Jerome Slater tries to make the claim that Zionism isn’t racism. Many of the commenters who responded to his post presented more eloquent and knowledgeable arguments than I can, so I’ll keep it brief.
According to Slater, Zionism isn’t racism because it’s just Jewish nationalism.
Likewise, White nationalism isn’t racism. It’s the legitimate expression of White people’s cultural aspirations. Furthermore, it doesn’t take land inhabited by non-whites as its geographical locus – which Zionism does.
Don’t bother bandying about any inconvenient quotes by David Duke either. The Zionists have equipped me with more than enough to win that contest. Here’s a pretty good one issued by that humanitarian Theodor Herzl:
“We can be the vanguard of culture against barbarianism.”
Sweet. Nothing racist in that.
Slater writes that the term racism “must include the belief that other races or peoples are inferior to one’s own.” But Zionism is predicated upon just that belief. This isn’t immediately clear, so I’ll explain why that’s true.
What kind of person says “I’m going to pick up today and ethnically cleanse a tract of land so people like me can settle there?”
That person necessarily regards his right to the land as superior to the other who lives there. When that right is predicated on racial differences it’s racism. Think of it this way: My right to this land as a Jew is superior to this Arab’s claim because I’m a Jew and he’s not. I have superior rights to the land based on my chosenness, itself a hallmark of my superiority.
Don’t bother arguing that the first Zionists were secular either. If their claim to Palestine wasn’t notarized by God, then how did they presume to ethnically cleanse the land of its indigenous inhabitants? Ah, yes. They were white men who could bring culture and industry and civilize the place.
“We can be the vanguard of culture against barbarism.”
To be perfectly clear, Zionism in principle is a racist dogma. For Zionism to succeed, lesser races had to be ethnically cleansed so the Jews could settle exclusively amongst Jews. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which was perpetrated by Zionists on a racial basis, was wrong and should never have happened.
There’s no need to belabor the point. Slater and others like him can dogmatically resist the prima facie truth, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
Slater belongs to a different generation. And I’m sympathetic to those – like Abraham Foxman – whose every breath is belabored by the bitter ashes of the Holocaust. I wonder if I’d be the same kind of Zionist if I was a Jew of their generation. Probably, I’d be just as aggressive.
Slater’s argument that anti-Semitism in the West is latent and unpredictable is rational given his historical experience. I wouldn’t be surprised if John Hagee and his acolytes are readying for the first sign of red heifer. American Jews are in a better position to evaluate that threat than I am.
But what if I too were to reserve the right to recede into nationalist self-love, chauvinism and fear? The Jewish people have a right to their state because of anti-Semitism. Fine. Likewise, the Palestinian people have a right to their state because of Zionist anti-Palestinianism. And since the Zionists refuse to vacate Mandate Palestine peacefully, we must overwhelm them in every way possible.
I would argue that the methods that were right for the Zionists in 1948 because of anti-Semitism are right for us today because of Zionist anti-Palestinianism. If we cannot ethnically cleanse them with our guns, we’ll overwhelm them with our superior birth rates. Maybe, if we can keep their numbers to about 20% of the total, we’ll think about integrating them into our state.
Slater can hew to Zionism. He can seek to justify a racist, atavistic, race-peculiar ideology for the rest of his life. But he should be grateful that those of us who are taking control refuse to do so.
I view such articles by the likes of slater as nothing but the latest feeble attempt at grasping onto whatever is left of the Zionist dream. Each day brings a new set of excuses. These people are using the spaghetti defense, throwing whatever they can at the wall and hoping that some will stick.
I believe there will be more attempts like this one to delay the inevitable collapse of Zionism. It’s just a matter of time.
The challenge is to continue to debunk such nonsense and continue to press forward with equality and respect for human rights.
Good luck with moving the lead butt of the likes of proud, self-defined “liberal Zionists” like our pal here, Richard Witty. He will sit on his door step until he dies there, all the while protected by the cops and military guys he despises. He wouldn’t live in his Dreamland Israel if you gave him a ticket all expenses paid and triple in dollars of all the wealth he possesses. What’s a man without his dream after all?
Citizen, if I am not mistaken (in any event, a rare enough circumstance) Witty’s wife’s family owns property there, and his son, his son, is over in Israel losing his mind. Is it any wonder the guy is worried?
Mooser,
Stop your malicious lying. My son lives in Paris in a yeshiva. I have third cousins that now live in Beersheva.
You probably do too, as likely does Phil and Adam. Either family or close friends, persons.
Deserving care to be safe.
“Slater can hew to Zionism. He can seek to justify a racist, atavistic, race-peculiar ideology for the rest of his life. But he should be grateful that those of us who are taking control refuse to do so.”
Exactly. More strength to you, Ahmed.
There is anti-Semitism aimed at Jews, the historical and pernicious tradition; but, equally there is anti-Semitism aimed at Palestinians, a newer variant, just as pernicious and vile. The irony, of course, is that this new variant is practised by Israeli squatters, the IDF and the constitution of the ‘Jewish state’, not to mention many of its inhabitants. It doesn’t matter whether they are religious or not, many are not, but the tenets are the same: ideological supremacism, denial of the most basic human and civil rights, and a wanton disregard for the life and property of the indigenous people.
It is of no importance the tedious dragging up of however many documents and statements. What does matter is the actions perpetrated by the dominant group: and in this regard it is obvious – racist discrimination, violence, intimidation and destruction of people and their lives. No amount of pathetic learned disputation changes what people do to others in Israel and the OT.
Zionist: “I am a crook, not a racist. Sure I stole land, and I intend to keep it and steal more, but that’s just theft, and it is not racism. INDEED, I steal the land I want from who-ever held it before me, I am an equal-opportunity thief. And not a racist, So there. And, in case you missed the point, I steal not because I think my people are better than anyone else (such as the Palestinians, many of whom are descendants of the Jews of ancient times) but merely because I want what they have. It’s not racisms, I tell you, it’s merely theft. So don’t call it racism, because that is a deceitful, anti-Semitic thing to say.”
Sweet and so to the point!
zionism is racist, there are endless examples to choose from. arguing against this concept must be a bitch. i’ve encountered the pushback repeatedly. just last night someone on another site argued zionism was not racism “Since Zionism is not based on perceived “superiority of the Jews” “. so this meme seems to be in favor right now amongst hasbarists.
you know what i’ve noticed tho, they really do not want to argue against the idea zionism is not racist they would much rather argue it isn’t racism. i’m not kidding. over and over starting a few months ago i noticed every time a zionist countered the argument zionism was racist they changed the word in their response from racist to racism. and they are different. zionism (while racist) holds other components. one can be brainwashed or trained or conditioned or raised and nurtured like drinking milk from a mother’s teet on some idealized glorified concept of jewish actualization without ever realizing how racist it is. especially if you never go there, experience it otherwise or are protected from all the ugliness and pain zionism has caused. furthermore racism in itself, standing alone contains none of these elements of hopeful aspirations of being in some place where everyone is like you and therefore won’t harm you and your nationalism can find fulfillment. while racism manifests itself in multiple ways in it’s raw pure form it contains none of this other stuff. like eating straight salt as opposed to the temptation of drinking saltwater because the ocean is so beautiful and looks as tho it could quench your thirst. anyway, they know it’s racist.
personally i do not believe ‘zionism is racism’ for this reason. again, for purposes of argument they don’t want to argue zionism is not racist. i do believe there are zionists who don’t think they are superior. i think there are lots of blind brainwashed people out there. and personally if there was some colony somewhere that had previously been uninhabited where they could all go and live with eachother without any of the rest of us let them have at it, i would have no problem with it. (they know this too, obviously this is why the lie/meme of ‘a land w/no people bla bla’ became synonymous w/israel…one of the founding introductory hasbara themes). the problem is they didn’t do that. they chose another place and then turned the indigenous people into savages in their own minds to justify ethnic cleansing and have been desperately covering their asses ever since.
