You say colonialism I say darwinism.

You say racist angry antisemitic crap. Then project it. Hilarious.

I didn’t implicate that all Jews are Zionists. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite!

Again. Zionism isn’t monolithic and some Jews and Israelis are anti-Zionist. So that accusation doesn’t really land.

On the “white colonial ideology” point: the demographics don’t support that framing as a universal description. A large share of Jewish citizens are of Middle Eastern and North African descent (Mizrahi/Sephardi), many of whose families were expelled or fled from surrounding countries in the 20th century.

Calling the entire population “white European colonists” erases that history.

It’s also not accurate to say Zionism inherently means removing every non-Jew. There are forms of Zionism that envision a Jewish-majority state alongside full civil rights for minorities, and about 20% of Israeli citizens today are Arab. So that’s the reality.

You can oppose Israeli policies or nationalist models without redefining the ideology into its most extreme version and treating that as the only one.

On the two-state comparison to reservations… that analogy assumes one side would have total dominance over the other in perpetuity. Whether someone supports or opposes two states, the proposal in international diplomacy has generally been two sovereign states, not a reservation system.

You can argue it’s unworkable, but it’s not historically accurate to say it “originates” from U.S. reservations.

If the argument is that nationalism tied to ethnicity or religion is morally wrong, that’s a coherent position, and I agree, but then the critique should be applied consistently to many nation-states around the world, not uniquely framed around Jews or “Zionists.”