Sans-Zionism

by on January 11, 2009 18
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

Jews Sans Frontieres agrees with me re anti-Zionism.
Jeet Heer at Sans Everything agrees with Dana Goldstein and my wife re post-Zionism
Anne Silver says, Isn't it a little indulgent of you to be wondering about your self-descriptive terminology when so many people are suffering?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Gaza, Israel/Palestine, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 18 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Richard Witty says:
    January 11, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Phil asserted that "Zionism is no longer relevant" (I'm paraphrasing from multiple posts).

    I disagree.

    It is a choice that many Jews have made to self-associate.

    Those that don't desire to associate on that basis, can CHOOSE to live in cosmopolitan US or Europe. (They don't have much option in the Arab world though, even as Jews comprised as much as 30% of the population in much of the Arab world prior to 1949.)

    So, if Phil were merely saying, I CHOOSE to live as cosmopolitan, that would be a wonderful choice, a choice that I make as well.

    Or, if Phil were saying "I am anti-expansionist Zionism", that would be a principled political choice, a choice that I make as well.

    But, being anti-Zionist (especially during war) is not that statement. Its a statement of suppression, an ANTI-democratic statement, in that it denies that same choice to Jews in Israel (but with different conclusions).

    Let live, is a more relevant choice, that allows for differences.

  2. Anne Silver says:
    January 12, 2009 at 12:28 am

    Hey! and then I said it's anti.. "if something makes you sick, you are anti..". But let's not dither: boycott/divest/sanctions against the appalling terrorists-Palestine will not be free until Israel is held accountable. link to bdsmovement.net

  3. delia says:
    January 12, 2009 at 12:46 am

    Ok, I've done both Sans Frontiers and Sans Everything, and this is how it looks to me. "Anti-Zionism" partakes of modernist discourse while "Post-Zionism" is a postmodern position.

    The problem with the former is that it sets up another binary opposition–a new conflict (just what we need–not!–in the I-P situation). The problem with the latter is that–like much postmodern thought–it slides out of having to take a principled, ethical stand.

    I think one has to be a bit of both–anti-Zionist when circumstances call for a passionately ethical stance, and post-Zionist when the battle gets so convoluted and unresolvable that it's time to dump the damn thing and move on.

  4. Eva Smagacz says:
    January 12, 2009 at 4:27 am

    Richard,

    There is no such thing as non-expansionist Zionism. Feeling justified in taking Arab land is build into the concept of Zionism. When Israel will go through the open acknowledgement, apology and compensation for Nakba, it will be a good start in leaving Zionism behind. Fixing Israel borders would convince quite a few people in growing consensus of non-expansion.

    And with all due respect, please do not put loss of Jewish population in Arab areas at the feet of the arabs: They were respectful, tolerant and accomodating of Jewish communities for 2000 years, and it was the atrocities of Nakba, and formenting of discord by the Zionist movement that resulted in rise of Anti-jewish sentiments and exodus of Jews.

  5. Richard Witty says:
    January 12, 2009 at 5:36 am

    "Feeling justified in taking Arab land is build into the concept of Zionism. "

    Not among the Zionists that I associate with.

    You have fantasies about the relations between Arabs and Jews. On a case by case basis (but in every case) they were accepted for long periods, and unacceptable for long periods. Jews could be thrown out for "cause", and were permanently subordinated. Their professions were limited. Their property and voting rights were limited. They were NEVER peers.

    If that is "democratic" or "respectful and tolerant" to you, then you have an odd criteria for the word.

    While most often better than how Jews were treated in Europe, the treatment of Jews in Arab countries (that remembered history), was a driver of sephardic Zionism (a very minor movement until 1949, when BOTH Israel and their "respectful" Arab host nations adopted Zionism for their Jewish civilians instead of acceptance.)

  6. Eva Smagacz says:
    January 12, 2009 at 6:16 am

    Richard,

    Jews were never peers and never wanted to be peers. Jews in Europe and Arab lands did not want (to varying degrees) to be part of the communities where they lived. Their loyalties by definition were not to the countries they inhabited. They did not share language, they did not share food, they did not share clothes and they did not share culture. They chose being separate, and did this deliberately, and with great consistency. When their communities' goals clashed openly (like now, in USA) with welfare of their host countries, THEN the relationships soured.

    You have a peculiar requirement for the host countries. They should support minorities' rights but allow Jewish minorities to support welfare of another country (or community) at the expense of the welfare of the host country.

    Pretending that this is NOT a cause of the anti-semitic feelings is a part of the long term project where all anti-semitic feelings are deux ex machina and even discussing the origin of anti-semitic feelings is considered…. anti-semitic.

    Go figure.