Ohj, annie, it’s not that Jews are so superior, oh no. It’s just that other people are, well, so inferior.
That’s the way I always heard it.
pabelmont said it better than i could have anyway mooser. i left a whole slew of comments on the bottom of phil’s slater article a little while ago. chewed him a new a you know what!
I’ m not a Zionist, but this kind of obsession with Zionism is counter productive. Take this statement:
“Zionism in principle is a racist dogma.”
First of all, the way the left bandies about ideological swear words like ‘racism’ and it’s sistren (‘homophobic’, ‘sexist’, ‘imperialistic’) has a lot more to do with an insular culture within the left than any kind of rational discourse. As a famous puppet once said, everyone is a little bit racist. Once we declare any particular ‘ism’ to be the end all trump card, what happens when if turns out that the object of our affection displays some if it?
Second, while Zionism can be dogma, there’s so much that depends on context. Should we call the liturgical references to ‘Zion’ racist because they don’t account for the Palestinians? Modern, political Zionism certain has roots in racist and colonial thinking in Europe in the 19th Century. But it also has roots in fairly ancient categories that don’t fit neatly into a modern or post-modern political analysis. Saying that all of it is racist dogma lends itself to the accusation that the traditional Jewish concern with the land of Israel or the strong desire to exist as a people are in and of themselves evidence of racism in the DNA of Judaism.
Actually, that’s precisely what many modern anti-Semites argue.
Then we have the actual diversity of Zionism, from the violent settler fringe to the starry eyed ‘don’t need a state just let me live in the Judean Hills’ wacko settlers to Ahad Ha’am’s Cultural Zionism to Martin Buber’s binationalism. Which of these, precisely, is the dogma we are thinking of when we label ‘Zionism’ as racist dogma? And what about post Zionists or non-Zionists who simply don’t believe in Zionist, but refuse to join the far left anti-Zionist chorus? Are they to labeled, using Stalin-era linguistic traps, as ‘objectively Zionist’ or ‘soft Zionists’ or ‘unwitting Zionists’ even though they reject the essential Zionist claim?
(Essential Zionist claim is that a Jewish state in Palestine provides a solution to many dilemmas of individual and collective problems of Jews in the modern era.)
Then there is the awkwardness for anyone working for reconciliation. If the issue is what Israelis and the Israeli state does, then success is an achievable change in policies. But if success is the eradication of belief, then you have a recipe for endless war. An analogy would if the American civil rights heroes had used language primarily around opposing southern racism, as a ‘deeper, more true and radical’ alternative to simply demanding the right to vote.
And finally, well not really because it’s an endless topic, let’s look at how successful any effort to make the conversation around Israeli and Palestine even more extreme than it already is. Sure, we can all agree that in a venn diagram of Zionism and racism there is overlap, while quibbling over how much of Zionism falls outside the overlap. Is it 50%? 1%? Who knows and who cares. The point is, whatever that overlap is, that’s where we wish more Israelis and Jews would go.
Supporters of ‘more anti-Zionist rhetoric now!’ are like the right wing supporters of Israel who seek to divert the conversation from solutions to essentialism. Not ‘what can we do now’ but ‘who are these Palestinian Muslims and what are they truly about?’ They pick and choose from Muslim history and contemporary politics, argue that the Islamists aren’t really a margin, but rather the true ‘core’ of Palestinian political and theological belief, and seek to address the issues of that little conundrum. It’s all very smart and mostly a-historical, the right wing version of the left wing obsession with Zionism.
So what if some Palestinians are fundamentalist zealots? So what if lots of them are? And so what if that’s true for Israeli Jews as well? Moving people away from extremist thinking, fundamentalism and zealotry requires nuances, gray areas and ways for people to climb down the ideological ladder with a sense of autonomy and respect. The Zionism=Racism wing of the Palestinian solidarity movement rejects that because they are more interested in defeating the historic enemy than in finding a way forward together.
Where is the obsession really coming from, clencher? Is it not coming from the Zionist apologists, in their guilt or defensiveness? Is the question not introduced far more often by the Zionist defenders insisting they are not racists, protesting too much, and defending the indefensible?
Zionists and anti-Zionists form a matching pair much of the time. For the majority, these are just off-putting or meaningless words. Like how American politicians use the phrase ‘founding fathers’ or ‘democracy’. I have met strident defenders of Zionism; but as an Israeli, Zionism was a word mostly encountered in boring speeches, old documents, obsessions of old people. Oh, and on the far left.
Reminds me of how the old Arab nationalists would never say Israel, only ‘the Zionist entity’ or ‘Zionist enemy.’ Or how the USSR conducted ‘anti-Zionist’ show trials. Or how some anti-Semites love the phrase ‘Zionazi’ as a way of masking Jew hatred by indulging in the meaningless invocation of Godwin’s Law.
(Essential Zionist claim is that a Jewish state in Palestine provides a solution to many dilemmas of individual and collective problems of Jews in the modern era.)
so what clencher? how are you going to consider the many dilemmas of individual and collective problems of palestinians in the modern era once you displace them for this jewish state? what if i told you essential palestinian claims is that moving them back to their homes provides a solution to many dilemmas of individual and collective problems of palestinians in the modern era? oh great then move them back.
providing a solution to problems for one group of people while ignoring the imposition is poses on the other is stupid. currently the ‘imposition’ on israeli jews is complaining about them stealing more land for their zionists dream. i’m sick of it.
what if i told you essential palestinian claims is that moving them back to their homes provides a solution to many dilemmas of individual and collective problems of palestinians in the modern era? oh great then move them back.
Ah, the great Zionist hypocrisy. Only the Jewish people, suffering from oppression, expulsion and exile, have the right to “return” and “self-determine” themselves at the expense of the existing state and population in Palestine.
The Palestinians can experience the same but they must move on and be “progressive.” The world must never forget what the Israelis are or had to go through, however, and that Jews especially deserve a safe haven, even if such a process necessitates depriving another people of their safe haven.
“First of all, the way the left bandies about ideological swear words like ‘racism’ and it’s sistren (‘homophobic’, ’sexist’, ‘imperialistic’) has a lot more to do with an insular culture within the left than any kind of rational discourse.”
To summarize Clenacher’s argument,
It may look, sound, walk and behave like a duck, but calling it a duck is counter productive.
“the strong desire to exist as a people”
= “We want to cut ourselves off from the rest of the human race.”
That’s a pretty nasty attitude.
With all due respect clencher, I strongly disagree. The “diversity of Zionism” argument has a grain of truth to it, but is ultimately contradictory.
In the year 2010, people who identify themselves as Zionists, almost universally, do so in reference to a specific definition of Zionism. And, as I’m sure you know, that definition goes something like this: “a belief in the necessity of a Jewish State in the land of Palestine/Israel”. The term “Jewish State” meaning, to examine it more closely, this: “a state with a Jewish majority population, and/or one which is under the political control of its Jewish population.”
The term Zionism can’t mean something, and nothing (or everything), at the same time. It has a meaning. In common usage, it is a euphemism for Jewish-supremacism.
And it is the central idea that demands ethnic cleansing and subjugation of Palestinians. All oppression, and most conflict in Israel/Palestine flows directly from this idea. (It is the reason that “liberal Zionists” still oppose equal Palestinian rights and are basically supporters of apartheid.)
You are right that there have been conceptions of Zionism that were fundamentally different from the current usage, and in the future the term itself could come to mean something else entirely. But right now, it is the term by which millions of people swear allegiance to apartheid.
