We knew we were being censored but the extent of the censorship is diabolical. I've moved to Upscrolled. I'm very hopeful that the platform will tell OUR stories.
We need open source content algorithms for these platforms, and generally more open source software where government regulation is needed. These platforms need to be regulated to death.
Yes. At Indivisible Abroad our Economic Resistance Committee, is working on addressing US big tech and ways to minimize its reach. We want to promote Open Source. Today was Turn off Big Tech day in Germany, started in December by the Chaos Computer Club. My local branch was holding workshops on alternatives to Big Tech search engines. We are also working on developing lists of Open Source Alternatives, and European Platformed alternatives. So, the app recommended here would not fit the bill, because it is US platformed and you have to use the App Store. Something new in Europe, which is an alternative to X is W.
We also need Boycotts. Boycott Amazon. February is Boycott Amazon and all of its Subsidiaries Month. Here are the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) movement recommendations.
I agree that this is really what any democracy that believes in the rule of law and public opinion access to information and other pillars, should look into. The open source of the algorithm, and the choices still in the hands of the owners, could then be monitored for extending the media fairness infrastructure guidelines that population opinion based democracies and socially responsible governments (something to generally rebuild) could then factually observe and regulate so the norms of freedom of speech but also media concentration or biases landscape still be in the population interest or public. whatever I don't speak legalese or politicial euphemisms...
I find that monopoly and secret sauce makes for easy sliding into F a s c i s m.. the abstract version, with the oligarch at the steering wheel, not the people representative institutions. I mean thought control of the population. maybe totalitarian slope is more accurate and general. with the current oligarch being the real bosses that makes for a certain type of totalitarianism, closer to the F. version than the soviet or chinese version. Same technology then and now and in the future btw.
I am curious about the state of available technologies that could make a decentralized system allowing still local or regional location of the personal data. distributed systems that can be made aware of other nodes.... all in the exchange protocols. I am babbling. but if you have pointers I am seriously interest in learning about this.
More important than ever! The work that the Hind Rajab Foundation is doing to track down and bring Israeli criminals to justice is one that is vital in the effort to hold Israel accountable. Let us hope they will also turn their sights on the criminal leaders of the countries of the west who are co-perpetrators of these crimes.
There are limits to working within the system and we need to get out of it as much as possible. Zateo does that. For social media use UpScrolled. The key issue to address is to get those organizations to be at scale so that the average person also gets informed vs. censorship and manipulation by those at the top of the system.
If there is an algorithm that regulates the content we see, that is effectively an editor - no different than the NYT, CNN or any corporate media. However, social media is currently exempt from being sued for their content. That needs to change.
We need to regulate Big Tech. But, that is unlikely since they own both parties.
Moreover, we need to roll back the Patriot Act. Not only did it create ICE, but it gave the government surveillance powers over us that never would have been allowed pre 9/11. The government and Big Tech want to make us like the Palestinians in Hebron - under extreme surveillance and control. We won't be able to communicate without Big Brother monitoring and controlling us.
I have encouraged my two children to seriously consider moving to another country. The US is on a terrible trajectory.
what happened with TIKTOK, is nothing but a pre-planned move by Zionist and trump who complained about China, I would much rather have China watching then Zionist israelis
Was Piker eventually allowed to go back to correctly identifying those he perceives as Zionist pigs, or were there any other lasting consequences from his being banned?
I deleted my account when the Israeli agents took over that app. I hear now the word Zionist is banned if it is not to their liking. Since I believe Zionism is just another form of Nazism, I wonder if they would allow that to be expressed and shared.
@taylorlorenz, your framing isn’t neutral — it’s purposely selective. You use dehumanizing language examples when the target is “Zionists,” and then construct a story where Jews are uniquely cast as agents of repression, surveillance, and censorship. That’s not critique; it’s moral permission to dehumanize one group and one group only.
Be honest: would you tolerate the phrase “rabid ultra-Muslim pigs”? Of course not.
You also single out Jewish organizations for engaging with platforms on moderation, while ignoring the identical role played by CAIR, GLAAD, and countless other religious and non-religious civil-rights groups. Same conduct, different treatment. Why?
