Im writing a History essay and I've chosen to argue that Zionism is intrinsically supremacist in nature and makes clear calls for the establishment of a Jewish homeland through the use of ethnic cleansing and displacement of Palestinians. Other sources that refer to mizrahi jews or arab jews as lesser or tainted, from an Ashkenazi Eurocentric perspective are also welcome. Right now, I'm just researching and would like to gather as many primary, and secondary sources as possible before I start writing.

Because Isfahan is in the news for not exactly the right reasons.

They were released in a prisoner exchange in 1985.

Sorry if TikTok is not allowed here. Not my usual platform, but I stumbled across this guy, a professor of government at Austin community college with some pithy comments about Israel.

I came across this quick great summary exploring Israel's propaganda strategies. If Israeli Zionist leaders cannot control the flow of information and dissemination of knowledge, how is it defenisble?. If opponents of Zionism and its victims have a voice and a platform, how can can Hasbara be effective ?

The historical narrative is revised, reversed. The perpetrators claim victimhoom. We must know only the Israeli story and its sense of self-righteousness. Palestinians must not be known to have existed and owned the land since tome began. Zionists are the Romans chanting " Carthago delenda est" - Carthage must be destroyed. Except Zionism wants to say....wait there is no Palestine or a Palestinian people.

It's ironic and totally lost to its intended audience when the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Israel exhibits the use of Nazi state propaganda as a tool for making the Holocaust, while the Israeli state uses mass propaganda, including the Yad Vashem as a means of propaganda, justifying Zionism while subjugating of millions of people to build the Israeli state and faces charges of genocide.

This article tries to argue Hasbara is becoming effective, but could the state of Israel become more cruel, totalitarian and fascist, and switch from Hasbara as a means of communication in the public sphere to just brute force, using repression and violence to eliminate dissent?

Hasbara is way more stupid now and doesn't even try as hard to persuade. Is Israeli state diplomacy becoming less of an explanation and more in the form of dropping American bombs, killing indiscriminately, targeting civilian aid workers, journalists, doctors, artists, teachers, and bribing or lobbying for influence in other countries? Netanyahu and this government boast their ability to kill and scorch the earth.

I think while Hasbara is failing, homicidal mania is rising. It's not about convincing or persuading through explanation. It's through state terror.

Will the failure of Hasbara really make Zionists suddenly rational?

See Finklestein's clip on YouTube: Israel has gone "certifiabmy insane."

Any really good history podcasts or history channels to listen to? I want to deep dive into history of empires, historical atrocities, basically history in general… particularly if it’s not commonly talked about history. I really want to deep dive but I’m not the best reader, so listening would be ideal.

The Dahiya Doctrine was crafted in 2008. It tells the IDF to use disproportionate lethal force against civilian populations. It is a partnership between Israel and America.

This article deeply explores Zionism, and explains the ultra violence and perverse behaviors of Israeli soldiers, the moral contradictios and inversions, and how Zionism requires those behaviors in order to be sustained.

Are Palestinian liberation and Zionism mutually exclusive in the region known as Palestine or Israel?

Did Zionists, even Rabin himself, fully and consciously intend to grant Palestinians sovereignty on lands they've occupied?

I think Israelis in charge in general wanted to make Arafat and the PLO pacify itself, not to accept the State of Palestine. Arafat and PLO rejected that deal in 2000 to grant it a a state, because that state would be a tool for America and Israel. Arafat was asked to sell the hopes of Palestinian self-determination to the occupiers without addressing the roots of Palestinian justified grievances, namely the Nakba, the right of return, the indignation, giving up the right of a Palestinian state to have a defense force.

Is that a valid interpretation?

Would acceptance of this 2SS basically have legalized Israeli oppression of Palestinians in occupied territories, and over time, in the name of national security, annexation would be the de facto situation, as a weak Palestinian state gradually withered away.

Was there a reason to think Israeli forces would ever entirely lay hands off Palestinian sovereign territories? That 2ss would have made the Palestinian liberation movement as impotent as the PA in the West Bank today.

Israel seems to have this historical strategy of blaming Palestinians for rejecting terms set in favor of Zionists and that are offensive to many Palestinians. The failure of the Oslo Accords was believing being granted a weak state would have satisfied and pacified Palestinians and that Zionists were willing to accept sovereign Palestinians in land they think the god they don't believe in gave only to them.

Here is an article summarizing a view of Oslo from a Pro-Palestine perspective. https://imeu.org/article/explainer-the-oslo-accords

This is fascinating. Take a look at this quote..

"It is a crime to destroy the culture of an entire people,” the Haggadah’s authors wrote. “You took our culture that we brought with us from the Diaspora and promised a different one in its place. But you forsook us and discriminated against our communities by rendering us without culture and without faith, leaving us suspended in a cultureless vacuum.”

Is it true that many non-Ashkenazi who settled in Israel weren't really on board with Zionism at the beginning of Israel, and Zionism was a catalyst that drove the mass migration of Sephardic and Mizrahi from their homelands to Israel after (I don't want to say anything controversial and I haven't really studied this topic) their expulsion?

So even maybe half the population of Israeli Jews after Israel's Independence were reluctant Israelis and didn't receive the best treatment from the European elites running the show.

Has the Zionist narrative kind of retold a different story about much of the diaspora's identity and history than it really was? For example, the Jewish presence in Iraq went back over 2000 years. That was a homeland and a culture outside of the Land of Israel,, until Zionism overturned history and they fled to Israel, where like the article says, it was a struggle.

Zionism seems to have not only disrupted Palestinian culture and history, but also for much if its own people. Is that fair to say?

Zionism....a "cultureless vacuum"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yachin

Arab Jews to Israel ** sorry for typo.

There’s a few of these around the Arab word including this:

Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, Shlaim unveils "undeniable proof of Zionist involvement in the terrorist attacks" which prompted a mass exodus of Jews from Iraq between 1950 and 1951.