And you can’t simply separate ideas and institutions. The institutions serve the idea. You have to change them both. If your institutions are created with and animated by the purpose of ensuring the political supremacy of Jews, they cannot be fair institutions.
What I think we agree on, is the importance of not being shrill, and making genuine efforts to persuade and appeal to everybody in the name of justice and equality.
Some of what you say might be true–I’d like to see Israelis with good intentions ally themselves with Palestinians and if avoiding debates about the essential nature of Zionism would do that, then fine, so long as it didn’t mean that the Palestinians were expected to endorse some aspects of what has been done to them (like being told to accept Israel as a Jewish state).
In the US I think some of the obsession with Zionism comes as a reaction to the reaction to the UN declaration that Zionism is racism.
In the US mainstream we are constantly told that this resolution was an anti-semitic outrage, with no nuance whatsoever–you’re not supposed to say “Hey, wait a minute. Judah Magnes might not have been a racist, but hasn’t actually existing mainstream Zionism been racist in its attitude towards Palestinians?” On the other hand, there’s no problem whatsover in talking about the problem of anti-semitism in the Arab world. So the double standard is grating.
I’m not a bigot
Clencher,
You’re onto something when you say Zionism has its roots in 19th century racist and colonial thinking. However, you then slip into the trap of placing Zionism into an exceptional space beyond analysis, which according to Nitzan and Bichler characterized much internal scholarship about Israel (e.g. Israel has no choice, Israel is beyond class distinctions and outside world history, etc.). What does a modern political analysis look like and what political movement would fit neatly into it? This statement strikes me as anti-intellectual.
I also agree that anti-Zionism should not overlap into essentializing Judaism as the liturgical wing of the movement. Early education in the colonies placed greater emphasis on Israelite nationhood and Maccabean valor over God’s covenant with Abraham. However, it is possible and necessary to essentialize Zionism and view it in relation to the central European ideologies that procreated it. Most of its rank and file were Ostjuden who wanted to break with their Yiddish identity and create a new society based on the ancient Hebrews, paradoxically without the central tenants, a Hebrew nation state modeled on Europe. When I read the Torah, I don’t see anything that would mandate such a mission.
As for the strong desire to exist as a people, that’s one very questionable selling point of Zionism. The mainstream Zionist parties were not interested in uniting Jews from Europe and the Orient as one people. In all the reading I’ve done on the Zionist movement, there is no mention of any initiative or desire to recruit Arab Jews for anything other than settlement labor and nothing about populating the Zionist colonies as equals to the Ashkenazim. Even aborted schemes to expand into Syria and Lebanon don’t mention indigenous Jews. Cultural or spiritual Zionists had non-exploitative links to the Syrian Jewish community but they aren’t the reason we’re against Zionism. Moritz Gudemann, the chief rabbi of Vienna, was a cultural Zionist who opposed a Jewish state.
The binationalist groups of Hashomer Hatzair and Brit Shalom (Buber) had virtually no support among the yishuv or the Palestinians. And even their binationalist ideas were really an excuse for unlimited Jewish immigration. Ruppin, who was actually the founder of Brit Shalom, viewed the whole exercise as a facade to appear moderate for the British and said to the other members that the group is a center for discussion, not for any sort of action. In other words, they were no aberration. Buber simply disregarded the reality of Arab opposition and what it would take to overcome. Ruppin, Weizmann and Ben-Gurion did not.
Excellent comment, Andrew. To elaborate a little, I would point out the disdain of the Zionist founders for Talmudic/Rabbinic tradition – preferring to romanticise the last “worthwhile” period in Jewish history (Biblical-Hasmonean).
Jerome Slater’s summary of liberal objections to Israel’s call for Palestinian recognition of a “Jewish” state are:
1. These demands for are designed to scuttle peace talks.
2. These demands are hypocritical, unjust, and put Palestinian moderates in an impossible position because of (for example) the right of return.
3. Calls for a “Jewish” state are racist.
4. These demands are inconsistent with democracy.
In response to these 4 straw men, Slater responds (my summaries):
1. How could a self-respecting Zionist do otherwise?
2. Forget about Palestinians returning; Israel will never allow it. Period.
3. Well, I agree that Israelis are racist, but there’s nothing inherently racist about a society that privileges Jews and shits on Arabs.
4. A peace deal would “probably” lead to democracy for Arabs. Maybe. I hope.
Slater’s argument for Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state is genuinely weird: because Israeli Jews want it:
“But now that the Israeli government has made an issue of it, there is no doubt that for psychological and symbolic reasons most Israelis genuinely support the Jewish state demand—including many serious critics of the occupation.”
and that Israelis need psychological assurance from Palestinians:
“Nonetheless, for obvious historical and psychological reasons most Israelis apparently genuinely fear ‘delegitimization,” and for that reason the fear, however unfounded, is a real obstacle to peace.”
Slater then quotes a couple of Yassers and interprets their remarks to mean that there are historical precedents for recognizing a Jewish state.
Wrapping his stinking fish in a handy newpaper, Slater finishes with:
“In short, the Palestinians have nothing to lose by publicly and unambiguously stating that they will agree to formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state as part of an overall two-state settlement that meets their realistic and justifiable requirements.”
The only thing I’m not reading in any of this is: what’s in it for the Palestinians? The real issue is settlements and land theft and calls for a “Jewish” state are just a sideshow. And Slater never really, adequately, deals with the first point — that it’s simply designed to scuttle the talks.
What a disappointment Prof. Slater turns out to be.
Excellent summary ehrens.
Is it any wonder the Israeli fan club as such admirers of Slater?
Professor Slater makes a serious misstatement when he says “it is of great significance that in 2007 the twenty-two states of the Arab League unanimously approved a peace plan that does not mention a Palestinian ‘right of return’ but rather states that ‘a just resolution of the refugee problem’ should be ‘agreed upon.’ And it is hard to believe that this carefully chosen language, effectively granting Israel a veto on the issue, would have received such support if the Palestinian National Authority had objected.”
Professor Slater confuses the Arab Summit of 28 March 2002—a.k.a. “The Saudi Plan” and “The Beirut Initiative”—with the Arab Summit of 29 March 2007. And he distorts the statements of both.
The former does say that an “Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem” is “to be agreed upon.” But Professor Slater improperly omits the conclusion of that sentence. The whole sentence calls for the “Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194” (link to reliefweb.int
Resolution 194 “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible” (link to mideastweb.org
.
The 2007 statement simply does not include the words Professor Slater attributes to it. But it does insist on “the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes” (link to mideastweb.org
The quality of the discussion—much less the situation of Palestinian refugees—will not improve so long as we attempt to build arguments on such misstatements.
Israel has had 43 years to wander back to its 1948 borders. It has refused to do so. In other words, it has established the borders of Israel as one state, from the river to the sea. It is now time for Israel to stop denying full civil rights to the inhabitants of that state based on racist or sectarian criteria. As for every other state, it will be up to the state’s inhabitants to determine its immigration policy, in accordance with the provisions of international law that demand the right of return or compensation for ALL refugees.
Abe Foxman was persuaded by Fox News chief Roger Ailes that it’s OK for Glenn Beck to criticize George Soros because Beck is such a strong supporter of Israel. Fox chief reached out to ADL over Beck criticism: The ADL reportedly backed off its criticism of Glenn Beck after Fox chief Roger Ailes spoke to the ADL’s Abe Foxman:
I believe strongly that “anti-Zionism is racism” as suppression of Palestinian rights is racism.
Zionism isn’t racism. Zionism is nationalism, of a people formerly landless to a people with land.
In EVERY condition of social strife there are waves of dispossessed that have to move somewhere. In the case of Israel, the refugees and more their advocates, asserted themselves. They declared “NEVER AGAIN”, which compared to the oppression and genocide and post-genocide suppression, Zionism was a grand liberation.
