no

Show Post

So anyone writing in the Atlantic about how “Zionism” is used is wasting their time—because at this point *every* usage of it is cynical, disingenuous, and even dangerous. That’s as true for the far-right Israeli nationalists misusing it now as it is for the antisemites who engage in the same scam.

Show Post

None of this means that what was done in the past was rightly done—it wasn’t. But it does mean that war after war after war after intifada after intifada after intifada was fought in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s to confirm that what was done can’t be *undone*.

Show Post

So if you say you want Israel preserved by annexing Gaza and the West Bank, you’ve no place in civil discourse now—as you’re a genocidalist, bigot, and war criminal. And if you say you want Israel ended by force, you’ve no place in civil discourse—as you’re a genocidalist, bigot, and war criminal.

Show Post

I’d end use of the word “Zionism” (as again, it’s nonsensical in 2026) and force everyone in the debate to say if they want Israel ended or preserved as a first step toward participation in the conversation. And how they want that achieved—*without any vague or nonsensical answers*—as a second step.

Show Post