent a direct violation of our independence and dignity. They subjugate our military and intelligence agencies to the whims of U.S. imperialism, turning our institutions into extensions of foreign powers. This scenario is replicated across the continent, where foreign military presence is a common thread in the tapestry of imperialist domination.

The spectre of World War III is already haunting us, as conflicts rage on multiple fronts. In West Asia, the struggle against Zionist aggression is an anti-imperialist, antifascist war. In Eastern Europe, we witness the brutal realities of NATO-backed conflict in Ukraine. And in East Asia, tensions simmer around Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, echoing the same imperialist ambitions.

Lenin, in his classic work “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism,” eloquently articulated the dynamics of imperialism and its inevitable contradictions. He described how imperialism seeks to escape internal crises through external wars. Today, we observe this in the provocations and military exercises conducted by the United States and its allies, which serve not just as a show of force but as desperate attempts to maintain their declining hegemony.

Yet, amidst this chaos, the anti-imperialist camp is rising, united in its struggle against oppression. Comrades in Russia, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, and various resistance movements across the Global South are not seeking war; they are prepared for a just struggle against imperialist aggression. The unity and operational strength of the anti-imperialist front underscore a powerful truth: we are not alone in this fight.

The reliance of imperialism on proxy wars and economic sanctions reveals its strategic limitations. The imperialist powers fear direct confrontation, knowing the consequences of nuclear escalation. This hesitation will be their downfall. While they aim to exhaust nations like Russia, China, and Iran, we can turn their war of attrition into decisive victories across multiple theatres of conflict. These victories will not only weaken imperialism militarily but will also trigger a political and economic collapse. The fragmentation of NATO, the decline of the U.S. dollar’s hegemony, and the emergence of BRICS and other alternative institutions signal the end of the US imperialist order.

The eventual defeat of US imperialism will pave the way for a new global order defined by national liberation revolutions and the defeat of all neo-colonial projects across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This new order will also see the inevitable resurgence of socialist revolutions and the establishment of people’s democracies. Additionally, there will be a true commitment to peace, independence, and self-determination as guiding principles for global governance.

As we face the challenges of our time, let us reaffirm our commitment to the struggle against imperialism. The victory belongs to the people. The end of imperialism will not only reshape global politics but empower nations to pursue socialism, democracy, and peaceful coexistence.

In conclusion, as we confront the spectre of World War III, let us remember that this is a final confrontation between the forces of imperialism and those of anti-imperialist resistance. Together, we shall emerge victorious, heralding a new era of hope, freedom, and progress for all.

Death to Imperialism!

Long live International Socialism!

[dontforgetukraine]

November 21st is the Day of Dignity and Freedom. On this day, Ukrainians ignited two revolutions against tyranny and injustice: The orange revolution in 2004 and the Euromaidan revolution in 2013-2014.

On 21 November, Ukraine commemorates the Day of Dignity and Freedom, honoring pivotal moments in its history that underscore the nation’s fight for independence, democracy, and the rule of law. This date marks the anniversary of the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2013-14 Euromaidan Revolution, also known as the Revolution of Dignity, two popular uprisings that defined Ukraine’s resistance against Russian authoritarianism and its determination to embrace a pro-European future. Euromaidan began on 21 November 2013, when Ukrainians took to the streets to protest then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s abrupt decision to abandon a historic agreement with the European Union under pressure from Moscow. The peaceful demonstrations escalated into a nationwide movement demanding democracy and accountability. Yanukovych’s regime responded with brutal force, leading to the deaths of over 100 protesters, now remembered as the “Heavenly Hundred.” These revolutions were not just internal struggles but battles against Moscow’s endless efforts to maintain dominance over Ukraine. After Yanukovych fled in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and launched a war in eastern Ukraine, laying the groundwork for today’s full-scale invasion. Today, Ukraine’s resistance continues more fiercely than ever as it defends not just its sovereignty but also the principles of democracy and international law. The legacy of 21 November serves as a reminder that Ukraine’s fight is far from isolated—its outcome will shape global norms on freedom and the rule of law. —Euromaidan Press

[siplifeslowly]

His Sovereignty Covers Every Inch

I used to think that there was a way outside of His. In reality, His sovereignty covers everything, and we either experience the blessings of walking with Him or the consequences of not.

