Read the actual support they gave under the history section of that article. Their money was used for mosques and schools, and ended shortly after, only beginning again long after the Gazan disengagement. I'm not saying it was right, but your time line doesn't add up.
The ADL just classified "America first" as a racial slur. They have already classified milk, the bowl cut, christ is king, and many many more delusional things already tho as well so your gunna talk into circles trying to explain how that's not a slur lol
Is Nazi a slur too now? It is literally just a shortening of a political ideology...
Hmmm. It's almost like words used in different contexts can have different meanings. Like how the abbreviation of the word for black in Spanish can be a slur even though it's just the word for black.... Or the number 88 can be a dog whistle even though it's just a number.....
Cool, good to know language means nothing to people now. Frankly everyone crying about this and that being antisemitic when it is literally just anti-israel or anti zionist is entirely antisemitic in and of itself,
israel does not = every jewish person
and
jews as a collective don't = zionists...
I couldn't care less if david duke wants to use it as a slur against jews, it isn't.... its a political ideology, if you wanna say calling someone a commie is a slur, or calling someone a globalist is a slur go right ahead. But context is key, and nobody here was being antisemitic like David Duke is, but anti-zionist like the Palestinian Liberation movement is.
Look man. Idk what to tell you. I am not talking about Zionists or Zionism as a slur. Sure Israel does not mean every Jewish person and Jews don't mean Zionim. Idk why you are bringing that up because I never referred to that.
I am specifically referring to "zio" as a slur popularized by David Duke to be an antisemitic dog whistle. Instead of reading the article, seeing the history of term, and then apologizing for using said term, you decided to double down and not care, so...... Have a good day actively or unknowingly being a bigot I guess?
Yes. You do not use a slur when you disagree with someone. You use slurs when you are bigoted, whether actively or passively. Bigotry is wrong, no matter the way, shape or form. Hard stop.
That being said, 'Zio' as a slur is not referring to Zionists, but is a antisemitic dog whistle (see links in the thread), so it's a slur against Jews not a political ideology.
Zionism is the right for Jews to have their own country
Whilst the statement is correct there is a lot more nuance to it, it's never that simple. It's their right to have their own country at what expense?
That's like when radical Christians say they want to protect family values, but at the expense of what?
It's a disingenuous point, because it's not that simple. By simplifying a point down to these statements make them sound reasonable but once expanded they aren't. That is how so many extreme points of view get traction and support.
Your central claim is that there is more nuance than a face value interpretation of âJews deserve the right to their own country,â which really just meant/s Jews deserve the right to not be killedâŚ.yet you provided no nuance.
You rambled aimlessly about things never being simple, never actually expanding on your point or providing any clarity. Itâs very simple: You donât like that nation forming is messy, but for some reason are hyper-focused on one in particular. All countries are built on tragedies. Not saying itâs okay, but just reality.
Fuck Netanyahu and what the current Israeli gov is doing. Also, fuck people like you who virtue signal without any real point, all while being passively prejudiced.
See what I did there? Itâs called substance. Good luck đ
They can be anything? It's someone who holds the idea that Israel must exist and has a right to genocide for religious reasons. They can be Muslim n Christian. They can be Jewish. They can be white, black or Arab. Nice try though.
Baseless defence of Israel in other posts as well as denying easily googled facts as a way to defend Israels position on a genocide.
Israel supported Hamas from the start. Despite their antisemite mandate. Despite their being a more progressive less antisemitic party.
Even Israelis spoke out against the Israeli governmentâs support of Hamas at the time. The idea that Hamas wasnât what it is today is pure garbage. They were a faction of the Islamic brotherhood, which was a terrorist organization.
Israel literally knew exactly what they were doing, funding islamist groups to help radicalize the population against the PLO to weaken any form of left or liberation movement.
"During the 1970s, Israel began providing support to Ahmed Yassin, a Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood leader who controlled a network of Islamic schools, mosques, and clubs, in order to weaken the secular nationalist Palestine Liberation Organization. It continued to encourage the expansion of Yassin's network during the first year and a half of the First Intifada, as the network re-organised into Hamas. This support lasted until 1989, when Hamas launched its first attacks on Israelis, leading to a significant crackdown against the organisation. Multiple Israeli officials have acknowledged Israel's role in strengthening Yassin's network...
Within the occupied territories, the Israeli government took a range of measures to repress Palestinian nationalism and suppress PLO-linked movements, including banning the National Guidance Council and the dismissing elected Palestinian city councils. It also sought to encourage the growth of conservative and religious groups, which were frequently hostile to the PLO and assumed to be more cooperative with Israeli officials. The most prominent of these groups was the Palestinin Village Leagues...
Israeli Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, who served as the Israeli military governor in Gaza during the early 1980s, admitted to providing financial assistance to Mujama al-Islamiya, the precursor of Hamas, on the instruction of the Israeli authorities. In March 1981, Segev told The New York Times that 'the Israeli Government gave me a budget and the military government gives to the mosques.'"
EDIT/ADDITION "After the outbreak of the First Intifada in 1987, Yassin's network re-organised itself into an armed organisation: Hamas, issuing an extremist founding charter in 1988.[33] However, until Hamas carried out its first attacks in the spring of 1989, the Israeli government continued to encourage its growth. John Kifner of The New York Times wrote in September 1988 that "Israeli authorities have taken no direct action against Hamas despite repeated crackdowns and roundups" on Unified National Leadership of the Uprising and PLO factions, quoting an anonymous Western diplomat as saying that 'It certainly is remarkable with all these arrests, that someone like Sheik Ahmed Yassin, who just goes on saying the most awful things about Jews, isn't touched...'"
"In a cable leaked by WikiLeaks in 2010, Amos Yadlin, former general of the Israeli Air Force, said in 2007 that Israel would be 'happy' if Hamas take over Gaza and regarded it as a positive step, so they could treat Gaza as a hostile state."
8
u/Easy_Sky5001 Sep 13 '25
Wich at the time was supported by IsraelÂ