When only Jewish participation is framed as sinister, and only Jewish identities are depicted as censorious by nature, the pattern is clear. You may deny the intent, but the impact is unmistakable - it's anti-semitic.
Is Muslim an ideology? I understand that "pig" is a bit too much (insulting), but it was targeting an ideology. Why should such an ideology be protected as if it were that of a religious group ID? Or even an ethnic ID, giving you some room beside religion? It would help not to conflate Zionist ideology and its industrial projects and implementations and actions with the identity of Jews as a group of people. No? That would make good faith conversation so much more possible. Otherwise language is useless.
Because one might not object to your wanting protection of the Jews for being Jewish, but what does that have to do with Zionism as target of anger, criticism or even insults. You can't make telepathic intention accusation that one is meaning Jewish when using Zionist. You can impose it in bad faith and political manipulation for sure, but here we are using language for communication. If not bad faith, I apologize for that aspect, but the language problem persist.
The purposeful conflation of Zionism and Judaism is the central strategy of Zionist propagandizing, or "hasbara." The Nazis employed a similar strategy in conflating Nazi ideology with German culture and heritage. If you were a "true" and loyal German, then you were a Nazi and subscribed to and supported the aims of the Nazi Party.
Jay Friedman dutifully follows this conflation strategy in his post -- notice his first paragraph refers to "Zionists," but the later paragraphs all switch to "Jewish," thus purposefully confusing the two terms, as though they are synonymous. They are not, the proof being the many anti-Zionist Jews who have opposed the Zionist colonial project from its beginning and are today exponentially increasing in number, including members of ultra-Orthodox haredi groups who can hardly be charged with harboring anti-Semitic prejudices.
The charge that the author is singling out Jewish groups regarding engaging with platforms on moderation is false on its face, as the opinion piece clearly lists other groups and topics (the Biden administration and Covid reporting) that have so engaged, but such distortion is also a common feature of hasbara, which always boils down to the complaint of "anti-Semitism," so predictably that is has become a joke.
Yes the shift was clear. And why I reacted.. But I got bogged down in the exasperation of lazily letting the hasbara leitmotivs go unchecked again.
However, I was surprised by the limited acknowledgement of the scientific studies, about the existence of the people on that land, at the thousands of years usual narrative level.
Thanks for reminding me and confirming my initi8al impression. And dissecting the patterns.
about the chain of exchanges below.
I did not appreciate the hidden ad hominem language in the end about me hiding something. That is too much debate distraction technique. But I notice some inkling of more rational concessions.
He's a very active hasbara-monger, and it's all the same boilerplate stuff: "indigenous-people-returning-to-their-homeland, Jewish-right-to-self-determination, anti-Semitism blah blah." I think they are given training or at least supplied with talking points. There is no engaging with them; they're like zombie bots, and maybe even be paid hasbara posters. I respond just so their nonsense doesn't go unchallenged.
ISIS is not synonymous with Islam; Christian Dominionism is not synonymous with Christianity; and Zionism is not synonymous with Judaism, as much as you would like to imply. Ideological extremism that perverts and exploits a theology has long been the object of criticism and condemnation, and the racist, colonialist, genocidal perversion of Judaism that is Zionism is just one example of a dangerous extremism that is rightfully condemned.
If ISIS is not synonymous with Islam, then your own framework requires consistency.
By that logic, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran—all of which openly endorse or enact violence directed intentionally against civilians—must be understood as ideological extremists, not as representatives of entire peoples or religions. The same applies to individuals who praised and celebrated the October 7 massacre; celebrating mass murder is extremism by definition, not legitimate resistance.
Zionism, meanwhile, is neither a theology nor an extremist ideology. At its core, it is simply the belief that the Jewish people—like other peoples—have a right to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland, and to live there in security and peace. That belief is held by Jews across the political spectrum, including many who strongly oppose specific Israeli governments and policies.
What you are doing is redefining a mainstream national movement as uniquely “racist,” “colonialist,” or “genocidal,” while excusing or minimizing movements that explicitly call for the eradication of Jews and the destruction of Israel.
