03-11-2024, 01:55 PM
Thank goodness Hamas and the Palestinian Nationalist Movement doesn’t include ethnic cleansing, as a means to independence! 
“A land without people and a people without land” is falsely attributed to the precepts of Zionism . . . as is your claim of ethnic cleansing, being a fundamental principle of Zionism. It is patently anti-Zionism propaganda.
The world, and those Arab countries ceding the land (as did the Jewish immigrants), knew the land for the creation of Israel was occupied . . . including the newly formed United Nations. The Arabs willingly tossed the inhabitants (of the land that would become Israel) under the bus and then broke promises, made to these indigenous people, regarding their rights and independence.
You asked: "IIf I'd said "death to South Africa" during the time of apartheid, do you honestly believe that would by necessity be calling for the death of all Afrikaners?
No. I would believe you meant the destruction of every institution and person that perpetuates South Africa, as it currently exists . . . not just apartheid. Why wouldn’t I?
“Death to South African Apartheid”? I could interpret this as you accept apartheid, except for the practice of apartheid, in South Africa. As apartheid was exclusive to South Africa, it is a redundant statement . . . no need for the qualifier. Unless it’s truly just the South African style of apartheid, you loathe, then, the qualifier is necessary.
"Death to United States Capitalism" and "Death to Capitalism" doesn't mean "Death to the United States". "Death to the United States" could mean their people, institutions, style of government or the Constitution.
It’s kinda like “Death to McDonalds’ Big Mac” versus “Death to the Big Mac”.
“Death to McDonalds” . . . You really expect me to know that you’re specifically talking about the Big Mac? (Yeah, substitute Israel for McDonalds . . . and the Big Mac for Zionism).
You stated: "I've shown that "nation" doesn't necessarily refer to the people who live in it, yet you insist there is only one correct interpretation in spite of the fact that Zionism is the core institution of Israel. Is it implausible that people who say "death to Israel" hate Zionism rather than Jews per se? Hardly."
Is it implausible that “Death to Israel” means just that? Hardly! As it is subject to interpretation, it is an overly broad and dangerous statement.
Again, why am I forced to mind-read intent? If you are against a specific ideology, institution or practice JUST SAY IT and remove any ambiguity. I interpret “Death to Israel” as a literal statement . . . not hyperbole or a reference to a specific practice or practices. FFS! Say what you mean.
Why should I be forced to become a mind reader and guess what people mean when they say, “Death to Israel”? Why?
Keep on dancing!
“A land without people and a people without land” is falsely attributed to the precepts of Zionism . . . as is your claim of ethnic cleansing, being a fundamental principle of Zionism. It is patently anti-Zionism propaganda.
The world, and those Arab countries ceding the land (as did the Jewish immigrants), knew the land for the creation of Israel was occupied . . . including the newly formed United Nations. The Arabs willingly tossed the inhabitants (of the land that would become Israel) under the bus and then broke promises, made to these indigenous people, regarding their rights and independence.
You asked: "IIf I'd said "death to South Africa" during the time of apartheid, do you honestly believe that would by necessity be calling for the death of all Afrikaners?
No. I would believe you meant the destruction of every institution and person that perpetuates South Africa, as it currently exists . . . not just apartheid. Why wouldn’t I?
“Death to South African Apartheid”? I could interpret this as you accept apartheid, except for the practice of apartheid, in South Africa. As apartheid was exclusive to South Africa, it is a redundant statement . . . no need for the qualifier. Unless it’s truly just the South African style of apartheid, you loathe, then, the qualifier is necessary.
"Death to United States Capitalism" and "Death to Capitalism" doesn't mean "Death to the United States". "Death to the United States" could mean their people, institutions, style of government or the Constitution.
It’s kinda like “Death to McDonalds’ Big Mac” versus “Death to the Big Mac”.
“Death to McDonalds” . . . You really expect me to know that you’re specifically talking about the Big Mac? (Yeah, substitute Israel for McDonalds . . . and the Big Mac for Zionism).
You stated: "I've shown that "nation" doesn't necessarily refer to the people who live in it, yet you insist there is only one correct interpretation in spite of the fact that Zionism is the core institution of Israel. Is it implausible that people who say "death to Israel" hate Zionism rather than Jews per se? Hardly."
Is it implausible that “Death to Israel” means just that? Hardly! As it is subject to interpretation, it is an overly broad and dangerous statement.
Again, why am I forced to mind-read intent? If you are against a specific ideology, institution or practice JUST SAY IT and remove any ambiguity. I interpret “Death to Israel” as a literal statement . . . not hyperbole or a reference to a specific practice or practices. FFS! Say what you mean.
Why should I be forced to become a mind reader and guess what people mean when they say, “Death to Israel”? Why?
Keep on dancing!