• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    No, there really isn’t. The Nazis collaborated with the founding Zionists, Israel has always been a genocidal settler-colonial project and Germany has retained support of it.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, it is complicated which is why I said “not 100% awful” instead of completely justified or something like that.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s pretty cut and dry that the original Zionists were anti-yiddish anti-Communist anti-semites that allied with prominent anti-semites against diaspora in order to pursue their settler-colonial project, which the Nazis gleefully worked for.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yes, antisemetic Jewish people living in different countries deliberately spreading antisemetic lies that they can’t integrate and need an ethnostate. The fact that they were Jewish doesn’t make settler-colonial genocide “not cut and dry.”

            • GarrulousBrevity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              So, your argument that it’s not complicated is that Israel was founded by antisemitic Jews? I’m not even saying that you’re factually wrong, but you keep insisting that this isn’t complicated. It is complicated, and the more you insist that it’s simple, while giving increasing amounts of fine details is not particularly convincing

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                The fact that Germany is supporting Zionism as they always have even under the Nazis is uncomplicated.

          • Drop Bear@theblower.au
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think you’ll find that all of the “original Zionists” were Christian @GarrulousBrevity
            What we now call “Zionism” grew after the Protestant Reformation, and is rooted in 17th-century English Puritanism.

            It had two significant streams:

            1. the return of Jews to Palestine (basically, a way to rid Europe of its Jews - a form of antisemitism, a couple of centuries before that term was coined);
            2. the second coming of Jesus (Jews who want to survive don’t remain Jewish).

            At the time, Jewish communities weren’t impressed. In the 19th century, Herzl and his friends exploited the movement to their own ends.
            @Cowbee

            #Israel
            #Palestine
            #Zionism

            • GarrulousBrevity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              I think you’re conflating being Jewish with Judaism. His religious beliefs aren’t really what’s in question here, @[email protected]’s comment sums the idea up well. Herzl was, with no ambiguity, a member of the Jewish community.

              • Tangentism@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I’m not conflating at all.

                A common theme with zionists, that Herzl himself also said, is that the land was promised to them by God

                • GarrulousBrevity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I don’t want to sound like a contrarian, but I’m struggling to figure out how this relates to the previous comments.

                  I will say, as much as I am being argued with for saying that the history of Germany’s history with Israel is complex, and the history of Zionism is complex, no one is really responding in a way that doesn’t sound like the Charlie Day red string board meme.

                  When I look at the current state of Israel and Palestine, I see a lot of people backed into corners. Netanyahu knows that if he loses power, he’ll be arrested for corruption, so will do anything to support his base, who are the worst of the Zionists this thread is about, so he only has an incentive to continue butchering Palestinians.

                  I see the US not wanting a nuclear armed Israel to feel that they are out of defensive options against their neighboring countries, and as such feels a need to keep supplying weapons and intelligence so that Israel is only, merely, butchering Palestinians, instead of something worse.

                  I see the Palestinians being sacrificed, which is causing some of them to need to fight back, so they’re radicalized, and join Hezbollah.

                  And I see the rest of the region wanting to punish Israel for their heinous actions.

                  And looking at this as a US citizen, my experience is that the people who want to make it look like the solution to solving this is easy, are also usually trying to get you to vote for Jill Stein, and I’m not convinced that it isn’t an astro-turfed movement to push for spoiler votes to get Trump in office.

                  I would like it if we could say the situation is nuanced, and then talk about the nuance, rather than scream that it’s cut and dry

      • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        There is nothing inherently correct or false when it comes to black and white vs. gray. These are not real moral or epistemological quantities. Sometimes there are salient and clear-cut characterizations and this is the better way to think of a topic. Sometimes it is better to adopt multiple angles because no single view is usefully capturing a topic.

        Instead of being indirect and appealing to false logic, why not just say what you actually find objectionable?