this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
834 points (96.7% liked)

Comics

7122 readers
37 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
834
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Confidant6198@lemmy.ml to c/comics@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Im just demonstrating “zionism” didnt become “zionism” until the jews acted on their belief that they had a claim to some land. Just as the Palestinians believe they have a claim to some land, religious or otherwise. Some guy deemed the Jewish zionism “zionism” from some other meaning just as a Palestinian “zionism” could be claimed.

This is utterly insane. That's not what the word means, at all. Zionism isn't "anytime someone has a claim to some land," JFC.

What does it even matter, youre now arguing that zionism could exist with out the displacement or death of the Palestinian people.

Wrong. I'm arguing that the death of displacement of Palestinians is not part of the definition of Zionism. In practice, that is what it entails. Learn to read.

How is that wrong in a region strictly inhabited by other ethnostates? Hell, you even argue Iran, an ethnostate, is justified in attacking isreal.

Iran is not an ethnostate, nor is it committing genocide, and it's "attacks" are retaliation for Israel's unprovoked aggression.

I'm not interested in discussing this further with you until you either educate yourself and can actually defend your views from an informed position, or until you stop trying to attack my views from a position of complete and utter ignorance, where you say such nonsense as "Zionism is whenever anyone claims any land."

When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

What is a "state religion"

What is zion?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Good topics for you to look into, I'm done doing your homework.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Oh I know. A state religion is exactly what isreal has and what you are claiming is an ethnostate.

Zion means jerusalem, the holy land of the jews, which they claim is ordained to them by god.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Your homework assignment is to find someone, literally any one person, from anywhere, of any political persuasion, who agrees with the statement "Iran is just as Zionist as Israel." Literally anyone. I don't care if it's your mom.

When you fail to do so, come back and say, "I'm sorry, @Objection@lemmy.ml, you were right and I was wrong, I clearly don't understand this situation, but I would like to learn more about it from you."

If you reply to this comment with anything other than, "I did find someone who agrees with that statement" or the thing I just said, I will block you.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Bye

Edit:

Sorry, I will respond, honestly.

You're right, there are differences between Iran and Isreal and im not versed enough to know them. So, yeah, and if you think that is what I was trying to communicate then we lost track somewhere.

Our contention seems to be:

You - isreal should be taken down militarily because they are a danger to the people around them

Me - there is no good way to end isreals occupation that wont result in more human suffering

I will concede that if isreal were to be brought down by some act of god youre not going to see me shedding many tears.

Is there anything you will concede?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

I will concede that if your assumption that the military defeat of Israel would necessarily mean the deaths of millions of Jewish civilians, then you might have a point. Although, it isn't true, and you don't.

I'll also concede not blocking you, at least for now. But I have no interest in continuing this conversation, regardless.