Zionism

[indra_fanatic]

What do you all think of the existence of a Judaic homeland?

I have started this thread in order to ask why it seems to be that the existence of the nation of Israel stirs up so much more debate than that of any other currently-extant body politic. It seems that there is just a severe imbalance of focus.

Without getting into the possible Biblical/theological principles surrounding Zionism (though I'm sure we will in time), I guess I just want to ask why so much more world attention is focused on the creation/existence of Israel than any other international conflict. As to the question of whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, I would say that the general answer to that is yes. Would it be anti-French to say that the nation of France should no longer exist?

I know many opponents of Israel do not set out to be anti-Semitic, but the end result is that their actions and beliefs are warmly received by those who do have discriminatory and hateful motives. Even if one genuinely has progressive ideals at hand, they will still be seized upon and used to help validate those who most certainly do not (i.e. neo-Nazis, Islamic fundamentalists, etc).

I also think that the circumstances of Israel's existence are pretty tame by historical standards. American settlers wiped out the Indians. Chairman Mao chased his opponents out onto a tiny island and turned China into a huge Stalinist death camp. Saudi Arabia was founded upon the genocide of animist, Christian, and Jewish Arabic tribes that did not recognize Mohammed as Allah's prophet. Etc., etc., etc...

 

[FadingWhispers3]

I think it would be good for the Jews to have a home nation again after all the bad stuff that has happened to them in the past. In this sense, you can call me a Zionist. On the other hand, it vexes me greatly the method by which their homeland is obtained. True, the Romans didn't have any great legitimate claim to destroy it, but neither can the people who moved in afterwards be said to have committed any great wrong. No one was living there and so they moved in. The Brittish basically gave land which wasn't theirs to give so of course certain people are going to upset.

I would argue that anti-Zionism is not necessarily anti-Semitism. As you have said, many people who are in reality anti-Semitic use the excuse of merely being anti-Zionist to cause destruction. However, someone can disagree with the policies and/or actions caused by the Isreali army without having anything against Jews. A difference in emphasis, perhaps.

Do I think they have a right to defend themselves? Yes, assuredly. But what is legitimate to do is not always wise nor benevolent. Although countries have a duty to their citizens as a priority, equity towards neighbors and minorities is a necessity towards a harmonious future.

 

[indra_fanatic]

What I'm not sure of is whether Israeli military tactics are severe by world standards. What about Tianamen Square? What about some of the things America does in its war on terror (which may or may not be justifiable; I am not passing judgment here)? The last time I checked, Israel does not operate (possible) torture camps in Gaza and remote West Bank outposts. What about the situation in Sudan, which even today attracts far, far less global attention than Israeli policies? Individual anti-Zionism may or may not be anti-Semitic in origin; I do think though that concentrated, sustained world anti-Zionist focus IS anti-Semitic beyond doubt.

I concede, of course, that comparing Israel to the very most extreme offenders is a bit disingenous, but even by Western standards, there is nothing out-of-the-ordinary that goes on. Arabs (both pre-'67 citizens and post-'67 inhabitants of the territories) are permitted full freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to vote, as recent elections supporting Abbas have shown. I am not quite sure how this goes to demonstrate a general Israeli malevolence. All Israeli political parties, for 15 years, have acknowledged the PA as the rightful government of all territory Arabs and a de-facto state, with the eventual goal of it becoming a de-jure nation. Israel does not even have the death penalty.

I also look back upon the founding philsophies of modern Zionism, which have always upheld side-by-side existence as an ideal, even today. There were no armed Jewish militants until about 1946 or so; the Haganah/Stern's campaign against the British occupiers and militant Arabs only began after about two decades of pogroms and police-state repressions, which were magnified during WWII. To begin with, in fact, I think that there is only so far that the "blame the Zionists" logic can go before it stops making all sense. How much evil can unarmed transplanted Russian peasant farmers do? The original blame lies at the feet of the Ottomans and later the British, which encouraged the unrestricted immigration of Egyptian and Transjordanian laborers, many of which held Wahhabist Islamic views, as was proven through the Grand Mufti's performance during WWII.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Individual anti-Zionism may or may not be anti-Semitic in origin; I do think though that concentrated, sustained world anti-Zionist focus IS anti-Semitic beyond doubt.