  7. Eva Smagacz says:
    January 12, 2009 at 6:38 am

    I would like to clarify that I am talking of anti-Semitism not racism. Racism is a component in anti-Semitism but does not explain it fully. Incomprehensibility of anti-Semitism is a part of the carefully structured Zionist mythology. Personally, I don't think that NOT talking about it did help to prevents massacres of innocents as massacres of innocents in Gaza prove graphically.

  8. Richard Witty says:
    January 12, 2009 at 6:44 am

    "Fixing borders" is a good thing.

    Its time for that.

    Acknowledging nakba, compensating for takings is not "leaving Zionism aside", its finalizing it, making it permanent.

  9. Jim Haygood says:
    January 12, 2009 at 7:04 am

    Actually it IS important — but extremely difficult — to formulate a 'pro-something' formula to help end the I/P conflict. The 'anti-abortion' movement had to recast itself as 'pro-choice' because, misleading or not, it works better as a political slogan.

    'Pro-peace' is anodyne but meaningless. 'Pro-Palestine' has been undermined by the deceptive two-party solution, which narrowed a neutral regional name into a term with an exclusively Arab flavor.

    What is the opposite of Zionism, a 19th century fanaticism which claims that Jews need a Biblical homeland? First Jews themselves need a positive name for the movement which will free their religion from the shameful heresy of Zionism. You've got to imagine it and name it before you can actualize it.

    'Zion' spelled backward is NOIZ — Nix the Ordeal of Israeli Zionism. Make a joyful NOIZ! Too awkward? Okay, the floor is open for nominations.

  10. Richard Witty says:
    January 12, 2009 at 7:47 am

    Its not just a name that is at question.

    The substantive "anti" approach, is isolating, negative, and is less of a clear mission than Israel's engagement in Lebanon.

  11. sword of gideon says:
    January 12, 2009 at 7:50 am

    So speaks the Polish cunt

  12. delia says:
    January 12, 2009 at 11:37 am

    I guess the question is: Can Zionism be rehabilitated? I think it's beyond rehabilitation. Too bad. It started out as a conversation about how and where the Ashkenazim would find safety and self-determination. It ended up a rabidly racist discourse. Like "Nazism," "Zionism" will (has already?) become a signifier of evil.

    I think it's time to go post- (or maybe anti-)

  13. stevieb says:
    January 12, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Two excellent posts, Eva.

  14. stevieb says:
    January 12, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Three posts, actually….

    One post from SOG showing us just how good those posts were.

    Thanks SOG….

  15. MM says:
    January 12, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    As long as Zionist organizations in the United States that are giving material support to terrorism (including West Bank colonization and the cluster-bombing and phosphorus-gassing atrocities of the IDF) are criminally indicted and brought to justice, I have no problem with Zionism.

    As long as rejection of Zionism doesn't disqualify one from politics, entertainment, media, or academia, I have no problem with Zionism.

    As long as Zionist political operatives don't fabricate intelligence and use it to lie the United States into stupid, immoral, and illegal wars, I have no problem with Zionism.

    As long as Zionists stop insisting they speak for all Jews and Judaism, or that their goals and interests are the same as those of Americans generally, I have no problem with Zionism.

    As long as American taxpayers can choose whether or not to allow their money to go to Israel as military aid, I have no problem with Zionism.

    As long as those who vilify Hamas mention that "human shields" are 1) practically useless against the IDF, who kill civilians with gusto and impunity, and 2) used by the IDF themselves, I have no problem with Zionism.

    As long as Zionism is about cultural preservation, not cultural domination, I have no problem with Zionism.

  16. Richard Witty says:
    January 12, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    "As long as Zionism is about cultural preservation, not cultural domination, I have no problem with Zionism."

    It is about cultural preservation, not dominance.

    Cultural preservation includes opposing cultural subordination.

    I would assume then that you consistently oppose shelling of civilians.

    And, I would assume that you oppose all boycotts or blacklisting of Jews or Zionists for their worldview.

  17. MM says:
    January 12, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    We must be looking at different Israels, Richard.

    I see the one shooting, bombing, and gassing the Palestinian Arabs who want their homes and livelihoods back after being captive for some 60 years.

    You see the one that is growing organic veggies in a land without people for a people without a land.

    I see one of the largest propaganda operations in the world that continues to greatly distort history and propagate self-serving myth.

    You see "a people", without understanding that "the people" you see is a 19th century nationalist construct that has led to genocide.

    I see Zionist apologists ignoring the first six points I made above.

    You see yourself convincing everyone of Zionism's inherent goodness.

  18. Rowan Berkeley says:
    January 13, 2009 at 1:14 am

    you call that wilderness a "culture"?

Leave a Reply