Finally, it’s impossible to assess this conflict honestly while ignoring a 100+ years of documented efforts by Palestinian factions and their allies to kill, expel, or eliminate every Jew in the region—often stated openly and pursued violently. When a movement’s declared goal is the destruction of a people, that is not metaphorical language. It is the definition of genocidal intent.
Erasing a people’s right to exist—or redefining their survival as extremism—is simply Jew hatred.
"" Zionism, meanwhile, is neither a theology nor an extremist ideology. At its core, it is simply the belief that the Jewish people—like other peoples—have a right to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland, and to live there in security and peace. That belief is held by Jews across the political spectrum, including many who strongly oppose specific Israeli governments and policies.
"""
see. problem with definition here. You are talking about the idea the dream. not the political zionism project since Herzl foundation and ulterior lobbying across european political elites, including Italy, where I think Jabotinsky (or chabotinsky) took inspiration for his implementation project version.
How to refer to that without having you revert to that virtuous goal, that is missing a lot of the historical reality of the new Israel project implementation on the ground and its ideological trajectory that seems to have converted most of the instituions to that current effective version of Zionism. How can we name that. and not just the virtuous or nostalgic dream part that might indeed have been a theme of the liturgy, but the religions are more than there allegorically styles stories. The knowledge base of the world keeps evolving and old scritpures might not have the objective knowledge base value that in pervious uncertainty about the science of the world, it had for the many finding cooperation and confort in associating and lending their belief abilities for what they could not know to others interpeting and adapting the pervious "knowledge" to the reality on the ground across generations keeping that living religion through wherever or whatever evolving reality across generations. That might apply to all religions.. The balance between the adoration of the objects of the past its langauge content and the evolving complexity of the world... I might be wrong. but I think we need to make such accurate disctinction.
it might be that people insluting the latter reality of implementation by using zionism, are not talking about the dream.. but the instance of the project that was not anywher in the bible... or its evolving interpretations.
a 19th centure invention perhaps. that zionism. it might have gone differently perhaps if not following in the imperial or colonial assumptions about the inferior civilization or social tissue being dehumanized relatively from the start. I might just be asking for a reality check.
You need to study history more closely. Until the mid-20th century, “Palestine” was primarily a geographic designation, not a modern national identity. It referred equally to Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in British Mandate Palestine, not to a sovereign people with an independent state, institutions, or national movement or identify. By contrast, modern Zionism emerged decades earlier, in the late 19th century, with a clear, affirmative national goal: the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland.
Today's Palestinian nationalist identify developed later—in reaction to Zionism and Jewish statehood, not as an independent liberation movement—and was formally institutionalized only in 1964 with the creation of the PLO, again decades after modern Zionism. A distinct national movement with defined political aims came long after Zionism was already well established. Opposition to Jewish immigration and, at times, violent conflict was the central features of that modern Palistine movement—but it is the timing and reactive nature of Palestinian nationalism, not its existence, that is the critical historical fact.
We can argue endlessly about who was here first, who is more indigenous, or when dreams became political movements. None of that changes the central reality: two distinct peoples exist today, each with their own unique identity, and both are entitled to live side by side in peace, security, and self-determination in their own land.
If endorsing or enacting violence against civilians is the basis for labeling an organization as terrorist, certainly Zionism, which just murdered at least 70,000 civilians in Gaza, half of them children, and has murdered thousands more in a century long genocide, with the apparent intention of killing thousands more, would qualify -- if one were being consistent.
The difference is that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran are part of a liberationist force, while Zionists at their core are colonizing invaders eager to slaughter indigenous people for their land, whatever the fantasy-history justifications presented to the world. The fact that the Palestinians and their allies have been fighting this struggle for over a century is a testament to their love of the land and the tenacity of the people and their allies.
Additionally, it's well to keep in mind that every adult Israeli is automatically a member of the armed forces at age 18, so there is often no distinction in Israel between soldier and civilian.
As Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish anti-Zionist, has said, the only rights the Jewish invaders have is to pack their bags and leave Palestine.
Your statements cross from political criticism into open Jew-hatred and that bias discredits everything you said.
