Helps that im not the one making the arguments.

So how is "force" harm reduction?

The same way D-Day was harm reduction. This isn't complicated lmao.

I know you're not actually a pacifist since you're a zionist, quit playing dumb.

Im not a zionist. Are you a jihadist?

Edit: if you want the allies to storm isreal thats fine but as you might know, america isn't the world police. Ill stick with that. Should they supply isreal with weapons, no, but make your case to liberals by telling them that they should allow the death/displacement of millions of Jewish people.

You're not a zionist? But literally in the same comment you say that the destruction of the apartheid state of Israel would necessarily mean "the death/displacement of millions of Jewish people." If you don't support the existence of Israel, yet the only alternative to Israel's existence is the death/displacement of millions of Jewish people, then logically that means you support the death/displacement of millions of Jewish people.

Seems kinda antisemitic if you ask me. Like, all I want is for Palestinians to have equal rights, if you want millions of Jews to die that's on you.

That's a trivial naive understanding of the situation but you do you. America isnt storming tel aviv either, so, I guess you have fun playing games in your fantasy world.

That’s a trivial naive understanding of the situation but you do you.

All I did was quote you. That's your understanding of the situation. It's not my fault you don't know what the word "zionist" means.

America isnt storming tel aviv either

You're the only one who's said anything about this idea too, lol.

Har har. You got it all figured out.

Tell me, what happened on D-day?

Tell me, what happens when isreal is under the rule of an islamic government?

Har har. You got it all figured out.

Yes, I do. Zionism means that you support the continued existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate, which you obviously do. You've talked yourself into a corner that the only possible way you could not be a zionist (as you claim) is if you support the death of millions of Jews, which you claim is an inevitable consequence of it no longer existing.

Tell me, what happened on D-day?

A genocidal, expansionist ethnostate was successfully and heroically attacked, beginning the liberation of France.

Tell me, what happens when isreal is under the rule of an islamic government?

I already told you. Look at South Africa, as an example. It's not as if wiping an apartheid state off the map hasn't been done before, and obviously any negative consequences that resulted from that change were better than the status quo.

Which do you prefer: a negative peace which is the absence of tension or a positive peace which is the presence of justice?

I do not support isreal being an ethnostate and you wont/cant present me with a path for isreal to integrate with palistine. By your logic youre tantamount to a zionist because you cannot demonstrate how isreal will ever be deconstructed other then by force, death, destruction.

D-day the allied forces attacked a genocidal expansionist state beginning the liberation of France. Who are the allied forces that will liberate palistine?

South Africa was liberated through civil disobedience. That is the South African model.

I prefer likely solutions that can be executed without large human tolls. That and generations long projects that methodically deconstruct oppressive societies and replaces oppression with liberty.

By your logic your tantamount to a zionist because you cannot demonstrate how isreal will ever be deconstructed other then by force, death, destruction.

That's idiotic. I support deconstructing Israel through force, therefore, I am clearly not a Zionist. You do not support deconstructing Israel at all, therefore, you are a Zionist. This is very straightforward logic.

D-day the allied forces attacked a genocidal expansionist state beginning the liberation of France. Who are the allied forces that will liberate palistine?

The same sort of coalition of the willing. The previous Nazis were so bad they got Churchill and Stalin fighting on the same team.

Right now, Hamas, Ansarallah, and Iran seem like the Zionazis' biggest opponents. Hopefully, in time, more will join in opposition.

South Africa was liberated through civil disobedience. That is the South African model.

You're treating tactics for achieving a policy as inseparable from the policy itself, which they're obviously not.

I prefer likely solutions that can be executed without large human tolls. That and generations long projects that methodically deconstruct oppressive societies and replaces oppression with liberty.

Pick one. Because if the Zionist entity is allowed to continue existing for the duration of a "generations long project," then there will, necessarily, be "large human tolls," like, virtually every Gazan, if not every Palestinian.

What would've happened if, instead of directly confronting and abolishing the Nazi state through force, people had followed your advice of waiting for a "generations long project" to effect change? How many more millions would've died?

Justice delayed is justice denied. The longer you kick the can down the road, the longer Israel gets to continue with it's genocidal aims freely.

Zionists, they believe in deconstructing palistine by force. Am I wrong, what is it youre really against zionism or Jewish zionism?

Hamas, Ansarallah, and Iran are not liberartors.

South Africa made policy possible through strategy. You're just looking to extend the tit for tat.

You can use the nazi example as a general analogy. It does not translate to a 1:1 anology. Nazi Germany was not being propped up by an imperialist america.