Literally, in EVERY case of social strife. Consider the American Indians. When the eastern tribes were displaced they moved west, displacing the middle western tribes and so on.
The Palestinians experienced two nakba’s. One was of getting dispossessed. The second was in “solidarity” of not facilitating a secondary or integrated home.
Both continue to this day.
There is 0% chance of achieving Palestinian sovereignty over west of the green line, by dissent, by election, by war.
There is a significant chance of achieving Palestinian sovereignty over east of the green line and Gaza, IF Israel is accepted and its genuine security needs are accomodated.
Those that regard Fayyad as a quisling for any cooperation with Israel, or those that regard Slater or Gideon Levy or Amira Hass as enemies for regarding Zionism as rational, but requiring significant to fundamental reform. You people KEEP Palestinians from achieving normal lives.
YOU use them as ideological puppets. A half a loaf feeds people. No loaf feeds no one.
I thought that I had posted a thank you to Jerome Slater in the other post, but I will here.
His sober, kind, and progressive thinking is helpful.
Good post, Richard. You state the obvious.
I believe strongly that “anti-Zionism is racism” as suppression of Palestinian rights is racism.
I believe strongly that you need to consult a linguist to help you translate your incoherent sentences.
Zionism is racism. Racism goes hand in hand with nationalism, as it did with Nazism.
“Zionism is nationalism, of a people formerly landless to a people with land.”
Correction: Of a people deluded into believing they are entitled to land, formerly landless to a people with someone else’s land.
“In EVERY condition of social strife there are waves of dispossessed that have to move somewhere. ”
Correction. Prior to WWII, this was the case, but since the Geneva Conventions, it was agreed that this was illegal and a violation of international law.
“The second was in “solidarity” of not facilitating a secondary or integrated home.”
False again. There was no solidarity because your racist Zionist brethren ensured that the Palestinians remained splintered.
“There is 0% chance of achieving Palestinian sovereignty over west of the green line, by dissent, by election, by war.”
And there has been 0% achieved by following your prescription.
“There is a significant chance of achieving Palestinian sovereignty over east of the green line and Gaza, IF Israel is accepted and its genuine security needs are accomodated.”
False. Israel has had this offered to them since 2003, so clearly, there is no chance of achieving that outcome.
“I thought that I had posted a thank you to Jerome Slater in the other post, but I will here.”
Witty’s thanking a propagandist and a liar. how very predictable.
“His sober, kind, and progressive thinking is helpful.”
Yes, another PEP.
Correction: Of a people deluded into believing they are entitled to land, formerly landless to a people with someone else’s land.
Jesus man, you talk about Witty’s uncomprehendable style. The Brits, controllers of the British Mandate, followed by the UN, gave Israel the land.
“The Brits, controllers of the British Mandate, followed by the UN, gave Israel the land.”
They controlled it. They didn’t OWN it. You don’t give what you don’t own! Only what you own..A British isle, perhaps?
The British did not explicitly give Israel the land. They enabled the Jewish invasion, but kept having second thoughts about it.
Earlier, MRW proved that he can and does read by posting this:
British White Paper of 1939
link to avalon.law.yale.edu
“Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.’ His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated …. the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE.”
But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.
Note the date – 1939.
Eventually the British gave up and, mexhausted by WW2, tried to fob the problem off to the new U.N.
Well,
We are in agreement that the British did not commit to give all of the land to Jewish/Israeli control.
And, we agree that they did not intend to forcefully remove the Arab population in a mass transfer of title.
But, it is obvious that they did intend to convey some of the land to Jewish control, and that is Zionism.
And, the Arab world did commit to not permitting an inch of land to be under Jewish control, regardless of population dynamics on the basis that it was their’s, even as their societies and governments were in conflict (for greedy advantage one from another).
So, there were unnatural prohibitions against peaceable civil Jewish immigration to Israel/Palestine, then small and large massacres/terror of Jewish residents (legally immigrating, long resident, and illegals), then Arab revolt under the leadership of an avid nazi supporter (no death camps yet, only summary execution and ghettoization), then genocide of European Jews (a time of “peace” in Palestine as Jewish resident immigration had stopped), then rapid immigration of European refugees, then civil war by local Arabs with the intention of ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population, then Arab League land grab with the intention of ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population.
And, in those efforts to ethnically cleanse Jews from the land, perceived as part of the global conspiracy to purge Jews from the world, Israel expanded.
All, when acceptance of “enough Israel” would have created stability, a Palestinian state, potentially good neighbors.
Now the pendulum swung the other way, in Israel’s unnecessary expansion (especially after the Begin era assumed annexation became impossible, that is what Sharon negated).
And, the just remedy is peace, to 67 borders, with consented adjustments.
1948 remains a regressive, reactionary orientation. Many title questions to resolve, but NO questions of sovereignty remain relative to that period.
“But, it is obvious that they did intend to convey some of the land to Jewish control, and that is Zionism.”
It is by no means clear to me how much control was intended, and how exclusive that control was to be. The phrase “National Home” does not tell us.
“So, there were unnatural prohibitions against peaceable civil Jewish immigration to Israel/Palestine,”
Since the immigrants had made it clear that they intended to take over the country, it is perfectly natural that such immigration would be prohibited.
“All, when acceptance of “enough Israel” would have created stability, a Palestinian state,”
Any Israel would have been unacceptible if it were founded upon the notion that foreign immigrants had the right to drive out or subjugate the native inhabitants. And that was the type of Israel that was proposed.
There was no reason for any sort of Israel. If the Jewish immigrants had been prepared to work with the Arabs to create a unified Palestine, there would have been stability. Instead, they chose the path of ethnic cleansing.
>> There was no reason for any sort of Israel. If the Jewish immigrants had been prepared to work with the Arabs to create a unified Palestine, there would have been stability.
Well, that’s just too damned sensible! You forget that Jews were “generation to generation” fear-scarred and they “Remember[ed] the Holocaust!”, as well as blue dot in a sea of green. Given also Promised Land and Chosen People, and if you factor in Ahmadinejad, Iranian nukes and Saddam, it’s clear that Palestinian Arabs could not be trusted to “make ‘better wheels’”.
>> Instead, they chose the path of ethnic cleansing.
Yes, they did. But as RW conceded – in a disturbingly open-ended manner – ethnic cleansing is “currently not necessary”.
‘they “Remember[ed] the Holocaust!”’
Which was quite a feat for the Zionists of the twenties and thirties.
The condition in which Palestinians were driven out occurred during a 12-year period of attempted ethnic cleansing of Jewish residents. (1936-39 Arab revolt, 39-45 lull during the genocide of European Jews, 47 civil war, 48 external war).
It was a fight to the death. But, not responded to in Israel by anything resembling removal of ALL non-Jews, nor by genocide, as is claimed in the heat of emotion.
“The condition in which Palestinians were driven out occurred during a 12-year period of attempted ethnic cleansing of Jewish residents. ”
The difference being that the Zionists were plotting their version 50 years earlier.
Probably at least a hundred were, some from fantasy, probably some even practically.
So what?
I’m sure that there are 100 Palestinians and solidarity currently plotting how to remove Jews from the region, at least as any majority.
Plotting. Such a word.
Probably at least a hundred were, some from fantasy, probably some even practically. So what?”
So what if the Zionists went into Palestine with a premeditated plane to ethncially clanse the Palestinians? It’s only Palestinians so what would a racist like you care.
The different of course is that the Arabs were reacting to what they could see were Israel’s intentions.
“I’m sure that there are 100 Palestinians and solidarity currently plotting how to remove Jews from the region, at least as any majority.’”
And if they are, isn’t it entirely because fo what’s being done to them?
