“Zionism” has become more of an ideological football being kicked around by the pro’s and the anti’s who want to score against each other rather than to reasonably settle this longstanding and increasingly violent conflict. It’s the extremes who are the most vociferous in their Zionism or their anti-Zionism.
Each side has strikingly different perspectives on the deaths and victimization of the other side’s civilians.
To secure a peaceful future, not just Hamas, but also Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and their Israeli allies must be removed from power.
The aspirations of Hamas and its allies … are irreconcilable with any negotiation that Israelis will ever entertain. . . . Still, the rejectionism of the anti-Zionist movement does not preclude crafting a future that a majority of Palestinians and Israelis can live with.
I, for one, wish a sustained ceasefire was the answer. My heart tells me the violence should stop. But my head tells me an extended ceasefire would enable Hamas leaders to remain in power, retain their current arsenal, recruit combatants to replace those who were killed and continue to threaten Israel.
I hold the truth that Hamas is evil and the massacre they committed was the lowest that humanity can sink to, alongside the truth that Gazans deserve freedom.
Denouncing the atrocities committed by Hamas, hoping for its defeat, while also seeing the agony of over two million Gazans under attack in response. There are no easy answers.
The President of Ameinu records experiencing the first days of war from his family’s second home in Israel.
The problem isn’t just that “Zionism” itself has many meanings. It’s that many speakers and commentators flit from one meaning to another. The result is that we often have little idea about what we’re debating.
The new ‘Golda’ biopic does not address the criticism that Meir could have avoided the Yom Kippur War. … The tragedy is that Meir was unwilling to consider a complete withdrawal from the Sinai, and that Sadat was not open to true negotiations.
© 2023 All rights reserved