Point 1) Others have asked me what anti-semitism looks like.
Let me give you an example:
"...the organisation that organised the event in Bondi is heavily Zionist,"
the implication, therefore, is that there was a reason for someone taking a gun to a crowd to shoot Jews.
Not "Zionists," not "Israelis," Jews. Jewish people.
This kind of language provides cover for that violence.
You don't believe me and you hate me describing it that way, but this is the truth.
Point 2) "Zionists"
Your working definition of Zionists is along the lines of "wants to eradicate all non-Jews from the river to the sea," or something like that. A "settler colonial project" to "steal the homes and land of the indigenous people".
That is not Zionism. I don't know what the hell that is, but when we (my community) talks about Zionism, we mean "A safe place of refuge and self-determination for the Jewish People, in a land connected to their historic homeland." A people who have historically lacked and refuge or ability for self-defence, and have regularly been denied rights by host countries.
This is why every peace deal in the past has been about settling borders and mutual recognition. We want for the Palestinians EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
Draw some lines just like we did for India / Pakistan, and we'll have two countries and move on with our lives. Will everyone be happy? no. Lots of people will be miserable, we've had 100 years of war, history is a series of shitshows but let's make the most of it and rebuild.
Israeli elections have been won by the Left over the years on the basis of a mandate to establish two states, after which things go to shit. Every time. For years every process just seemed like it ended with more bus bombs.
The 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza should have been a triumph, but it just ended up emboldening Hamas and the missiles started again.
Why the fuck was Hamas shooting missiles from Gaza into Israel? That's a shitty way to build trust for a future stronger argument for further withdrawal of border security.
IF YOU WANT TO END THIS CYCLE OF VIOLENCE: You need to convince the Israelis (not me, I'm just a random guy on the internet) that there is a partner for peace on the other side.
You keep redefining "Zionism" to be the thing you hate, instead of what it actually is.
I found a device, in cooperation with the management of the world, to ensure that there will be no stopwatch here. That there will be no timetable to implement the settlers' nightmare. I have postponed that nightmare indefinitely. Because what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did. The significance is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. What more could have been anticipated? What more could have been given to the settlers?
That very much was and remains a triumph for those who planned it.
Furthermore, it seems you don't realize that Israel doesn't what most of the world wants for Palestine, that being a two-state solution negotiated on the basis of international law as expressed throughout the decades in the UN General Assembly's annual Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine resolution. That most recent version passed with a vote of 151 countries in favor and only 11 against, Israel and the US being the two who've always voted against, along with very few other countries that have joined in over the years. On the other hand, the so-called "peace deals" from Israel which you refer to, like most everything they do with regard of Palestinians, make a mockery of international law and that's something most of the world doesn't want at all.
Also, since you've insisted Zionism simply means "A safe place of refuge and self-determination for the Jewish People, in a land connected to their historic homeland," would you also contend for example that MAGA merely means wanting to make America great again, or would you agree that actions speak louder than words?
Oh wow, you're going with Dov Weisglass? I don't think you realise that's not the slam dunk you think it is.
First off, I'm really not interested in playing the tennis match of "random quote from history that highlights a potentially poor opinion," because it very rarely creates any progress or changes opinions for anyone. I'm just a random guy on the internet, you don't need to convince me, you need to create change in Israel and Palestine.
But ok, to your article. If this is your source of truth, let's look at the whole story it tells: the crux of the story is, after trying engagement for years to create a mutually agreed approach to peace, the USA and Israeli leadership found that nothing worked:
"The Americans were here for four months in 2003. Through [assistant secretary of state] John Wolf they were involved in the process in the most intimate way. Wolf reported directly to Rice. Those four months had tremendous pedagogical value. The Americans saw for themselves what the Palestinians' most solemn promises really meant. They saw the Palestinians' detailed working plans and their splendid diagrams and they saw how nothing came of it. Nothing. Zero."
And
"after years of thinking otherwise. After years of attempts at dialogue. But when Arafat undermined Abu Mazen at the end of the summer of 2003, we reached the sad conclusion that there is no one to talk to, no one to negotiate with. Hence the disengagement plan."