You Zionists simply don’t udnerstand cause and effect do you? No wonder you hate the concept of justice.
Shingo,
EVERY state has an included group and an excluded. Some based on ethnicity, some based on country of origin, some based on ideology.
Palestine at green line would be. Israel/Palestine as a single state would be. The US is. Mexico is. France is.
They all include and they all exclude.
To say that a nationalist state excludes, is saying nothing.
The trick for a national state is to also apply democratic principles, equal due process for all, literally, color-blind.
>> The trick for a national state is to also apply democratic principles, equal due process for all, literally, color-blind.
Unless you’re a “Jewish state” (as opposed to an Israeli state), in which case “enough Zionism” gets added to the mix. And Zionism, as everyone knows, is all about democracy, justice and equality for all. Funny stuff.
DON’T FEED THE TROLL!!!
eljay,
RW has been commenting on this site far longer than I have.
Yet, Mondoweiss has contributed much to informing me and changing my views, yes, even towards Israelis, even while resonating with views I’ve previously held at other times.
How much do you think RW’s views have changed? How much has the MW community stood to gain by responding? Except for a few laughs courtesy of Mooser, and so much information posted by so many people (which they could do without responding to him), the more the troll is fed, the more nonsense it spews. It regurgitates the same thing over and over again, through different comment incarnations and some nonsensical version of pig latin.
Don’t MW commenters find hand-holding him draining – to say the least?
“EVERY state has an included group and an excluded. ”
Just the apartheid ones Witty
>> … Mondoweiss has contributed much to informing me and changing my views, yes, even towards Israelis, even while resonating with views I’ve previously held at other times.
>> How much do you think RW’s views have changed? How much has the MW community stood to gain by responding? Except for a few laughs courtesy of Mooser, and so much information posted by so many people …
I tried to take RW seriously, but when a supposed “humanist” repeatedly promotes and defends very un-humanist positions and concepts, it’s no longer possible to take him for anything other than a fraud and a Zio-supremacist. Which is what I do.
Like you, I’m very grateful for this site, for the wealth of information it provides and for the discussions it generates. It is a shame that RW and other trolls continue to litter Mondoweiss with a combination of falsehoods, previously-debunked claims, hateful assertions and long-winded bafflegab.
Shingo, you’re kidding right?
I don’t know that EVERY state has an included group and an excluded, but…
Syria: Alawis and Kurds (Alawis currently in a very strong position!)
Egypt: Copts suffer discrimination and threats from some fundamentalists
Iraq: Yazidis, Christians
Iran: Baluchis, Arabs, Azeris, Sunnis, Kurds
There’s more of course, and none of it justifies what Israel does. But it calls into question your statement that only apartheid states have privileged groups on the basis of race, religion or language.
“a people formerly landless to a people with land.”
Well, WJ couldn’t figure out what makes a particular group into “a people”, so I don’t suppose you can either. (But see below.)
But even if we accept the idea of Jews as “a people”, it does not follow that they were “landless”. On the contrary, large tracts of land were owned by Jews in countries in which those Jews were full and equal citizens.
If by land you mean “countries”, Jews as a whole had many countries.
If you mean that there was no specifically Jewish country, why should there be one? How does a group being a “people” requre a specific country for that”people”
(The Very Wonderful Julia Gillard has figured it out. She recently referred to Australians as “a people”. I’m pretty sure Australian Jews are included in the Australian “people”, so they are members of two peoples. And they have a land. Australia. Doesn’t seem fair they should get two.)
SELF-determination makes a people.
You alternate between the Mizrahi are a different people and that they are one people (in declaring that they voluntarily migrated from the Arab world post 1948).
Its clear that the people describe themselves as one people, Jewish.
Live with it, accept it.
“SELF-determination makes a people.”
You mean ‘if a group declares themselves to be a “people”, then that group is thenceforward a “people”‘?
So if all the stamp-collectors of the world declare themselves a “people”, they will be a “people”.
O.K. So what? Does being a “people” give them any group rights?
If a person belongs to several groups, he can belong to several “peoples”. How does that affect his rights? And his duties?
The Mizrahis? I think you are confusing me with someone else.
You spoke of the Jews as not a single people, using the Arab immigrants as example.
Its a false assertion. The Jewish people are a people, with Israel as national home.
Self-determination defines how one is governed, how consent of the governed is delineated.
A single-state could be an entire middle eastern confederation with no boundaries from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Turkey. But, there are nations. And Israel is one of them.
Accept it.
“But, there are nations. And Israel is one of them.”‘
Yes there are nations, not people.
“You spoke of the Jews as not a single people, using the Arab immigrants as example.”
I’m sure you are confusing me wiht someone else.
“Israel as national home.”
What does “national home” mean?
“I believe strongly that “anti-Zionism is racism” as suppression of Palestinian rights is racism.”
Richard, it’s only a 10 words sentence! How did you manage to make it totally incomprehensible which ever way one turns it, is beyond me!
Both “anti-Zionism is racism” and suppression of Palestinian legal rights is racism, are true.
Clearer now.
“Anti-Zionism is an expression of racism”.
Witty why do you hate the English language?
“SELF-determination makes a people.”
No, self determination makes a society or a state.
“Anti-Zionism is an expression of racism”.
I suppose anti-Nazism is an expression of racism, too? How much Nazism would have been enough and not racist? What if Hitler had stopped at annexing the Sudetenland, not occupied the Protectorate B&M, not invaded Poland etc. What if he had simply forced all German Jews to move to Palestine, against British opposition and immigration quotas, and after staging a few pogroms/massacres to subdue all resistance. What if the Nazis had just expelled the Polish-born Jews to Poland, and leave them in refuge camps if Poland refuses to repatriate them – can’t blame Germany for that, can you? If Poland doesn’t want them (and Poland didn’t in 1938), why should Germany ? Same as: If Jordan doesn’t want the Palestinians, why should Israel?
Let’s assume that with ‘enough Nazism’ there would have been no WW II and no Holocaust. Instead of Yad Vashem, would there be a Hitler/Herzl memorial instead, founding fathers of Israel?
“Both “anti-Zionism is racism” and suppression of Palestinian legal rights is racism, are true.”
Actually only one can be true.
Zionism includes the suppression of Palestinians so either :
Either you consider anti-Zionism to be racism and therefore accept the suppression of Palestinians to be legitmate
or
You consider Zionism to be racism.
or
you consider their one to be racism.
The arguments proposed by Ahmed in support of his anti-Zionist theories are flawed. If they were true, how come that in Israel, together with the Jewish majority, lives a Muslim community, which is numerically a hundred times greater than the total number of Jews remaining in the entire Islamic world, from Morocco to Malaysia? Based on this mere numerical comparison, the reality says just the opposite, let alone if we consider under what conditions remaining Jewish enclaves actually live in Islamic world. The statements by Palestinian leaders, who openly declare that they want a Palestine entirely devoid of Israelis/Jews, bode ill either.
The truth appears to be quite the opposite of what the anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli demagogy suggests.
“If they were true, how come that in Israel, together with the Jewish majority, lives a Muslim community, which is numerically a hundred times greater than the total number of Jews remaining in the entire Islamic world, from Morocco to Malaysia?”
Because Jews chose to migrate to Israel.
Simple isn’t it?
“The statements by Palestinian leaders, who openly declare that they want a Palestine entirely devoid of Israelis/Jews, bode ill either.”
Stop lying Jonah. No Palestinian leader has said that.
“The truth appears to be quite the opposite of what the anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli demagogy suggests.”
The truth appears to be that you have no idea what you are talking about.
jonah..Rubbish..As simple as that..RUBBISH!
You don’t even warrant a response so appallingly trashy and propagandist your prose is.
Ok, moderators, shoot me! It’s still rubbish!