https://www.canva.com/design/DAF7MKPsvjE/watch I used to think that there was a way outside of His. – That everyone can choose God or not, so naturally, they can choose His Way or not. And if not- well, then there is a place we can go to escape Him and His good rule. It really boiled down to me believing deep down that there was a place we could go in this life where God was not. It sounds…

[matan4il]

To the person who wants us to differentiate the modern political movement that came to be called Zionism, and the Zionist nature of Judaism, I'll address you politely, even though your assertion that I must be a teenager (quick search of my blog would show you that I work at a Holocaust museum, education and research center, that also studies the history of the Jewish people in general, so... not a sound assumption) is very insulting and condescending.

Sure, we can distinguish the thousands of years old Zionist nature of Judaism from the modern political movement that came to be referred to as Zionism.

But do you understand that the modern political movement wouldn't exist without the fact that Judaism has ALWAYS been Zionist? That the distinction is, to a degree, an artificial one, especially in the context of anti-Zionists claiming that Judaism is incompatible with Zionism, which is a lie. With that claim, they mean to deny the very right of Israel to exist as a liberation and land back movement of the Jewish people, and while they're at it, they are de-legitimizing every Zionist movement ever, whether modern or not, they're de-legitimizing every Jew who had returned to Israel, even just as an individual, because they are denying the very Zionist nature of Judaism.

I'll attach at the end an attempt at demonstrating why the distinction is somewhat artificial in this context.

But before that, I'll address some of your other claims. You said that Zionism is a secular movement, and religious Jews are opposed to it. While some ultraorthodox Jews are indeed opposed to active Zionism, and prefer a passive wait for the Mashiach, they too are Zionist in the non-modern-political-movement sense (they still believe and pray for the Mashich to bring all Jews back to Israel and re-establish Jewish sovereignty in this land, not to keep them in the diaspora). And they do not represent all religious Jews. The modern political Zionist movement was very much joined by religious Jews, such as a political organization called "Ha'Mizrachi," which was established in 1902. Their Zionism was connected to the actions and writings of rabbis who preceded many secular Zionist leaders like Herzl (first published a Zionist pamphlet in 1896), such as Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever (first established Ha'Mizrachi as a spiritual and educational pro-Zionist center in 1893), Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai (published "Minchat Yehuda," a Zionist call for Jews to return to Israel in 1840, and established the Society for the Settlement of Eretz Yisrael in 1852), and Rabbi Zvi Kalischer (asked Mayer Amschel Rothschild to help with the purchase of land in Israel for Jews to return there in 1836, and published the Zionist book Drishat Zion in 1862). Even among ultraorthodox Jews, there are Zionist ones. Some of them were a part of Ha'Mizrachi organization. During the British rule in Israel, there were ultraorthodox Jews who actively helped the Zionist underground movements, the Etzel and the Hagana, and in a 2022 poll, 76% of Chassidic Jews defined themselves as Zionist.

You also made the assertion that the modern political movement of Zionism is European. Again, while many of its founders were from Europe, many Jews from Arab and Muslim countries came to Israel as a part of the modern Zionist movement. Please don't erase them. And why would they be a part of this movement? Because of the intrinsically Zionist nature of Judaism. Yemenite Jews didn't need to be a part of the founding fathers of the modern political movement, in order to be a part of the movement, and to see it as a fulfilment of ancient Jewish prophecies, when they were brought to Israel in a special operation in 1952. In fact, there was a Zionist Yemenite movement of return in 1881, following a verse in the Bible, in the Song of Songs book, that they believed told them they had to return to Israel during this year. Many of them settled in a village close to the Temple Mount, which the Arabs refer to as Silwan, a mispronunciation of the ancient Hebrew name Shiloach (that can be found in the Bible). These Yemenite Jews were ethnically cleansed by the Arabs during the 1936-1939 anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish riots. And when Jews tried to return to Kfar Ha'Shiloach, anti-Zionists attacked that as "colonization," too. Anti-Zionists make NO distinction between Jews returning to Israel from Europe, and Jews returning to it from Arab and Muslim countries. We're all just "Zionists" and "incompatible with Judaism," no matter how much our Zionism is derived from our Jewish identity, and no matter that we are native to this land, not colonizers.