Yes. This is really weird and I have never understood this. What reason, of course I don't think there can be any good ones, for being against a 'race'? I understand not liking some country's politics or not liking what individuals have done, but generalizing to a race? I just don't understand what reason anyone could have for being anti-Semitic.

Why did parts of Europe turn out to be anti-Semitic and yet America turn out to be not anti-Semitic? How did that change happen?

 

[The Seeker]

Personally, I think that Zionism, like all forms of racial nationalism, is a stupid, dangerous idea that can only divide people and cause problems. While I understand the motivation behind such ideas for ethnic groups who have been persecuted in the past (so far as anybody who is not a member of a persecuted ethnic group can), I fail to see how separating themselves off from the world is a good solution.

Why did parts of Europe turn out to be anti-Semitic and yet America turn out to be not anti-Semitic? How did that change happen?

IMO, the Russian Orthodox and Catholic churches have a lot to account for in this department.

 

[indra_fanatic]

Personally, I think that Zionism, like all forms of racial nationalism, is a stupid, dangerous idea that can only divide people and cause problems.

The thing to remember is that Zionism is NOT racial in origin (although white [Ashkenazi] Jews in Israel tend to look down on nonwhite [Sephardi] Jews), but exclusively religious. There was never an idea in mind that only Jews would live there (from 1948, ben Gurion vowed to provide all rights of citizenship and religion to Arabs) or that no one could convert from Judaism.

If you want to talk about dangerous, racist nationalism, let's talk nations like Egypt, where the death penalty is in place as a valid punishment for ANYONE who converts away from Islam, or Saudi Arabia, where sharia forbids a Jew as much as setting one foot on Saudi soil. Should we even get into the Arab League and its entire mission?

Again, I think it morally makes sense to criticize Israel only if we first tackle every nation that commits worse civil-rights violations... but gee, if we did that, there wouldn't be much of a U.N. General Assembly--or even a Security Council--left!

 

[The Seeker]

The thing to remember is that Zionism is NOT racial in origin (although white [Ashkenazi] Jews in Israel tend to look down on nonwhite [Sephardi] Jews), but exclusively religious. There was never an idea in mind that only Jews would live there (from 1948, ben Gurion vowed to provide all rights of citizenship and religion to Arabs) or that no one could convert from Judaism.

In practice, this is not true though, the history of modern Isreal is one of discrimination and ethnic cleansing.

If you want to talk about dangerous, racist nationalism, let's talk nations like Egypt, where the death penalty is in place as a valid punishment for ANYONE who converts away from Islam, or Saudi Arabia, where sharia forbids a Jew as much as setting one foot on Saudi soil. Should we even get into the Arab League and its entire mission?

Which has what to do with Zionism, exactly?

Again, I think it morally makes sense to criticize Israel only if we first tackle every nation that commits worse civil-rights violations... but gee, if we did that, there wouldn't be much of a U.N. General Assembly--or even a Security Council--left!

I could just as easily argue that it morally makes sense to criticise (for example) Saudi Arabia only if we first tackle every nation that commits worse civil-rights violations (they do exist, take Turkmenistan, for example ), I won't though. Criticising Isreal does not preclude criticising other states in the Middle East.

 

[indra_fanatic]

In practice, this is not true though, the history of modern Isreal is one of discrimination and ethnic cleansing.

Pretty strong words, care to back them up?

The reality is that a pretty good chunk of Israel's population OWES itself to ethnic cleansing--entire communities of Jews that were chased out of Europe, North Africa, and Islamic nations in the '40s.

I could just as easily argue that it morally makes sense to criticise (for example) Saudi Arabia only if we first tackle every nation that commits worse civil-rights violations (they do exist, take Turkmenistan, for example )

Not an expert on Turkmenistan, but they are worse than the Saudis? I'm not saying they are a nice country, just that the three top internationally-ranked rights violators are N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, and China.