“Because Jews chose to migrate to Israel.”
In truth, they “were chosen” to emigrate by ethnic cleansing policies of their Arab countries.
link to meforum.org
link to youtube.com
“No Palestinian leader has said that.”
No, really?
link to indynewsisrael.com
Why always reply so hastly and without checking your arguments, Shingo? It’s worthless.
Read and comprehend your own sources, jonah.
“I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land,” he declared.
Important clue for you. Not all Israelis are Jews. Not all Jews are Israelis. A statement that Israeli citizens would not be allowed to live in a Palestinian state is not a statement that no Jews can live in a Palestinian state. Abbas also made clear that the Jewish settlers could remain in the imaginary Palestinian future state if they chose to become citizens of that state.
I was just waiting for Jonah to step into that trap Tree and he took the bait.
Important clue for you tree. The founding fathers of Israel made clear that Palestinians could remain in the all to real state of Israel. Those that chose to stay were given instant citizenship, with that citizenship the right to participate in government. Just think if more than 20 percent decided to stay, how bout 50 or 60 percent? What would the state of Israel look like then?
Those that chose to stay were given instant citizenship, with that citizenship the right to participate in government. Just think if more than 20 percent decided to stay, how bout 50 or 60 percent? What would the state of Israel look like then?
20% can “choose to stay”, but anymore than that it is not their decision to make?
“Those that chose to stay were given instant citizenship, with that citizenship the right to participate in government. Just think if more than 20 percent decided to stay, how bout 50 or 60 percent?”
WTF? You think it was the Palestinians who decided whether they could stay in Israel? They were driven out and not allowed back in to ensure the right demographic balance.
“founding fathers of Israel made clear that Palestinians could remain in the all to real state of Israel. …Those that chose to stay …if more than 20 percent decided to stay”
Are you falling back on the old “we asked them to stay, but they ran away” line? Get with the program. Even Zionists now admit that the Palestinians were driven out.
The founding fathers of Israel made clear that Palestinians could remain in the all to real state of Israel. Those that chose to stay were given instant citizenship, with that citizenship the right to participate in government.
Nabka denying now? Ben_Gurion often talked about transfer and personally ordered the expulsion of Palestinians from Lydda and Ramle according to Rabin. I suggest you read Pappe if you want to know the details.
If you are talking about the older founders and theoreticians, they too discussed and encouraged the transfer of Palestinians. The Jewish Fund ‘s covenants on the land it bought specifically prohibited non-Jews from ever buying the land back, or even working on the land. The Palestine Office, run by Ruppin, encouraged the emigration of Yemenite Jews by lying to them and appealing to their messianic dreams, so that the Zionists could replace Arab farm workers with Yemenite Jews, when the mostly urban dwelling European immigrants proved unsuitable for the hard manual labor. Palestinians were not offered a choice to stay in Israel. Nor were those who fled or were expelled ever allowed to return to their homes. Those who remained were placed under Israeli military rule for the next 18 years. They were prohibited from traveling outside their own villages without a nearly impossible to obtain permit. And of course in some cases, they were not allowed to return to their own homes and lands as those homes and lands had been confiscated by Israel for the benefit of Jews. These were the Present Absentees, as Israel called them; a term that could have easily been coined by Orwell. There was nothing generous about Israel’s treatments of those Palestinians who were forced to leave Israel or those who were able to remain. To pretend otherwise is to promote a lie. Are you content with lying now, or are you just blissfully and willfully ignorant about all this?
“Just think if more than 20 percent decided to stay, how bout 50 or 60 percent?”
Wow! First Jonah and now this!! We’re treated to smoked salmon and caviar tonight! What’s next? Foie gras? Confits de canard?
Look, I understand you willingly state outrageous lies in order to make your case but really to insinuate that the 80% did not “chose” to stay is beyond the pale!! Zionism, obviously is not only racism. It’s more importantly lies and forgery!
Yonira
Let’s forget about the facts if they bother you and let’s resort to mere logic instead..Would it have been possible to build a Jewish state as intended with a Palestinian population above 20% in the area slated for it? Would that have been acceptable to the zionists of the day? Obviously not!
Draw your own conclusions now..
“The founding fathers of Israel made clear that Palestinians could remain in the all to real state of Israel.”
I think you’ve had enough of what you’ve been drinking my friend..The founding fathers INSISTED that the majority of non Jews should be driven out!
Unscrupulous, unprincipled forgers are out of the woodwork tonight. Tfooh..
tree –
Abbas says no Israelis, Hamas says no Jews. Who are we to believe?
tree –
Abbas says “No Israelis”, Hamas says “No Jews”. Who should we believe?
Palestinians have made it very clear that Jews can remain in any Palestinian state that may arise (if Israel ever allows one to).
link to haaretz.com
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on Saturday said that Jews would enjoy freedom and full civil rights in a future Palestinian state, according to a report in the Aspen Daily News.
“Jews, to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine, will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel,” Fayyad said in response to a question from former CIA director James Woolsey at the Aspen Institute’s Ideas Festival.
Even Hamas officials have stated that they have nothing against the Jews. Sheikh Ahmad Yassin (spiritual head of Hamas) was quite clear about this.
“We don’t hate the Jews or fight them because they are Jews, they are people of faith and so are we, we love all people of faith, if my brother who had the same family and religion as me, if he takes my home and expels me from my land, i will fight him. I will fight my brother, I would fight my cousin if they did that to me. So when a Jew takes my home and expels me, I will fight him as well. I’m at peace with all people and love all people. I love all people and wish them well, even the Jews.
“The Jews lived with us for a long time. We never assaulted them or transgressed their rights. They used to hold high positions in the government and ministries.”
“We don’t hate the Jews, we only want them to give us our rights.”
link to youtube.com
Except for the random acts of violence of terror, relative to Sheikh Yassin (speaking in advocacy of sharia law for all of Palestine, in your quote), James.
If all Palestinians were like Salam Fayyad, we would have had a peace agreement by now. Unfortunately, as all of you love to point out, Salam Fayyad is a puppet with no domestic constituency, right?
If all Palestinians were like Salam Fayyad, Israel would not nead to ethnically cleanse the population, as eventually they would bow down to her might and acknowledge her right to ‘security’ by fleeing to the four corners of the Earth.
“‘If all Palestinians were like Salam Fayyad, we would have had a peace agreement by now. ”
If all Israelis were like Yitzak Rabi, we would have had a peace agreement by now.
“In truth, they “were chosen” to emigrate by ethnic cleansing policies of their Arab countries.”
That’s all been debunked.
‘Myth of Exile’: Justifying Slaughter in Gaza\
link to palestinechronicle.com
Any analogy between Palestinian refugees and Jewish immigrants from Arab lands is folly in historical and political terms
link to haaretz.com
Hitching a ride on the magic carpet
“… Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition.
In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.”
The article appeared on Haaretz, but has been removed since
link to ifamericansknew.org
“No, really?”
No really.
If you are talking about the statement to the Egyptian media, then this, of course, is not true, as the clarification from Wafa noted. Abbas was talking about a proposed force stationed in Palestine after the Israeli occupation ends, and noting that he would not permit Israelis to be a part of that force, even Israelis who were Muslim. This is completely understandable, as the Israelis are the enemy, and you don’t kick out the enemy and then invite them in under a different guise.
Further, he said that it is up to Israel to call itself whatever it wanted, as it is not for Abbas to say what Israel calls itself. He invited Isreal to be like every other nation in the world and declare its borders. Predictably, the Isrealis declined to do so.
Why always reply so hastly and without checking your arguments, Jonah? You don’t even read what you link to apparently.
It’s worthless.
shingo -
“That’s all been debunked.”