The repeated claim of “70,000 murdered civilians” is false. That figure does not represent civilians, nor does it represent murder. Multiple independent assessments indicate that approximately 25,000–30,000 of the dead were Hamas and affiliated terrorist combatants. In addition, in a population of roughly 2.1 million, approximately 15,000 deaths per year would be expected from natural and non-war causes. When those facts are acknowledged, the number of civilian deaths attributable to the war is closer to 25,000–35,000.
Those deaths are tragic — but they are not evidence of genocide. They are, in fact, lower than civilian casualty rates historically observed in dense urban warfare, particularly when the Hamas terrorist systematically embeds fighters, weapons, and command centers within civilian populations in direct violation of international law. Hamas made civilian casualties inevitable by design, not by accident. You can quibble about the exact numbers but it dos not change the conclusion.
Referring to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, or Iran as “liberators” is indefensible. These are terrorist organizations and authoritarian regimes that execute political opponents, suppress women, criminalize dissent, and murder civilians as a matter of doctrine. Praising them requires willful blindness to their own atrocities and an abandonment of any coherent moral standard.
There is also no factual basis for the claim that Jews are foreign “colonizers.” Both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to the Levant. Genetic, archaeological, and historical evidence consistently shows that they are more closely related to each other than either is to Europeans or to Arabs from Arabia. Framing one as native and the other as an illegitimate intruder is not history — it is propaganda.
Finally, on at least five occasions, Palestinians were offered an independent state alongside Israel. Each proposal was rejected — not because it denied sovereignty, but because it required accepting the permanent existence of a Jewish state. That refusal, repeated over decades, is a central reason this conflict persists.
You may oppose Israeli policy. You may criticize Israeli leaders. But when you deny Jewish indigeneity, excuse terrorist violence, and falsify casualty data to support a predetermined conclusion, you are no longer making a political argument. You are prosecuting a narrative built on distortion, omission, and animus.
Religion can used that way, for sure. But it is the religious individual association or jewish ethnic group id that are usually considered human rights against discrimination and in assumed in hate speech regulations of the past. Today language can be massaged a lot. I might consider you have a technical point there, but are missing the boat of the conversation I was trying to have.
Here's the problem. You’re trying to thread a needle that has no eye. You're trying to massage language to fit your own narrative. Zionism is not an external ideology grafted onto Judaism, it is core to Jewish religion, history, and peoplehood. Judaism never lived without Zion. Zion never lived without Judaism. That connection is explicit and continuous in Jewish, Christian and Islamic liturgy. Pretending otherwise isn’t sophistication; it’s a refusal to take Jewish identity seriously.
I take note of your credo and qualification of my understanding. I have other sources about the difference between judaism and zionism, defined as the late 19th century new Israel state construction and implementation project attribute to someone named Herzl and later further developped by Jabotinsky and his militias, the ideology of solving the existing civilian population problem on the land without people. The current political spectrum being mostly dominated by that strain, deeply implemented in all of Israeli institutions and perhaps explaining why I think it is not judaism, as the level of dehumanization that this strain has led to, can't be that of a religious moral essence mindset. I can't accept that. so we can't really converse. I might be sophisticating too much that way. Apartheid, ethnics cleansing, and genocidal program. Is that defining judaism or jewish identity? I am skeptical. It looks more like a perversion or abuse of a religion to me. our knowledge bases might not overlap enough to come to some common use of language. silly me. Hard to speak from outside to inside.
You ignore the entire liturgy of all thee religiouns, and the entire genetics, archiology, anthropology and documented historical sources of over 3,000 years.
Furthermore, you ignore the 100+ years of targeted genocide by Palestinians and their allies against Jews.
We knew we were being censored but the extent of the censorship is diabolical. I've moved to Upscrolled. I'm very hopeful that the platform will tell OUR stories.
We need open source content algorithms for these platforms, and generally more open source software where government regulation is needed. These platforms need to be regulated to death.
Yes. At Indivisible Abroad our Economic Resistance Committee, is working on addressing US big tech and ways to minimize its reach. We want to promote Open Source. Today was Turn off Big Tech day in Germany, started in December by the Chaos Computer Club. My local branch was holding workshops on alternatives to Big Tech search engines. We are also working on developing lists of Open Source Alternatives, and European Platformed alternatives. So, the app recommended here would not fit the bill, because it is US platformed and you have to use the App Store. Something new in Europe, which is an alternative to X is W.