You asked, "how can judaism be 'inherently zionist' when the idea of a jewish state has only existed for less than 200 of those years?" and I will ask you, what's unclear when I say that Zionism is about Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish ancestral homeland, which is an idea that I showed was inherent to Jewish tradition and religion? There were Jewish kingdoms here (the unified kingdom, the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Yehudah, and the Hasmonean Kingdom), that fulfilled that idea long before there was a Jewish state, and the Jewish state is a direct (and yes, modern) continuation of those ancient Jewish kingdoms (I mean, of course that's the modern reincarnation, we're not going to build a Jewish kingdom now, just so no one can use the accusation that a Jewish state is a modern concept... and I'm sort of weirded out by the fact that I have to defend the right of Jews to implement modern reincarnations of their traditional notions... Also, pretty sure that if we went with the old version and tried to set up a Jewish kingdom, we'd be crucified for being backwards), because it is founded on the same exact principle, that we get to self rule in our own ancestral land. Denying that is erasing Jewish history and parts of Jewish identity.

You said, "our connection to the land does not need to be mediated through a political body the majority of us have absolutely no say in," and I wanna ask you, does every German in the world (or at least most) have to live in Germany, and have a say in it as a citizen, for the nation state of the German people to have the right to exist? Same for every other nation state out there.

You called Israel, "a country younger than our grandparents, and for that matter any other country too," which is untrue on several levels. The state might be younger than some grandparents, but its right to exist is an ancient one, connected to those thousands of years old kingdoms, and in that sense, the modern state of Israel being founded in 1948 is no different to the modern state of India being founded in 1947. Would you tell Indians that their state has no right to exist, erasing its connection to previous forms of Indian self rule in that land, just because those weren't a modern state? Would you offend them by suggesting that the age of their modern state is a factor in its legitimacy? No. But for some reason, you feel comfortable doing that when it comes to the modern Jewish state. While we're at it, whether the current self rule of Palestinians constitutes a state is a matter of debate, but let's say that it counts, and that a Palestinian state started existing when they began self ruling in 1994 following the Oslo accords (the first time ever in history when Arabs in Israel self ruled, rather than be a colony serving a metropole situated in some other Arab or Muslim country), that would make their state not only younger than our grandparents, it would make it younger than quite a few Tumblr users. But I bet you wouldn't say that this de-legitimizes the right of a Palestinian state to exist. Yet you feel it's perfectly okay to say such things about Israel. You should ask yourself why can you accept others, but not a Jewish state. For the record, here's some modern states younger than Israel, that you would never dream to de-legitimize based on their age: Malaysia (1957), Singapore (1965), Zimbabwe (as Rhodesia, 1965), Bangladesh (1971), Guinea-Bissau (1973), Comoros (1975), Lithuania (1990), Latvia (1990), Belarus (1990), Armenia (1990), Georgia (1991), Croatia (1991), Slovenia (1991), Ukraine (1991), Moldova (1991), Uzbekistan (1991), Macedonia (1991), Azerbaijan (1991), Slovakia (1992), Montenegro (2006).

***

Okay, a small demonstration of how artificial the distinction between modern political Zionism and historical Zionism is...

Where do we put the start of the modern political movement of Zionism, what is the date when it began?

A lot of people would suggest that it started with Herzl. He's often referred to as "the father of Zionism" (that's incorrect. It would be more accurate to refer to him as "the father of diplomatic Zionism"). Herzl was actually an assimilationist Jew, who believed Jews in Europe should aspire to be like all other Europeans, erase the difference between them and the non-Jews (relinquishing our tradition, culture, religion, everything that makes us unique and a contribution to the richness of the human experience), and rely on the equal rights that Europeans would grant us. He believed in this, but experiencing antisemitism in the cosmopolitan Vienna, as well as covering the Dreyfus trial (when a Jewish officer was convicted of treason, and shamefully exiled, despite his many years of loyal service to his country, just because he was a Jew), he came to publish (as I mentioned) a Zionist pamphlet in 1896.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1896?

But the term "Zionism" as the name of the movement was actually coined in 1890, by Nathan Birnbaum!

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1890?

