WDSmart

The "re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel" can only be done by either having the approval of the resident Palestinians or eliminating them one way or the other.

Not according to the recent ruling by the ICJ...

This post references activities that took place before the year 2000.

I use the term "Zionist" as many do to describe a characteristic of certain people. I'm not ignoring reality or blaming all Jews. I'm just blaming Zionists, according to the definition noted above.

I don't fully understand your question. I don't know any of the names of people who I would classify as "Zionists" any more than I know the names of those who would be considered "Hamas." If I had to pick one as an example, I would say Netanyahu would be a good choice. "Zionist" is more of a label than a group. It's a "movement," as the dictionary definition in my previous quote indicated.

I'm speaking of the extreme, right-wing, nationalistic, militant group whose goal is to drive all Palestinians out of what is now called Israel. Here is the definition of Zionist from the online Oxford Language Dictionary: a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. I consider it the Israeli equivalent of Hamas.

...and militant Zionists.

I never knew that, or at least saw it that way. If you think that is the case, why do you think it is? In my home country, the USA, Israel is certainly favored over the Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank - by both our government and the public. Now, of course, there is some pushback because of the bombings in Gaza, but still, primarily, any group would have support over any other group who are Arab/Muslim.

Same for Zionists...

I don't see those phrases as the same thing. The attack didn't happen without some provocation, at least what Hamas considered a provocation. That statement doesn't "justify" the horrible attack. It just explains it. It would be the same as saying a thief killed someone while stealing their car because the thief wanted a Corvette. It's not a justification, just an explanation.

I see posts from those aligning themselves with one side and some with the other. Most seem to be on the Israeli side. I'm actually not on either side, but I find myself usually defending the Palestinians because most of the derogatory posts are against them. I think both sides are at fault.

Now, I wouldn't say the UN "favors" (US spelling) the Palestinians, but the ICJ has determined that Israeli forces have gone way too far in their reaction to Hamas' Oct 7 massacre by conducting continual and indiscriminate bombing of Gaza. I think the UN and even the ICJ have made a similar judgment to what I have made. Both sides are guilty of horrible acts, and neither side can be said to be solely the guilty party. To make the situation as simple as possible, I classify it as a classic "He hit me first!" scenario.

Yes, and I liked the bite of @mooping20Baht's post. IMO, his reference to "pro-genocide" people are you and all those expressing their support for the Zionist's continuing annihilation of all the Palestinians in Gaza. That is the "genocide" I believe he was "on about."

Yes...And? And, yet the UN gave the territory to the Jews as their homeland without permission of the other people living there.

Jews were not the original inhabitants of the land now called "Israel." The ancestors of the Arabs, who are now called "Palestinians," were. "Palestine" was never a "state" as we define it today, but "Palestine" has been a recognized area for centuries. And, yes, the state of Israel was recognized by the UN right after WW2, even though, at that time, the Jewish population there was much less than the Arab/Muslim (who consider themselves "Palestinians") population. And, yes, ever since then, the Palestinians have been trying to reclaim that land, and the Israelis, with help from the West, have been trying to prevent them from doing that. Now, the Palestinians are confined to two small, separate regions. I wish the solution to this would be what I believe the UK and the UN intended when they "gave" this land to the Jews as their "homeland," and that would be one state where BOTH Jews and Arab Muslims would live together in peace. But, I'm afraid I agree with you that the most likely solution will be achieved when there is only one side left. And, right now, it's apparent that will be the Jews/Israelis. This will be the case unless the other Arab states get involved and the West ceases its financial support of Israel - which, again, I think will not happen. So, I agree with you that what will continue to occur will be a religious war, which is best defined by the quote by Richard Jeni, which ends my book, JIhadi: Path to Heaven: Religious war at its simplest is killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni

I agree with all of the above. I do use the term "Zionist" as a negative label. That is why I use the term "Zionists" when referring to the militant faction of Israelis, and know that it does not include all Israelis - just as the term "Hamas" does not include all Palestinians. I have just posted more about this only minutes ago in a reply to @Morch.

What is wrong with you? What's your issue with saying Israelis? Do you object to their existence? Morch, the reason I primarily use the term "Zionist" when referring to the militant faction in Israel instead of just "Israelis" is the same reason I (and most everyone else) use the term "Hamas" when referring to the militant faction in Palestine instead of just "Palestinians." I don't believe all Palestinians support Hamas any more than I believe all Israelis support the Zionists. And, yes, I do have a lot of objections to the existence of Zionists, but not Israelis.

There were a lot more Palestinians than Jews living there. The link below gives the entire picture of what the population of Palestine looked like before this vote, and how it changed over time up to the time of the vote. In 1944 the percentage of the population in Palestine was Muslim 61%, Jews 30%, with about 10% Other. Demographics of Historic Palestine prior to 1948 - CJPME - English Again, you have posted information that is not correct.

Your labels are the product of ignorance. Zionists can be left-wing, pro-peace, secular, and against the government - but still serve in the IDF, and/or fight in the Gaza Strip. That's not an opinion - these are facts. Same goes for your contrived nonsense regarding Hamas - All of the Hamas men are Palestinians. There are no non-Palestinian Hamas members. Here is the definition of "Zionist" in the Oxford Language online dictionary: a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann. That sure doesn't sound "left-wing, pro-peace" and "against the government" to me. It could be "secular," but I suspect it is not. I suspect it is directly associated with militant Judaism. And, yes, they do serve in the IDF and fight in the Gaza Strip. In fact, I suspect the IDF activities labeled by the ICJ as "genocide" are mainly led by Zionists. I never said that Hamas members are non-Palestinian. I said they were a faction within the group I term as "Palestinians." Although, since you now mention it, there may be some non-Palestinians I that group, but very few. Just as there may be some non-Israelis that are Zionists. An example of those would be mercenaries or citizens of other countries that have come to assist Hamas or the Zionists. I haven't heard of any, but there may be.

Yes! I've used that very analogy before myself. (But wouldn't now since it is over a century old.) That's called "genocide," isn't it?

The Zionists have been attacking, murdering, etc., Palestinians for the past century. (I can't mention anything prior to that, according to @stats.) This conflict didn't start on Oct 7th, although that incident was one of the worst, at least recently. It's true that if Oct 7th hadn't occurred, the Zionists would not have gone into Gaza to hunt down Hamas and kill plain Palestinian citizens in the process. But it's also true that if the Jews, led by the Zionists, had not, over the past century, taken over most of Palestine and forced the Palestinians into two small separate areas, Hamas would not have done what they did on Oct 7.

I agree, but I also believe it works the other way around also...

I also didn't read the whole thing. I did watch the 30-min+ explanation of the ruling by the ICJ chairwoman, which was broadcast on CNN. My point is if there were any conditions put on either "order," (quit killing civilians and release all hostages) based on the other, both sides can just keep pointing at each other and demanding they comply first before they will.

The ICJ ordered the Palestinians to release the hostages immediately and unconditionally . If Hamas doesn't comply with the ruling, I don't see why Israel shoul Okay, so do we agree that the ICJ ordered; - the Israelis to cease the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians in Gaza and only to wage war against Hamas, and; - the Palestinians to release the hostages immediately. And there were no conditions put on either order. Right?

YES! I agree wholeheartedly. Let's get back on topic. This is my boiled-down analysis of the ruling: The ICJ has just ordered the Israelis to cease the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians in Gaza and only to wage war against Hamas. How's that?