The Social Media Platform W. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/01/29/fact-check-is-the-eu-launching-a-social-media-platform-called-w
We also need Boycotts. Boycott Amazon. February is Boycott Amazon and all of its Subsidiaries Month. Here are the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) movement recommendations.
https://bdsmovement.net/Guide-to-BDS-Boycott
I agree that this is really what any democracy that believes in the rule of law and public opinion access to information and other pillars, should look into. The open source of the algorithm, and the choices still in the hands of the owners, could then be monitored for extending the media fairness infrastructure guidelines that population opinion based democracies and socially responsible governments (something to generally rebuild) could then factually observe and regulate so the norms of freedom of speech but also media concentration or biases landscape still be in the population interest or public. whatever I don't speak legalese or politicial euphemisms...
I find that monopoly and secret sauce makes for easy sliding into F a s c i s m.. the abstract version, with the oligarch at the steering wheel, not the people representative institutions. I mean thought control of the population. maybe totalitarian slope is more accurate and general. with the current oligarch being the real bosses that makes for a certain type of totalitarianism, closer to the F. version than the soviet or chinese version. Same technology then and now and in the future btw.
I am curious about the state of available technologies that could make a decentralized system allowing still local or regional location of the personal data. distributed systems that can be made aware of other nodes.... all in the exchange protocols. I am babbling. but if you have pointers I am seriously interest in learning about this.
Que pensez vous de la suggestion Fediverse?
Hasan Piker streamed to YouTube and instantly became the worlds #1 YouTube streamer the day following the twitch ban.
Gotta love the Streisand effect. They're accidentally making progressives more famous and I'm here for it
Everyone is moving to UpScrolled. Lots of Palestinian content, people block trolls. Great community of people.
More important than ever! The work that the Hind Rajab Foundation is doing to track down and bring Israeli criminals to justice is one that is vital in the effort to hold Israel accountable. Let us hope they will also turn their sights on the criminal leaders of the countries of the west who are co-perpetrators of these crimes.
Find out what they’re doing here:
https://www.hindrajabfoundation.org
The least we can do is donate to help them:
Support the Hind Rajab Foundation
https://donate.stripe.com/cN228hbY5g7jaM84gg
There are limits to working within the system and we need to get out of it as much as possible. Zateo does that. For social media use UpScrolled. The key issue to address is to get those organizations to be at scale so that the average person also gets informed vs. censorship and manipulation by those at the top of the system.
Upscrolled. Just go there.
If there is an algorithm that regulates the content we see, that is effectively an editor - no different than the NYT, CNN or any corporate media. However, social media is currently exempt from being sued for their content. That needs to change.
We need to regulate Big Tech. But, that is unlikely since they own both parties.
Moreover, we need to roll back the Patriot Act. Not only did it create ICE, but it gave the government surveillance powers over us that never would have been allowed pre 9/11. The government and Big Tech want to make us like the Palestinians in Hebron - under extreme surveillance and control. We won't be able to communicate without Big Brother monitoring and controlling us.
I have encouraged my two children to seriously consider moving to another country. The US is on a terrible trajectory.
what happened with TIKTOK, is nothing but a pre-planned move by Zionist and trump who complained about China, I would much rather have China watching then Zionist israelis
yes they are and cannot trust them. Me and many others have switched over to Upscroll, much b etter
Was Piker eventually allowed to go back to correctly identifying those he perceives as Zionist pigs, or were there any other lasting consequences from his being banned?
I deleted my account when the Israeli agents took over that app. I hear now the word Zionist is banned if it is not to their liking. Since I believe Zionism is just another form of Nazism, I wonder if they would allow that to be expressed and shared.
Zio-Nazi's Censoring Free Speech so they can hide their Horrendous Crimes!
It would be great if, like Taylor, Zeteo and more of its contributors had Fediverse, ie, Mastodon accounts.