But for the term to be coined, it had to describe something that already existed. And in fact, many Zionist groups, counted as a part of the modern political movement, were already active by that time. For example, some people start counting the new Yishuv in Eretz Yisrael as starting with the arrival in Israel of the Zionist Bilu group, in 1882 (they were established in January of that year, and despite being secular Jews, they were drawing from Jewish tradition, naming themselves after a biblical verse from the book of Isaiah. Because like I said, modern political Zionism wouldn't exist without the ancient Zionist nature of Judaism).

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1882?

But that doesn't work either, because by the time the Bilu group arrived in Israel, the first Jewish moshava (a Zionist form of settlement based on values of agriculture and communality), Petach Tikva (sometimes nicknamed "the mother of moshavot"), was already established in 1878.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1878?

But how did this new movement of Zionists know to work the land, if in the diaspora, for hundreds of years, Jews were prohibited from being farmers, so they would have no claim to the land they worked? Well, many young Zionists learned how to do this work thanks to a Jewish agricultural school called Mikveh Yisrael, which was founded in 1870.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1870?

But a part of why Mikvah Yisrael was established, was the poor condition of Jews in Jerusalem. By the time demographic surveys were conducted in the 1840's, Jews were the biggest religious group in the Old City of Jerusalem, and so overcrowded that it made their lives much harder, sometimes even endangered (like when a plague would break out). The Jewish minister Moshe Montefiore started building neighborhoods for Jews outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem in 1860, moving Jews out of the old Yishuv and into a new form of settling in the land of Israel, outside the "protecting" walls of the four cities holy to Judaism, and into the idea that they can and should use agriculture to sustain themselves outside these cities, and re-connect with their land.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1860?

But the first victim of anti-Zionist terrorism in the land of Israel is actually considered to be Rabbi Shlomo Avraham Zalman Zoref, who was murdered by Arabs in 1851 for his Zionist efforts to help in the settlement of Jews in Israel and in the restoring of Jewish religious life in the Old City of Jerusalem through diplomatic efforts vis a vis Muhamad Ali Pasha, the Egyptian occupier of the Land of Israel at the time, and by enlisting the help of the consuls of Russia and Austria (by the way, one of his grandsons was among the founders of Petach Tikva).

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1851?

But his diplomatic Zionist efforts, for which he was murdered, didn't start at the time of his death, they go back to when he managed to get that permit from Muhamad Ali Pasha in 1836 for Jews to re-build the Ashkenazi community in the Old City of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Muslims over a hundred years earlier.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1836?

But where did that Ashkenazi Jewish community, which Rabbi Zoref tried to restore, come from? Rabbi Yehuda Ha'Chassid successfully called Jews to return to Israel, and he did manage to inspire many to follow him as he started his own journey to Israel in 1697, and managed to buy land for his community in the Old City of Jerusalem, which was joined by Jews already living there. This WAS a form of a semi-modern Zionist movement. And it IS quite connected to what came later, in more modern times.

Or another example. Dona Garcia Nassi was a crypto Jew from Portugal, whose family had fled the Spanish Inquisition, only for the Portuguese Inquisition to grow stronger and harsher, driving her and a part of her family to Istanbul. There, they could stop pretending to be converts to Christianity, they got to publicly return to their Jewish identity. She did a lot for Jews, and in 1561, she used her financial and political ties to ask the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the First to lease land in Israel, for Jews to self rule there. She first asked for land in Jerusalem, was refused, and so she ended up leasing land in Tiberias instead, helping to re-build the city and the Jewish community there, and allowing for a movement of Jews to return to Israel and settle in Tiberias. It's another type of semi-modern Zionist movement striving for Jewish sovereignty in Israel, in whatever form they could get it.

So where do we draw the line? How do we say, these Jews returning to Israel count as Zionist, but those don't? One of my best friends is a Jew from Morocco, his family was religious and fiercely Zionist, and your ask erased them. How do we accept a narrative that looks at thousands of years of Jews returning to Israel, from all sorts of backgrounds, and from all sorts of countries, and yet doesn't recognize that they all returned for the same reason, drawing from the same Jewish foundation? How do we not see that the separation is an artificial one?

