Palestine

803 readers

136 users here now

A community to discuss everything Palestine.

Rules:

Posts can be in Arabic or English.
Please add a flair in the title of every post. Example: “[News] Israel annexes the West Bank ”, “[Culture] Musakhan is the nicest food in the world!”, “[Question] How many Palestinians live in Jordan?”

List of flairs: [News] [Culture] [Discussion] [Question] [Request] [Guide]

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

173

Wikipedia defines Zionism as ‘colonialism,’ sparking outrage (www.jns.org)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

At the center of the debate are key changes in the language used to describe Zionism, the movement that called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in what is now Israel.

The 2023 version of the page framed Zionism as a nationalist movement born in the 19th century that sought to secure Jewish self-determination.

In contrast, the 2024 version of the entry introduces more charged terminology, describing Zionism as an “ethno-cultural nationalist” movement that engaged in “colonization of a land outside of Europe,” with a heightened focus on the resulting conflicts with Palestinian Arabs.

“Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible,” it reads.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lol, the first source he cites in these is wikipedia, then perhaps one book.

And I bet that book was found in the footnote of wikipedia

Also wikipedia still cites the Black Book of Communism, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest. And though any and all Russian sources are "unreliable," to them, CIA outlets originally staffed by local fascists like Radio Free Europe/Liberty/Asia are all apparently "highly reliable." Their policies are inherently incestuous and reinforce the liberal western-imperialist status-quo. Anything outside the "accepted center" of authorship, regardless of the actual merit and quality of the report/study and its sources and information is labelled as "fringe." To say nothing of the well-known astroturfing by corporations and intelligence agencies and all the "earnest voice" type stuff. And just very belligerent ill-informed people of the redditor variety, who have too much time on their hands and are far more opinionated than they have any right to be so their garbage sits in the articles for many eyes which see them, either unsourced, with a garbage source, or with a source that straight up doesn't say the thing they imply it says.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

or with a source that straight up doesn’t say the thing they imply it says.

I swear these are more common than the reverse when I click a source.