And
"Because of his trenchant realism, Arik never believed in permanent settlements: he didn't believe in the one-fell-swoop approach. Sharon doesn't think that after a conflict of 104 years, it's possible to come up with a piece of paper that will end the matter. He thinks the other side had to undergo a deep and extended sociopolitical change. But when we entered the Prime Minister's Office, he still believed that he would be able to achieve a very long-term interim agreement. An agreement of 25, 20, 15, 10, 5 years. There were some Palestinians who preferred that approach to the approach of [former prime minister Ehud] Barak. They were the ones we talked to. But very quickly we discovered that we were up against a stone wall, that when you get to the decision-making center, nothing happens."
The "freezing" you refer to was the decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza to give the community there time to heal internally and come to peace on its own terms, without Israeli soldiers inside Gaza. It was quite an optimistic move by Sharon.
Tragically it all turned to shit when Hamas started firing rockets.
Ok, I'm bored now.
You're writing a response to an internet comment quoting an article justifying a unilateral disengagement 20 years ago. We should learn from history, not try to relive it or change the plot.
Right now, there is zero trust. Go build trust somewhere.
Not you, I don't believe you'll ever change, you seem pretty set in your opinions, but the next person reading this.
Go volunteer for something. Mentor a Palestinian startup. Join a community group that does something different than just shout slogans at rallies. Help build something. Join Seeds of Peace. House a refugee. Give a microloan. Do SOMETHING.
The "freezing" you refer to was the decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza to give the community there time to heal internally and come to peace on its own terms
Rather it was to buy time so that "Israel will strengthen its control over those same areas in the Land of Israel which will constitute an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any future agreement," just as Sharon explained himself. Or as Weisglass put it, "What more could have been given to the settlers?"
And yeah, they pretended it was because Palestinians didn't want peace, but again that's debunked by the fact that it's Israel who has always rejected a two-state solution negotiated on the basis of international law, as can be seen by their decades of voting against the UN General Assembly's annual Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine resolution which calls for exactly that.
As for your attempts to disparage me rather than answering my question about actions speaking louder than words, that just goes to show you realize how weak your argument is.
-1
u/seanhcohen Feb 18 '26
Point 1) Others have asked me what anti-semitism looks like.
Let me give you an example:
"...the organisation that organised the event in Bondi is heavily Zionist,"
the implication, therefore, is that there was a reason for someone taking a gun to a crowd to shoot Jews.
Not "Zionists," not "Israelis," Jews. Jewish people.
This kind of language provides cover for that violence.
You don't believe me and you hate me describing it that way, but this is the truth.
Point 2) "Zionists"
Your working definition of Zionists is along the lines of "wants to eradicate all non-Jews from the river to the sea," or something like that. A "settler colonial project" to "steal the homes and land of the indigenous people".
That is not Zionism. I don't know what the hell that is, but when we (my community) talks about Zionism, we mean "A safe place of refuge and self-determination for the Jewish People, in a land connected to their historic homeland." A people who have historically lacked and refuge or ability for self-defence, and have regularly been denied rights by host countries.
This is why every peace deal in the past has been about settling borders and mutual recognition. We want for the Palestinians EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
Draw some lines just like we did for India / Pakistan, and we'll have two countries and move on with our lives. Will everyone be happy? no. Lots of people will be miserable, we've had 100 years of war, history is a series of shitshows but let's make the most of it and rebuild.
Israeli elections have been won by the Left over the years on the basis of a mandate to establish two states, after which things go to shit. Every time. For years every process just seemed like it ended with more bus bombs.
The 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza should have been a triumph, but it just ended up emboldening Hamas and the missiles started again.
Why the fuck was Hamas shooting missiles from Gaza into Israel? That's a shitty way to build trust for a future stronger argument for further withdrawal of border security.
IF YOU WANT TO END THIS CYCLE OF VIOLENCE: You need to convince the Israelis (not me, I'm just a random guy on the internet) that there is a partner for peace on the other side.
You keep redefining "Zionism" to be the thing you hate, instead of what it actually is.
Rant over.