I’ve read this phrase every time the issue was becoming uncomfortable to be faced honestly by Shingo&Co. Your source doesn’t mention with one single word the topic of the “forgotten Jewish refugees” from Arab lands. So much for your intellectual seriousness …
The assertion that Jews left the Arab countries of origin on their own initiative is false at best, but probably simply slanderous. the assertion that Jews left on their own initiative, the Arab countries of origin is false at best, but probably simply slanderous. If the Jews in Arab lands became “Zionists”, that means they emigrated to Israel, primarily because they were forced to do so as a result of the vindictive and racist policies of their countries in which they were declared persona non grata. Pogroms, persecution and expropriation on a large scale forced the Jews to leave.
link to eurekastreet.com.au
From the article:
“Nevertheless, a considerable number of Jews — perhaps the majority — seem to have left as a result of either systematic harassment, or direct expulsion. Some communities felt obliged to leave over time due to ongoing government discrimination and popular hostility. Others were expelled en masse as in the expulsion of 120,000 Iraqi Jews to Israel in 1951. Many experienced outbreaks of serious anti-Jewish violence. It can reasonably be concluded that Jews in the Arab world were driven out as a direct and unapologetic retaliation for Jewish actions in Israel/Palestine.”
Jonah
“Your source doesn’t mention with one single word the topic of the “forgotten Jewish refugees” from Arab lands. ”
That’s because there are no “forgotten Jewish refugees from Arab lands. ”
“The assertion that Jews left the Arab countries of origin on their own initiative is false at best, but probably simply slanderous. ”
No, it’s not even a suggestion. It’s what the Mizrahi Jews themselves claim. I, fact, the Mizrahi Jews regard the term “refugee” as an insult.
“If the Jews in Arab lands became “Zionists”, that means they emigrated to Israel, primarily because they were forced to do so ”
No, it’s because Jews today become zionists and emigrate to Isrle fo their own volition.
Even your own quote casts doubt as to the reason the Jews migrated to Israel.
“seem to have left as a result of either systematic harassment, or direct expulsion.”
and
“Some communities felt obliged to leave over time due to ongoing government discrimination and popular hostility.”
This stament clearly indicates there was no urgency and immidiate threat to the Jews.
“Others were expelled en masse as in the expulsion of 120,000 Iraqi Jews to Israel in 1951.”‘
In this case, the date reveals that the expulsion was a consequence retrubution for Israel dirving 800,000 Palestinians from their homes. This is also confirmed by your quote.
So to conclude, there was no program of ethnic lceasing of Jews from Arab states, but a repnse to Israel;s program of ethnic lceasing of Arabs from Palesine.
There were no pogroms, persecution and expropriation on a large scale that forced the Jews to leave. The Jews migrated to Israle over a period of more than 30 years, which is clearly not the consewuence fo any pogrom or ethnic cleansing.
Zionism was actually originally based not of the idea of the superiority of the Jews but on the Zionists own feelings about the inferiority of the Jews.
The Zionists of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries viewed their fellow Jews as corrupted by assimilation. They saw Jewish attempts at assimilation as a sign of their inherent weakness and openly despised them. In this respect the Zionists shared a lot in common with the classically Anti-Semitc views of the Nazis etc.
Proof of this can be found in the words of Herzl himself, or indeed one could just view the part of the documentary ‘Defamation’ by Yoav Shamir, where the director goes to visit his Grandmother, a Zionist colonialist from the 1930′s. Her comments about Diaspora Jews are very enlightening to the uninitiated. She describes them as weak & money obsessed ( I even think she may have referred to them as ‘pornographers’) Such descriptions of Jews would not have been out-of-place on the pages of Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer
In 1919, Josef Haim Brenner, Zionist, said :
Next time some Hasbarist idiot uses the term ‘Self-hating Jew’, point in the direction of that quote
Correction.
The motive for Zionism was the victimhood of Jews in Europe, the observation/prediction that they would NEVER be accepted within European society, assimilated or not, not their fear of assimilation.
what makes me laugh, Mr Witty, is that like all sociopaths, you seem to think that merely stating that something is so, will somehow make it so – despite the fact that the words I quoted above, from Josef Haim Brenner, a Zionist of the early 20th Century, completely contradict everything in your reply, you still foolishly feel the need to contradict it.
Don’t you ever get embarrassed at the nonsense your post here?
I stated something and gave an example to support my contention that Zionism actually stemmed from feelings of inferiority within the Zionists themselves. I actually gave 2 examples, one a written one from a leading Zionist of the early 20th Century , and one captured recently on film, voiced by a Zionist Colonialist of the 1930′s.
Both examples provide adequate proof for what I have said. Yet for some reason you still need to disagree, though I note that you do not in anyway take issue with the examples I have provided, you merely state an opposing opinion and blithey carry-on as if everyone here must simply accept the [in your addled racist mind] self-evident ‘truth’ of your opinion.
You remind me of my nephew, who when asked if he ate the choclolate in the cupboard, turned his chocolate smeared face toward me and coolly replied ‘What chocolate?’.
No, Bris. Witty is right. In your quotations Brenner actually refers to the victimhood of the Jews in Europe. You need to read him until the end of the page. Your reading is apathetic attempt to distort the truth and portrait Zionists as hidden anti-Semites – typical quotes out of contest to pursue its own agenda.
“The motive for Zionism was the victimhood of Jews in Europe, the observation/prediction that they would NEVER be accepted within European society, assimilated or not, not their fear of assimilation.”
Which is racism in itself, as it builds on the belief that gentiles cannot be trusted.
The early Zionists did, it seems, regard Jews as a degenerate bunch, but they clearly also regarded those degenerate Jews as more important than other people.
A racist statement on your part.
There was a divide between the assimilated, educated and relatively wealthy German, Swiss and Dutch Jews (Herzl), and the very poor an largely uneducated Russian and eastern-European Jews.
The poor Jews had no hope in their “home” countries, so the prospect of establishing a new home, rang true. The assimilated German Jews largely retained their hopes of a good life.
The fascism of the twenties, thirties and fourties PERMANENTLY shattered the notion of Jewish assimilation in Europe.
Its revived slightly, now that the Jewish population has been ethnically cleansed. A minority of 6000 Polish Jews is not a threat, quaint.
“A racist statement on your part.”
Mine?
I made two statements.
1. It seems that the early Zionists regarded Jews as a degenerate bunch.
And it does seem that way to me. If the early Zionists did not have that idea, then argue the case to change my mind.
2. The early Zionists regarded Jews as more important than other people.
Since they were prepared to take over Palestine from the people who lived there, this seems true.
Is truth racist?
“If the early Zionists did not have that idea, then argue the case to change my mind.”
I gave him 2 examples and he quite rightly suspects that there are plenty of other examples of such views in the written works and recorded speeches of the early Zionists – and indeed there are.
Witty already knows that he can’t argue the case because he already knows that the evidence exists to prove the point – so he just ignores the fact that there is evidence to support the contention and simply chooses to continue claiming that it is untrue to say such things – as if his statements will somehow magically become true if he just sticks to endlessly repeating them and continues to ignore the evidence put forward which proves him wrong.
“There was a divide between the assimilated, educated and relatively wealthy German, Swiss and Dutch Jews (Herzl), and the very poor an largely uneducated Russian and eastern-European Jews.”
If one is a Zionist, then ‘Yes’ – in fact truth is toxic to the Zionist viewpoint
@ Witty:
“There was a divide between the assimilated, educated and relatively wealthy German, Swiss and Dutch Jews (Herzl), and the very poor an largely uneducated Russian and eastern-European Jews”
actually the divide was more between the so-called ‘secular’ Jews (who considered themselves to be modern sophisticates) and the Eastern European, mostly religious, uneducated poor rural Shetl Jews, who the Zionists considered to be a throwback to the dark ages. For the Zionists the mere existence of these uneducated poor rural Shetl Jews was a cause for shame, – this divide has always existed in Israeli society, and still exists today.