I won't though. Criticising Isreal does not preclude criticising other states in the Middle East.

The problem is that other Middle Eastern nations' rights records are criticized very little in the scheme of things.

If you want to argue that Israel's violations are worse than those of any other nation, I will listen if you have sources.

 

[The Seeker]

Pretty strong words, care to back them up?

The reality is that a pretty good chunk of Israel's population OWES itself to ethnic cleansing--entire communities of Jews that were chased out of Europe, North Africa, and Islamic nations in the '40s.

Well there's Ariel Sharon's acts of genocide, for a start.

Not an expert on Turkmenistan, but they are worse than the Saudis? I'm not saying they are a nice country, just that the three top internationally-ranked rights violators are N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, and China.

Turkmenistan is a tiny country in Central Asia, ruled by a brutal dictatorship with a truly frightening cult of personality. The President, Saparmyrat Niyazov, has outlawed all criticism directed against him or his regime, has total control over the media and has been known to torture his political opponents to death.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2801987.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1634100.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1298497.stm

The problem is that other Middle Eastern nations' rights records are criticized very little in the scheme of things.

If you want to argue that Israel's violations are worse than those of any other nation, I will listen if you have sources.

It is irrelevant to this discussion whether Isreal is better or worse than any other country. What matters is that the Isreali government's actions are truly vile.

 

[The Seeker]

Ariel Sharon=war criminal

From the Herman article I posted in the above post
Sharon leads a state closely allied to the United States, protected by an ethnic cleansing process that has lasted half a century. Its crimes against the Palestinians in the occupied territories, including institutionalized torture and systematic expropriations in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, have been supported by the United States and normalized in the U.S. mainstream media for decades. Both officials and media have routinely made the deadly actions arising from the victim population into “terrorism,” the death-dealing and terror of the ethnic-cleansing state into “retaliation” and innocent “self defense.” The notion of Palestinian self defense doesn’t arise.

In a recent article in the New York Times, however, reporter James Bennet notes that the ratio of killings during the first Intifada, 25 Palestinians to 1 Israeli, has fallen in the current Intifada to 3 to 1 (“Mideast Turmoil: News Analysis: Mideast Balance Sheet,” March 12, 2002). Neither Bennet nor the editors explain how the party victimized at a 25-1 ratio could be said to be the terrorists rather than the victims. But clearly, the decline to 3 to 1 calls for rectification by a good genocidist.

The notorious terrorist Carlos the Jackal was credited with 80-90 killings during his career. He is in prison. Ariel Sharon was responsible for some 66 to 70 civilian deaths in a raid on Qibya in October 1953 (two-thirds of the victims were women and children) and he was found, even by the Israeli Kahan commission, to have been “indirectly responsible” for the mass killings at Sabra and Shatila, estimated by various authorities as somewhere between 800 and 3,000 Palestinian civilians, a large fraction once again women and children. The Kahan commission was protecting Israel’s own high official in making Sharon only “indirectly responsible,” but he was on the scene, was Minister of Defense in charge of operations in the area, and knowingly invited the Christian Phalange into the killing fields. He was quite aware of what was going to happen and failed to intervene during the 30 hours of killings.

An independent court or truth commission would have found Ariel Sharon directly responsible for the mass killings at Sabra and Shatila. So Sharon’s terror record as a killer exceeds Carlos’s by between 10 to 1 and 40 to 1, ignoring Sharon’s involvement in death-dealing beyond the two cases mentioned.

In a minimally just world Sharon would be behind bars. Instead, the Israeli political system has brought him back to power to deal once again with the “terrorists.” No objections have been voiced in the United States, and the “international community,” delighted to see Milosevic in The Hague, has also been silent.

(the parts in bold are my emphasis)

 

[Achichem]

Zionism is a fundamental part to the Jewish religion, however before that is a high moral and humanitarian aspect. Which has been at the centre fold of Israel existence. Certainly mistakes of been made, but Israel has in the most part acted with the utmost morality and it does not shame me one bit to include myself in this movement.