@taylorlorenz, your framing isn’t neutral — it’s purposely selective. You use dehumanizing language examples when the target is “Zionists,” and then construct a story where Jews are uniquely cast as agents of repression, surveillance, and censorship. That’s not critique; it’s moral permission to dehumanize one group and one group only.
Be honest: would you tolerate the phrase “rabid ultra-Muslim pigs”? Of course not.
You also single out Jewish organizations for engaging with platforms on moderation, while ignoring the identical role played by CAIR, GLAAD, and countless other religious and non-religious civil-rights groups. Same conduct, different treatment. Why?
When only Jewish participation is framed as sinister, and only Jewish identities are depicted as censorious by nature, the pattern is clear. You may deny the intent, but the impact is unmistakable - it's anti-semitic.
Is Muslim an ideology? I understand that "pig" is a bit too much (insulting), but it was targeting an ideology. Why should such an ideology be protected as if it were that of a religious group ID? Or even an ethnic ID, giving you some room beside religion? It would help not to conflate Zionist ideology and its industrial projects and implementations and actions with the identity of Jews as a group of people. No? That would make good faith conversation so much more possible. Otherwise language is useless.
Because one might not object to your wanting protection of the Jews for being Jewish, but what does that have to do with Zionism as target of anger, criticism or even insults. You can't make telepathic intention accusation that one is meaning Jewish when using Zionist. You can impose it in bad faith and political manipulation for sure, but here we are using language for communication. If not bad faith, I apologize for that aspect, but the language problem persist.
The purposeful conflation of Zionism and Judaism is the central strategy of Zionist propagandizing, or "hasbara." The Nazis employed a similar strategy in conflating Nazi ideology with German culture and heritage. If you were a "true" and loyal German, then you were a Nazi and subscribed to and supported the aims of the Nazi Party.
Jay Friedman dutifully follows this conflation strategy in his post -- notice his first paragraph refers to "Zionists," but the later paragraphs all switch to "Jewish," thus purposefully confusing the two terms, as though they are synonymous. They are not, the proof being the many anti-Zionist Jews who have opposed the Zionist colonial project from its beginning and are today exponentially increasing in number, including members of ultra-Orthodox haredi groups who can hardly be charged with harboring anti-Semitic prejudices.
The charge that the author is singling out Jewish groups regarding engaging with platforms on moderation is false on its face, as the opinion piece clearly lists other groups and topics (the Biden administration and Covid reporting) that have so engaged, but such distortion is also a common feature of hasbara, which always boils down to the complaint of "anti-Semitism," so predictably that is has become a joke.
Yes the shift was clear. And why I reacted.. But I got bogged down in the exasperation of lazily letting the hasbara leitmotivs go unchecked again.
However, I was surprised by the limited acknowledgement of the scientific studies, about the existence of the people on that land, at the thousands of years usual narrative level.
Thanks for reminding me and confirming my initi8al impression. And dissecting the patterns.
about the chain of exchanges below.
I did not appreciate the hidden ad hominem language in the end about me hiding something. That is too much debate distraction technique. But I notice some inkling of more rational concessions.
He's a very active hasbara-monger, and it's all the same boilerplate stuff: "indigenous-people-returning-to-their-homeland, Jewish-right-to-self-determination, anti-Semitism blah blah." I think they are given training or at least supplied with talking points. There is no engaging with them; they're like zombie bots, and maybe even be paid hasbara posters. I respond just so their nonsense doesn't go unchallenged.
Islamism, Christianity and Judaism are ideologies.
ISIS is not synonymous with Islam; Christian Dominionism is not synonymous with Christianity; and Zionism is not synonymous with Judaism, as much as you would like to imply. Ideological extremism that perverts and exploits a theology has long been the object of criticism and condemnation, and the racist, colonialist, genocidal perversion of Judaism that is Zionism is just one example of a dangerous extremism that is rightfully condemned.
If ISIS is not synonymous with Islam, then your own framework requires consistency.
By that logic, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran—all of which openly endorse or enact violence directed intentionally against civilians—must be understood as ideological extremists, not as representatives of entire peoples or religions. The same applies to individuals who praised and celebrated the October 7 massacre; celebrating mass murder is extremism by definition, not legitimate resistance.