It was such despite the fact that
“there are plenty of other examples of such views in the written works and recorded speeches of the early Zionists ”
I have seen it elsewhere. Gilad Atzmon likes to bring it up.
There is division in Jewish society. So what?
What accounts for your condemnatory tone?
You think that the German Jewish sensitivity to persecution was irrational, or that the Russian Jewish experience of persecution and poverty was?
One of the great fuels of modern Zionism, the long-term appeal, is of the betrayal by German and other communities against their Jewish populations. German Jews were patriotic Germans (in spite of professional quotas). Polish Jews were mostly patriotic Poles, in spite of quotas and official religious persecutions.
But, during the holocaust, the wealthy professional (doctors, lawyers, accountants, writers, artists) were easily swindled, blackmailed, then rounded up and shot anyway.
Those of us that have heard the stories second-hand (from first-hand), remember.
I know that the Hungarian fascists willingly, enthusiastically, turned in one of two doctors in a town of 20,000, that was not allowed to practice legally, but was unofficially (not allowed to for money, only for chickens and bread).
That was before the Germans invaded, just while Hungary was a fascist ally.
It led to the consciousness that they couldn’t trust temporary liberality.
Oh, if Gilad Atzmon, the self-hating Jews that even most of the Palestinian movement has disowned, said it, it must be true.
What a silly discussion this is. The early Zionists were incredibly diverse in their opinions. Among those opinions was that the Zionist was a new form of Jew, and yes, some looked down upon their more religious brethren struggling in the shtetls as backward and on their assimilated brethren who gave up their religion to join Christian society as too compromising. Watch the movie Sunshine to get an idea of what the atmosphere was like in the late 19th/early 20th century for an assimilated Jew in European society.
The main point, however, was that the Zionists were looking for a way to create a Jewish cultural space where Jews didn’t have to live in ghettos under strict rabbinic rules in order for their culture to survive and didn’t have to give up their identity to join the greater society. Zionism was in large part a reaction to failure of Enlightenment and democratic values to create a safe space for Jews in Europe and elsewhere. The Holocaust was the final manifestation of the failure of these values to penetrate in any meaningful way; the Holocaust was the use of progress to kill people efficiently.
Those who opposed Zionism at that time generally fall into those two groups I mentioned – they were either assimilated Jews who feared for their place in Christian society, and, later on, Communist society, or religious Jews who feared the loss of power over their flock. Each group, in essence, mistakenly relied on the majority society around them to protect their interests – the assimilated Jews relied on it to provide them with social success and the religious Jews, perversely, relied on societal persecution to enforce the need for rabbinical control. Both were exile mindsets.
Any movement of national liberation has its cliques and its viewpoints on those they are trying to liberate, and it should not be surprising that those viewpoints are sometimes negative, since most people are usually apathetic, and not revolutionaries. American radicals often claim to act on behalf of the American people, but don’t always have the nicest things to say about them.
Now that actually made sense, hophmi. I suppose it’s because you’re speaking against oversimplification and demonization of Zionists, explaining the motives of some of the Jews who either supported it or opposed it. Now if only you could treat Palestinians with the same respect.
“Those who opposed Zionism at that time generally fall into those two groups I mentioned – they were either assimilated Jews who feared for their place in Christian society, and, later on, Communist society, or religious Jews who feared the loss of power over their flock. Each group, in essence, mistakenly relied on the majority society around them to protect their interests – the assimilated Jews relied on it to provide them with social success and the religious Jews, perversely, relied on societal persecution to enforce the need for rabbinical control. Both were exile mindsets.”
That’s odd, becasue the majority fo those who support Zionism continue to rely on the majority society around them to protect their interests, and Israel for that matter.
And today, assimilated Jews rely on it to provide them with social success and the Zionists perversely, still rely on the myth ogf societal persecution to enforce the need for Zionist control. Both appear to be exile mindsets.
I’m not a bigot, but [...]
There are, as far as I can see, no significant variations within Zionism, which is the belief that only Jewish people have a rightful share in sovereignty over ‘Palestine’, even though others may and probably always will have a share bestowed by grace or generosity. Very stark and simple.
There may be variations within the reasons given. The Jerome Slater version seems to divide the world into two groups, one permanently and irrationally mistrusting the other, and the other permanently and rationally (because of this irrationalism) mistrusting the first. These groups seem to be conceived of as races with a deep difference of moral character. So this is a theory of racial superiority on the moral level.
It’s interesting to see counterbalancing Zionist claims that in other respects Jewish people are inferior – but it is the moral level that really matters in human affairs.
I acknowledge that even if I’m right about this I have not proved that non-Jewish people aren’t morally inferior. But I do not think that moral characteristics are in truth distributed on racial lines.
“There are, as far as I can see, no significant variations within Zionism, which is the belief that only Jewish people have a rightful share in sovereignty over ‘Palestine’, even though others may and probably always will have a share bestowed by grace or generosity. ”
Well, when you have blinders on, you don’t see much.
“These groups seem to be conceived of as races with a deep difference of moral character. So this is a theory of racial superiority on the moral level.”
And where was this written? Do you have an inferiority complex?
“I acknowledge that even if I’m right about this I have not proved that non-Jewish people aren’t morally inferior. But I do not think that moral characteristics are in truth distributed on racial lines. ”
Don’t worry, you’re not right.
“I acknowledge that even if I’m right about this I have not proved that non-Jewish people aren’t morally inferior. But I do not think that moral characteristics are in truth distributed on racial lines. ”
Don’t worry, you’re not right.–Hophmi
Well, there’s the hophmi I’m familiar with. You either don’t realize what you’ve just implied or you meant to imply that non-Jewish people are morally inferior. Sloppily written snark can leave you looking like a racist.
But maybe you mean it.
“Well, when you have blinders on, you don’t see much.”
It’s pretty hard to miss. You’re simply frustrated by the fact that people don’t see what you imagine Zionism should look like.
“Do you have an inferiority complex?”
Do you have an superiority complex? Don’t answer that, I know the answer – you’re a Zionist after all.
“Don’t worry, you’re not right.”
Don’t worry, no one is waiting for you to prove it.
The modern state is on an arc to the day when the world is One. It grew out of the Enlightenment in Europe when the idea of a political entity based on clan, family and tribal associations was justly superseded . The new model became the norm all over the planet. Therefore those who lived in North Western Europe became French, Britsh Islanders became English and so on. It is impossible to reverse time and organize states on an arbitrary distinction. There can be no Lefthanders State, no Mohican State, no LGBT State. No Jewish State. Israel must go. Jews must join the rest of Humanity as citizens of Earth.
And now, in this age characterized by a dearth of pogroms, is the perfect opportunity.
Kumbaya, my lord, Kumbaya.
“Jews must join the rest of Humanity as citizens of Earth”
No latent antisemitism in that comment. We’re part of Humanity, chief, and everybody is a citizen of the Earth by virtue of being here. Even you are a part of humanity; don’t go letting anyone tell you different.
You be sure to let me know when left-handed people wish to exercise their right to self-determination, and also when the French indicate that they no longer wish to have a French state. Also be sure to let me know who you think we should have run this World of yours.
“You be sure to let me know when left-handed people wish to exercise their right to self-determination, and also when the French indicate that they no longer wish to have a French state ”
You mean the same French state that recognizes French citizens reagrless of race or religion right?
“We’re part of Humanity, chief, and everybody is a citizen of the Earth by virtue of being here. Even you are a part of humanity; don’t go letting anyone tell you different.”
O’Rly?
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=191782