Now these are strong statements that should be backed up, but I fear I do not have the time right now to print out a full case for Israel, nor if I did, do I think most people would take the time to read it.

So for now let me just clarify a few points already presented.

On the other hand, it vexes me greatly the method by which their homeland is obtained. True, the Romans didn't have any great legitimate claim to destroy it, but neither can the people who moved in afterwards be said to have committed any great wrong. No one was living there and so they moved in. The Brittish basically gave land which wasn't theirs to give so of course certain people are going to upset.

First things first, Britain didn’t give them land that wasn’t theirs at all, in fact what happen in the Belford declaration was the recognition of a de-facto state that was forming in the area. Jews from around the world were moving to the area and buying land in their ancient Home Land(pre-Belfore) and were the majority in the vast greater part of what was latter recognized as Israel. Was this land a vastly populated land full of another peoples, left homeless? Simple answer is no, it was actual a barren land which many Arab peoples had chosen to abandon (yet the new coming Jews still bought from the landholders).

As for the occupied territories, they are very unfortunate necessarily that remain because of the refusal of the Palestine authority to recognize Israel as a state. I cite Arafat’s refusal of the Barak-Clinton peace accord as my latest proof.

. However, someone can disagree with the policies and/or actions caused by the Isreali army without having anything against Jews. A difference in emphasis, perhaps.

There are many Zionist critics of Israel, simple critics are not considered raciest in any way. But the refusal to accept any form of Zionism is to commit the death of the Jewish people (or the part of them) for if there is no Israel(as all plans up to now other then the Zionist supported two state solutions) would leave no place for the Jews of Israel to go but into the sea.

 

[indra_fanatic]

Interesting indeed. Yasser Arafat was the FATHER of terrorism as a modern political method and he was upheld as a statesman, president, peacemaker, etc... talk about a "minimally just world"... and this as leader of a people that did not even come into existence until the 1960s...

Sharon may or may not have been a direct party to Sabra and Shatila. What is definite is that this vigilante act of rage by Christian militiamen, at the very end of the Lebanese Civil War, was preceded by the deaths of some 300,000 Maronite Lebanese during the war at the hands of Syria, PLO-affiliated militias, and even the fledgling Hezbollah. If and when Arafat is (posthumously) credited with his handiwork, I will think about frying Sharon (the same leader who has currently taken the "peace process" and handover of land further than any Israeli leader since Oslo).

And as for your ratio... of course the Arabs are going to suffer a far-higher casualty rate; they historically have lacked the correct training and weaponry skills to go head-to-head with the IDF. This is changing as Israeli failures to properly crush resistance cells due to international pressure and increased funding and sponsorship by oil nations (and Iran and its Hezbollah in particular) have allowed terrorist fighters to achieve a much greater level of proficiency and skill... I do believe Hezbollah fighters now man-for-man are equal to the average IDF soldier (of course, they still do not have the same level of armament).

 

[HouseApe]

I don't blame Jews for wanting a homeland for themselves in the wake of WWII. The way the homeland was accomplished was tragic for many Palestinian Arabs, and of course worse things have happened to other peoples. But what was done is done. Israel isn't going anywhere, and I support Israel's right to exist. That being said:

The settler policy is nationalistic and racist. Israel should abandon every West Bank and Gaza settlement immediately. The military occupation and repression of Palestine should be abandoned immediately.

They have been using these tactics for 40 years and they haven't worked. They should stop being stupid and find something else that does.

I think Israel is held to a higher standard than their neighbors for racist reasons. Israeli's choose to hold themselves up to Western standards, and so we hold them up to those standards also. It is not racism against Jews, but racism against Arabs. We don't expect that much from them.

Not to mention that when my American tax dollars are pouring into Israel I am given a right to criticize to my heart's content. Also their actions affect the price of my precious gasoline. If Israel was in the middle of the Siberian steppes and didn't get big U.S. subsidies, nobody would really care (except Jews of course).