Zionism, meanwhile, is neither a theology nor an extremist ideology. At its core, it is simply the belief that the Jewish people—like other peoples—have a right to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland, and to live there in security and peace. That belief is held by Jews across the political spectrum, including many who strongly oppose specific Israeli governments and policies.
What you are doing is redefining a mainstream national movement as uniquely “racist,” “colonialist,” or “genocidal,” while excusing or minimizing movements that explicitly call for the eradication of Jews and the destruction of Israel.
Finally, it’s impossible to assess this conflict honestly while ignoring a 100+ years of documented efforts by Palestinian factions and their allies to kill, expel, or eliminate every Jew in the region—often stated openly and pursued violently. When a movement’s declared goal is the destruction of a people, that is not metaphorical language. It is the definition of genocidal intent.
Erasing a people’s right to exist—or redefining their survival as extremism—is simply Jew hatred.
"" Zionism, meanwhile, is neither a theology nor an extremist ideology. At its core, it is simply the belief that the Jewish people—like other peoples—have a right to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland, and to live there in security and peace. That belief is held by Jews across the political spectrum, including many who strongly oppose specific Israeli governments and policies.
"""
see. problem with definition here. You are talking about the idea the dream. not the political zionism project since Herzl foundation and ulterior lobbying across european political elites, including Italy, where I think Jabotinsky (or chabotinsky) took inspiration for his implementation project version.
How to refer to that without having you revert to that virtuous goal, that is missing a lot of the historical reality of the new Israel project implementation on the ground and its ideological trajectory that seems to have converted most of the instituions to that current effective version of Zionism. How can we name that. and not just the virtuous or nostalgic dream part that might indeed have been a theme of the liturgy, but the religions are more than there allegorically styles stories. The knowledge base of the world keeps evolving and old scritpures might not have the objective knowledge base value that in pervious uncertainty about the science of the world, it had for the many finding cooperation and confort in associating and lending their belief abilities for what they could not know to others interpeting and adapting the pervious "knowledge" to the reality on the ground across generations keeping that living religion through wherever or whatever evolving reality across generations. That might apply to all religions.. The balance between the adoration of the objects of the past its langauge content and the evolving complexity of the world... I might be wrong. but I think we need to make such accurate disctinction.
it might be that people insluting the latter reality of implementation by using zionism, are not talking about the dream.. but the instance of the project that was not anywher in the bible... or its evolving interpretations.
a 19th centure invention perhaps. that zionism. it might have gone differently perhaps if not following in the imperial or colonial assumptions about the inferior civilization or social tissue being dehumanized relatively from the start. I might just be asking for a reality check.
You need to study history more closely. Until the mid-20th century, “Palestine” was primarily a geographic designation, not a modern national identity. It referred equally to Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in British Mandate Palestine, not to a sovereign people with an independent state, institutions, or national movement or identify. By contrast, modern Zionism emerged decades earlier, in the late 19th century, with a clear, affirmative national goal: the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland.
Today's Palestinian nationalist identify developed later—in reaction to Zionism and Jewish statehood, not as an independent liberation movement—and was formally institutionalized only in 1964 with the creation of the PLO, again decades after modern Zionism. A distinct national movement with defined political aims came long after Zionism was already well established. Opposition to Jewish immigration and, at times, violent conflict was the central features of that modern Palistine movement—but it is the timing and reactive nature of Palestinian nationalism, not its existence, that is the critical historical fact.
We can argue endlessly about who was here first, who is more indigenous, or when dreams became political movements. None of that changes the central reality: two distinct peoples exist today, each with their own unique identity, and both are entitled to live side by side in peace, security, and self-determination in their own land.
If endorsing or enacting violence against civilians is the basis for labeling an organization as terrorist, certainly Zionism, which just murdered at least 70,000 civilians in Gaza, half of them children, and has murdered thousands more in a century long genocide, with the apparent intention of killing thousands more, would qualify -- if one were being consistent.
The difference is that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran are part of a liberationist force, while Zionists at their core are colonizing invaders eager to slaughter indigenous people for their land, whatever the fantasy-history justifications presented to the world. The fact that the Palestinians and their allies have been fighting this struggle for over a century is a testament to their love of the land and the tenacity of the people and their allies.