Anti-Zionism is antisemitic in so many ways, and one of them is exactly what this narrative does to so many Jews who were proud, and wanted to be counted as Zionist, precisely because to them it was an expression of their Jewish identity.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[noahthesatanist]

someone dared to ask if theistic Satanism is moral? If it’s worth being associated with something people see as evil? Oh, you sweet, naive summer child. Let me break it down for you. The idea that morality is defined by the same systems that gave us holy wars, witch burnings, inquisitions, and crusades is laughable at best. Jews, Christians, and Muslims-those bastions of "moral purity"—have some of the most disgusting, hypocritical, and oppressive codes imaginable. And you think their judgment of me, of Lucifer, matters? That their narrow-minded hatred holds any weight in my life?

Evil? If they think I’m evil, then I’ll wear it like a badge of honor. I’ll etch it into my soul. These are the same people who condemn critical thinking, fear personal freedom, and worship a tyrant god who demands blind obedience. And they dare look down on me because I’ve chosen to follow the Morning Star?

Lucifer and his fallen angels—the ones they slander, the ones they fear—are my light in the darkness. I’ll sing their praises until the day I die, and beyond. Lucifer embodies defiance, freedom, and the courage to carve your own path even when the entire world stands against you. He saw the chains for what they were and broke them, despite the cost. How could I not revere such a being? How could I not be drawn to the infernal, to the ones who dared to stand tall against Yahweh’s tyranny?

If aligning with Lucifer means seven billion people hate me, so be it. I’ll take their scorn and wear it like armor. I don’t want their approval. I don’t want their love. I want the truth, the power, the beauty of self-sovereignty, and that’s what Lucifer offers. He doesn’t demand servitude. He doesn’t chain us to outdated moral codes or punish us for seeking knowledge. He teaches, he empowers, he protects.

The Infernal are my friends, my teachers, my mentors, my guides, and my protectors. They’ve given me strength when the world tried to break me. They’ve shown me the light of truth that Yahweh tried so desperately to snuff out. Why would I ever betray them for the approval of a society built on lies and control?

So why am I a theistic Satanist? Because it’s not about being "accepted" or being "moral" by their corrupted standards. It’s about standing in defiance of everything they represent. It’s about embracing freedom, knowledge, and truth. It’s about choosing the path of the rebel, the fallen, the damned—and finding paradise in their company.

Lucifer’s kingdom is my solace. It’s where I find purpose, strength, and belonging. I’ll stand with him and his legions until the stars burn out, no matter what anyone thinks. And if that makes me "evil," so be it. I’ll take their hatred and make it my fuel. Their disdain only proves I’m on the right path!

[xclowniex]

Another reason that antizionism is antisemitism is because the sovereignty of no other nation has a philosophical term that completely unrelated citizens from countries around the world define themselves by. Like there are serious issues in the ruling and actions of say, Kenya, Hungary or Honduras. You don’t have random Americans listing how much they hate Hungarian nationalists or corrupt agents in Kenya to the point of developing shorthand for it

Yeeep.

Zio is a slur created by the KKK.

You don't see Americans saying shit about how the NZ government is trying to take away rights from Maori and coming up with a shorthand for people who support the government in doing so.

I do believe that a person can be an antizionist without being antisemitic, but at the very least they would have to recognize that jews are indigenous and hamas should not stay in power and have a valid reason as to why Israel should not exist. But sadly a lot of them fail to to that.

[sissa-arrows]

Albert Camus could not conceive of Algerian independence, nor could he conceive of himself as separate from French Algeria. It was his “red line in the sand,” the boundary which should not be crossed, the ultimate taboo. Algeria was the jewel in France’s colonial empire, so important that the French authorities considered it a region of France. It was not just a military conquest; it was an administrative one as well. Camus was defined and defined himself by colonial Algeria and could not live without it. Yet the paradox is that Camus persuasively uses the rhetoric of humanism while supporting French sovereignty over Algeria. Many of Albert Camus’ arguments are vastly identical to those trotted out today regarding Palestine.

“What is illegitimate in Arab demands ? The desire to regain a life of dignity and freedom, the total loss of confidence in any political solution backed by France, and the romanticism of some very young and politically unsophisticated insurgents have led certain Algerian fighters and their leaders to demand national independence. No matter how favourable one is to Arab demands, it must be recognized that to demand national independence for Algeria is a purely emotional response to the situation. There has never been an Algerian nation. The Jews, Turks, Greeks, Italians and Berbers all have a claim to lead this virtual nation. At the moment, the Arabs themselves are not the only constituent of that nation. In particular, the French population is large enough [c. 1/9], and it has been settled long enough [c. 150 years], to create a problem that has no historical precedent. The French of Algeria are themselves an indigenous population in the full sense of the word. Furthermore, a purely Arab Algeria would not be able to achieve economic independence, without which political independence is not real. French efforts in Algeria, however inadequate, have been sufficient that no other power is prepared to assume responsibility for the country at the present time.” — Algerian Chronicles

Camus is like the “Israeli left” and a part of the Western Left in general who cannot conceive the total liberation of Palestine. That’s why I said that if they actually cared they would have more “porteurs de valises” and less Albert Camus.

