Just saw a friend post this and I was wondering if people have resources to counter some of these statements I can send their way.
Some highlights:
Do not claim that Jews are white: Portraying Jews as “white” is done to make them fit more easily fit into the narrative that Zionism is a “white colonialist” project. There are Jews of every skin color. Only 30% of Israelis are Ashkenazi (European) Jews. Almost 45% are indigenous Mizrahi Jews. There are many others, such as Maghrebi Jews and Ethiopian Jews. Almost half of Israeli Jews are ethnically mixed. Jews outside of Israel are diverse, too.
Avoid using the terms Zionist or Zionism to describe the Israeli Government or Jews: These terms have become pejorative and are too broad to be useful. A Zionist is one who believes Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel. That includes Jews of all political persuasions, most Evangelical Christians, and anyone who supports a two-state solution (such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia or China). Israel is a modern nation-state. Its people are simply Israelis, much as people in Australia are simply Australians. Rather than referring to “the Zionists”, refer to “the Israeli Government” or “the Netanyahu Government”.
Do not lie about Jews’ connection to Israel: This is a delegitimization tactic. Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. There have always been Jews in Israel, although they have rarely had sovereignty or been the majority. While some of Israel’s enemies accuse it of being colonialist, many Jews view Israel’s creation as decolonization (it was Jewish insurgents who drove the colonialist British out of Palestine). This historicity of Jews being from Israel does give them a claim to the land, but it does not mean Palestinians have no claim.
Do not call for Israel’s destruction: Racists have weaponized the Palestinian independence struggle, making anti-Zionism the new anti-Semitism. Claiming to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish is like saying you are not anti-Japanese, but just want to destroy Japan. It is anti-Semitic to say that Jews are the only people in the world without the right to a homeland. Calling for Israel’s destruction with rabid chants such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” or “By any means necessary” is to call for the death of millions. That is disgusting. Calling for serious solutions is welcome.
So I don't know the name of logical fallacies but I think this would be considered a strawman? He's slightly twisting criticism of Israel to make it easier to attack. First of all, let's say for the sake of argument Jews are not white - the key word in "white colonialist" is not "white" but "colonialist." It's still a colonial project. And secondly, it might be more accurately said to be a "European colonialist" project or a "settler colony" which is what I usually hear from people. He's trying to get you bogged down in some argument about whether or not Jews are white which is not really the issue here. With regards to claims about colonialism, he doesn't even address them.
This one is weird. He says zionism is too broad then goes on to pretty much accurately define zionism and name a bunch of zionist entities. People have referred to the U.S. government, maybe not as "zionism," but at least as "supporting zionism" - which is like the same thing. I've usually seen zionist or "supporting zionism" used for zionist entities or those entities supportive of the Israeli state. I don't really understand his criticism here. He himself shows that zionism is not too broad and in fact has a specific definition, and people/organizations are being criticized for supporting zionism as defined by him.
This one is one I hate. What is implicit here is that Palestinians are not indigenous - it's the Jews that are indigenous. Firstly, that's nonsense - the Palestinians are descendants of people who have always lived in the area. Their ancestors were likely Jews, way back before both Islam and Christianity.
But secondly, this is like changing the subject. He's trying to get you bogged down in an argument over whether or not the Jews are indigenous or not. Stick to the real problem at hand - the treatment of Palestinians by Israel.
So, a certain zionist argument often goes like this: Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel, they got kicked out at some point (? or something, somehow they left), the Palestinians moved in (untrue, see above, they were always there), Israel is just the Jews taking back their rightful homeland, shouldn't they have a right to a homeland? And so then you come in and say well Israel shouldn't exist - because their argument for the state of Israel is founded upon this idea of a Jewish homeland, they start arguing with you about "well the Jewish people were there first" and suddenly you are having an argument about the indigeneity of Jewish people and who has more of a claim to the land. But your criticism of Israel is not starting from "Jewish people aren't indigenous" or "Jews don't have a right to a homeland" or whatever words zionists are trying to put in your mouth - your criticism of Israel begins from Israel as a European settler colony and Israel's treatment of Palestinians as constituting genocide. This guy's argument about Jewish indigeneity is just skirting the issue - he's just trying to get you to argue on his terms.
It's not, but this person has no understanding of zionism. Except this person is starting from the belief that Israel is not a settler colony so his logic does make sense. But your logic is different since it's beginning from the idea of Israel as a settler colony.