Additionally, it's well to keep in mind that every adult Israeli is automatically a member of the armed forces at age 18, so there is often no distinction in Israel between soldier and civilian.
As Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish anti-Zionist, has said, the only rights the Jewish invaders have is to pack their bags and leave Palestine.
Your statements cross from political criticism into open Jew-hatred and that bias discredits everything you said.
The repeated claim of “70,000 murdered civilians” is false. That figure does not represent civilians, nor does it represent murder. Multiple independent assessments indicate that approximately 25,000–30,000 of the dead were Hamas and affiliated terrorist combatants. In addition, in a population of roughly 2.1 million, approximately 15,000 deaths per year would be expected from natural and non-war causes. When those facts are acknowledged, the number of civilian deaths attributable to the war is closer to 25,000–35,000.
Those deaths are tragic — but they are not evidence of genocide. They are, in fact, lower than civilian casualty rates historically observed in dense urban warfare, particularly when the Hamas terrorist systematically embeds fighters, weapons, and command centers within civilian populations in direct violation of international law. Hamas made civilian casualties inevitable by design, not by accident. You can quibble about the exact numbers but it dos not change the conclusion.
Referring to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, or Iran as “liberators” is indefensible. These are terrorist organizations and authoritarian regimes that execute political opponents, suppress women, criminalize dissent, and murder civilians as a matter of doctrine. Praising them requires willful blindness to their own atrocities and an abandonment of any coherent moral standard.
There is also no factual basis for the claim that Jews are foreign “colonizers.” Both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to the Levant. Genetic, archaeological, and historical evidence consistently shows that they are more closely related to each other than either is to Europeans or to Arabs from Arabia. Framing one as native and the other as an illegitimate intruder is not history — it is propaganda.
Finally, on at least five occasions, Palestinians were offered an independent state alongside Israel. Each proposal was rejected — not because it denied sovereignty, but because it required accepting the permanent existence of a Jewish state. That refusal, repeated over decades, is a central reason this conflict persists.
You may oppose Israeli policy. You may criticize Israeli leaders. But when you deny Jewish indigeneity, excuse terrorist violence, and falsify casualty data to support a predetermined conclusion, you are no longer making a political argument. You are prosecuting a narrative built on distortion, omission, and animus.
Religion can used that way, for sure. But it is the religious individual association or jewish ethnic group id that are usually considered human rights against discrimination and in assumed in hate speech regulations of the past. Today language can be massaged a lot. I might consider you have a technical point there, but are missing the boat of the conversation I was trying to have.
Here's the problem. You’re trying to thread a needle that has no eye. You're trying to massage language to fit your own narrative. Zionism is not an external ideology grafted onto Judaism, it is core to Jewish religion, history, and peoplehood. Judaism never lived without Zion. Zion never lived without Judaism. That connection is explicit and continuous in Jewish, Christian and Islamic liturgy. Pretending otherwise isn’t sophistication; it’s a refusal to take Jewish identity seriously.
I take note of your credo and qualification of my understanding. I have other sources about the difference between judaism and zionism, defined as the late 19th century new Israel state construction and implementation project attribute to someone named Herzl and later further developped by Jabotinsky and his militias, the ideology of solving the existing civilian population problem on the land without people. The current political spectrum being mostly dominated by that strain, deeply implemented in all of Israeli institutions and perhaps explaining why I think it is not judaism, as the level of dehumanization that this strain has led to, can't be that of a religious moral essence mindset. I can't accept that. so we can't really converse. I might be sophisticating too much that way. Apartheid, ethnics cleansing, and genocidal program. Is that defining judaism or jewish identity? I am skeptical. It looks more like a perversion or abuse of a religion to me. our knowledge bases might not overlap enough to come to some common use of language. silly me. Hard to speak from outside to inside.
You ignore the entire liturgy of all thee religiouns, and the entire genetics, archiology, anthropology and documented historical sources of over 3,000 years.
Furthermore, you ignore the 100+ years of targeted genocide by Palestinians and their allies against Jews.
Your essay puts too much blame on government and not enough on the oligarchal motivations of the owners.