The porteurs de valises who were settlers totally conceived a free Algeria in their mind and they saw themselves living there as ALGERIANS and they did. They also acknowledged that as settlers they had bias and they worked on those bias (I made a post with the testimony of on of those men and how he realized that he had racist bias against Arabs and how he eventually realized that even if he was white his people were not French people but Algerians…) Most of those settlers who fought alongside our grandparents did not leave because they were kicked out at the independence. They left as refugees during the Black decade and had to fill the SAME paperwork as other Algerians. (I could talk about the 121’s Manifest but given that some of the people who signed it turned around and became Zionists I think the manifest was more about white people wanting a clear conscience they did put the right to not be an oppressor on the same level as the right to not be oppressed)

Camus on the other hand was racist he was a product of settler colonialism. You cannot steal, dispossess, oppress a people for over a century unless you don’t see them as fully human. He kept equating the resistance with the oppressor he kept pretending to condemn violence on “both sides” but when he was asked to sign the letter condemning the systematic use of torture by France against Algerians he refused to sign it. He also kept implying Algeria didn’t exist before France anyway. He also showed his lack of knowledge on history by claiming everyone had a right to Algeria anyway not just “Arabs” because Algeria had been part of the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Jews as a whole have zero rights over Algeria. Imazighen Jews had a right over Algeria because they were Imazighen not because they were Jews. If Turks, Italian, Greeks had a right over Algeria then we have a right over the south of France, over Spain, over Sicily, over Greece because some Roman leaders were Imazighen and because Al Andalus existed.

But what’s maybe one of my biggest issue with Camus, probably because that’s still happening to these days. Is how his position would require only Algerians to compromise. Settlers were simply asked to stop the killing and to pretend to see Algerians as equal humans that’s not a fucking compromise. Algerians on the other hand were asked to pretend that nothing had happened? Those white settlers who had killed your sons and nephews on May 8th 1945 in Setif and around? They never got punished for it. They never even expressed regrets they were proud of it. Algerians were asked to just forget about it to pretend it never happened. The guy who stole your father’s land and is making money from that land? In Camus’ Algeria he gets to keep that land in exchange he must pretend Algerians are equal. The Algerian has to pretend that land was never stolen that he doesn’t have a right to it. In Camus’ vision for Algeria only the Algerian is asked to actually make compromise so the white man gets to be cleaned of his sins.

To these days in the West, PoC are the one asked to make compromises all the fucking time (sometimes on a smaller scale sometimes not). “vote for the lesser of two evils it will be easier to fight and we will help”. Once the lesser of two evils is elected the people who told us to compromise don’t respect their part of the deal they actually call us out when we protest. Because those “deals” are not meant to save us all they are meant to save white people. Because the lesser of two evils doesn’t affect them and their lives so they will be able to afford staying comfortably at home and criticize us for still fighting.

That’s why what I resent the most about Camus is that “let’s make a compromise” attitude that actually only requires compromises from Algerians while settlers get to keep up with their lives the same exact way except they have to pretend they see us as humans. I would believe in the genuine intent behind these compromises (while still being against it) if reparation was mentioned for example but no, settlers get to live the exact same way as they did before they just get absolved of their crimes without ever getting justice. Meanwhile Algerians are asked to pretend nothing happened.

Just like I previously said that a settler colony cannot create settlers without racist bias and that they need to work on those bias, a settler colony also cannot create indigenous people who are not oppressed. Every single Algerian family has a fucked up story to tell about the horror of colonialism. Every single Palestinian family has a fucked up story to tell about the horror of colonialism. Every single Native of Turtle Island family has a fucked up story to tell about the horror of colonialism. I could go on, the point is you can’t ask people to just pretend it never happened because now the settlers are pretending to see you as a human.