uncle bernard

that's pure assertion. there is no reality where israel would be exterminated. "if we didn't stop them, Israel would exterminate all of Gaza like many of its politicians and citizens want." see, I can play the same game.

yes, gaza has a christian population. one of the oldest christian populations in the world and one of the world's oldest christian churches is in gaza city. Israel bombed it and killed several christians including relatives of a former us congressman.

Then so does Israel's. This is the problem you're gonna have. Neither party's official stance is genocidal. Both parties have had many individual members make genocidal statements and/or explicitly argue for genocide. Neither party is a true theocracy. Both governments are heavily influenced by religious and ethnic tribalism. So you can either relax your definition to the colloquial use of the terms or you need to admit they don't apply to either party. But you don't get to have it both ways.

hamas doesn't fit your dictionary definition of genocide either buddy.

lol no, man. keep flailing.

I think it's great that they are exercising they're right to free speech and making their voices heard. It's a little frustrating that they are claiming a monopoly on Jewish identity when many of the people they're talking about are Jewish themselves. I have not seen anybody give a convincing answer as to how a movement where Jews are overrepresented (meaning the antizionist movement has a higher percentage of Jewish participants than the population as a whole) is inherently antisemitic. I think it's important to be able to hold that people on both sides have misbehaved consistently the entire time. I heard vile chants from Zionists counter-protesters (chanting Israel isn't killing *enough* kids as one example). Antizionism isn't inherently antisemitic though there are antisemitic antizionists and zionism isn't inherently genocidal though there are genocidal zionists. judge individuals by their actions.

can you not follow the logic of the conversation? 1) you called hamas a theocracy 2) I said Israel is too 3) You said Israel can't be a theocracy because it has a muslim (and christian which you didn't mention) population 4) I pointed out that Palestine also a minority religious community Either they're both theocracies or neither are.

no matter how many times I explain it to you, you keep thinking that this in anyway impacts the tenets of antizionism. i gave you too much credit. i thought an adult would be able to glean the important threads from the podcast: 1) The history of the state of Israel 2) The basic tenets of antizionism held by many of the groups mentioned which are also shared by non-jewish antizionists. You asked for a resource to explain the antizionist perspective. I gave you a podcast with the entire history of the state and the reasons why many oppose it. It's not my fault you couldn't figure that out.

you're such a freak lol fantasizing about the government cracking down an an internet poster? loser mentality

that’s not what a theocracy means. maybe you need the dictionary. 50,000 christians live in palestine btw (israel’s killed many of them too)

yes what you were implying was BS. there is a concrete offer on the table. that’s the fact.

israel is a theocratic state and committing genocide. what’s the confusion?

that voluntary migration isn’t ethnic cleansing and not remotely similar to what’s happening in Palestine. you weren’t ethnically cleansed from austin when moved back to PA.

It’s dishonest because Hamas offered all the hostages, including the bodies of those who died in captivity. Your statement implied that they’re only offering corpses as a f*ck you. we know that some of the hostages are dead because they died along with their captors in israeli strikes. israel acknowledged that reality.

Yes and that includes Israel!

not the goal of antizionism. not what existed before Israel either. Hamas is a modern development.

talk about spin. what happened in 1948 that might have impacted jewish migration in the region?

it’s plainly not true because it’s not what happened. hamas didn’t make up this deal. it was negotiated by the US and Qatar. your claim that hamas countered a ceasefire deal in exchange for the return of dead hostages was extremely dishonest. hamas has agreed to return the hostages in exchange for an end to the invasion of gaza. The US supports that. Israel said no. It wants to invade Rafah. Those are the facts.

because it was an extensive history of the establishment of the state of israel which provides the necessary context to the basic antizionist idea “hey you can’t just kick people out of their homes and establish an ethnostate”

What happened in 1948 that might have affected Jewish migration in the middle east? Did they, idk, establish a Jewish ethnostate right around the corner fulfilling a 2000 year old dream of returning to the holy land?

that’s what a protest is. they’re making their desires known, as is their right. the university gets to decide what to do with that information.

yes. nobody claimed it does. that’s what so confusing about your issue.

plainly not true. hamas accepted the ceasefire backed by the US. This included the release of all hostages in exchange for withdrawal from Gaza. Israel said no because they don’t want to stop the war.

so how does that impact the arguments of anti-zionism?

It's not a word game to point out how Jewish identity is conceived by Jewish people. You're the one playing word games to craft an idea of Jewish identity that nobody, especially Jews, uses. And you still haven't said how this has any impact on the arguments of the podcast. If you do, we can actually speak about the substance for once.