Edit: you can continue to pretend to throw haymakers but if youre through getting toyed with you can go back to the boss and tell him youre wasting resources.

The Russian minority wasn't being genocided, and at most they could be ethnically cleansed considering Russia has it's own nuclear-armed ethnostate that's the largest in the world. Genocide is an international issue, what was not even an ethnic cleansing is a domestic issue.

Zionists, they believe in deconstructing palistine by force. Am I wrong, what is it youre really against zionism or Jewish zionism?

Wtf would "non-Jewish Zionism" even be? This is utterly incoherent, your definitions are completely wrong.

Zionism means supporting the continued existence of a Jewish ethnostate in occupied Palestine. In practice, this means supporting the genocide of Palestinians because that's what the vast majority of Israelis want. But it does not definitionally require supporting further aggression against Palestinians.

Hamas, Ansarallah, and Iran are not liberarors.

Maybe not, but they are literally the only check against Israel's genocide, currently.

Would you say that Stalin was a liberator, btw? Because either way, he sure did a lot to stop the Nazis.

South Africa made policy possible through strategy.

This is meaningless nonsense, you're just stringing words together.

You cant tell me my definition of zionism is wrong then tell me your made up definition of zionism is right.

The South African people used civil disobedience to change the laws of their government and ended apartheid. You're saying isreals government need be destroyed. South Africans did not trash their government, they changed it.

You cant tell me my definition of zionism is wrong then tell me your made up definition of zionism is right.

Lmao, my definition of Zionism is not "made up." Here's what came up when I googled "Zionism definition:"

Zionism is a political movement that supports the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. It encompasses both the historical desire for a Jewish homeland and the modern-day efforts to develop and sustain the State of Israel.

Fucking dumbass, maybe learn basic terms and facts about the situation before trying to weigh in with your ignorant drivel.

No investigation, no right to speak.

Let's keep this going.

Simply put, Zionism is a movement to recreate a Jewish presence in Israel. The name comes from the word “Zion,” which is a Hebrew term that refers to Jerusalem.

Throughout history, Jews have considered certain areas in Israel sacred—as do Christians and Muslims. The Torah, the Jewish religious text, depicts stories of ancient prophets who were instructed by their God to return to this homeland.

While the fundamental philosophies of the Zionist movement have existed for hundreds of years, modern Zionism formally took root in the late 19th century. Around that time, Jews throughout the world faced growing anti-Semitism.

Some historians believe that an increasingly tense atmosphere between Jews and Europeans may have triggered the Zionism movement. In one 1894 incident, a Jewish officer in the French army named Alfred Dreyfus was falsely accused and convicted of treason. This event, which became known as the “Dreyfus Affair,” sparked outrage among Jewish people and many others.

Persecuted Jews who were struggling to salvage their identity began promoting the idea of returning to their homeland and restoring a Jewish culture there.

https://www.history.com/articles/zionism

You realize that still supports my definition and not yours, right? Where in that definition does it say anything about killing Palestinians, as you assert is part of what Zionism is defined by?

What's the point of telling you to investigate if when you investigate and find proof that you're wrong, you simply keep asserting that the evidence proves you right? Maybe you should just stop speaking entirely, at that point.

Im just demonstrating "zionism" didnt become "zionism" until the jews acted on their belief that they had a claim to some land. Just as the Palestinians believe they have a claim to some land, religious or otherwise. Some guy deemed the Jewish zionism "zionism" from some other meaning just as a Palestinian "zionism" could be claimed.

What does it even matter, youre now arguing that zionism could exist with out the displacement or death of the Palestinian people. How is that wrong in a region strictly inhabited by other ethnostates? Hell, you even argue Iran, an ethnostate, is justified in attacking isreal!

Might want to update your priors. Russia’s claiming a pyrrhic victory on the ground while losing irreplaceable assets and allies. US hegemony has been crumbling since the '00s, that’s nothing new. The vassals are, if anything, more militant and expansionist than ever (glances towards Israel)

What lack of historical materialism does to a mfer.

How can you count the dead in this war well over the million mark and say that with a straight face?

I also suspected that you can't tell a difference between a genocide and a war where mainly members of genocidal organisations like AFU die, but you had to open your mouth and end the doubts. It always take a war to stop the nazis, always. But you people always shed tears over them unless they get to the level of III Reich or Israel (and often even then). I bet if USSR invaded nazi Germany in 1940 or if someone invaded Israel in october 2023 you would write such rot with a straight face too about them.