[cookiemonsieur]

> The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear.

But if you compare Zionism to another eerily similar 20th century europe ism, a lot of people will, indeed, complain.

[Lio]

I think if you were sensitive you could still have that conversation. People might very well complain, as is their right, but they’d still allow it if you were sensitive.

The problem is that the Jewish community in the UK is relatively small and vulnerable and there is the tendency for such discussion to turn ugly and affect the lives of all British Jews regardless of their thoughts on Zionism.

We don’t want you burning Korans outside of mosques and we don’t want you throwing paint at people on their way to temple.

I’m not religious but I don’t want either of those situations. There are more effective ways to help those in trouble than starting pub fights.

[lelanthran]

> We don’t want you burning Korans outside of mosques and we don’t want you throwing paint at people on their way to temple.

Those two things are not the same. The latter is physical assault. The former isn't anything but a statement on faith.

> I’m not religious but I don’t want either of those situations.

I don't see anything wrong in burning a religious book as a public statement. Why, specifically, do you need that banned?

[detourdog]

The comparison is not accurate.

[atemerev]

Zionism is the notion that the state of Israel has the right to exist. Opposing Zionism is the call to destruction of the entire nation-state, and, therefore, a call to genocide.

(Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone).

[dragonwriter]

> Zionism is the notion that the state of Israel has the right to exist.

No state has a right to exist; people have a right to self-determination, and a state of a particular form, and territorial extent may or may not be an realization of such a right, so even in that minimal framing (which I would say is more the motte Zionists retreat to when challenged than the bailey of the actual substantive meaning of the term in practical use by them), Zionism is a flawed and problematic proposal at best.

[ben_w]

Unfortunately for that meaning of the word — and a few million people stuck in the middle — two completely different groups of racists are both simultaneously coopting it to stir up hatred for their enemies, who are the other group.

> (Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone)

Unfortunately, the "soldier mindset" (as opposed to scout mindset) is dominant in this case, and I fear suggesting why would be rejected because of that very mindset. So no, the freedom is not there in practice.

"You're with us or against us" kind of thing, but only with the most expansive definition of what counts.

[Hikikomori]

That's not the part we have a problem with. It's that there was already people living there before and now they're using this supposed right to exist to wipe out the local population. Ironically they don't believe that Palestine has the right to exist.

Colonialism has always been bad, Israel is clearly no different.

[chris12321]

No state has the right to exist, that thought terminating cliche makes no sense legally or philosophically. States are recognised by other states, with no legal rights involved. Also claiming that a call for the end of a state is a call for genocide is ludicrous, if that was the case then every revolution in world history would be a genocide.