Middle East Conflict

[jimharri]

Please; don't use another poster's username in a thread title without that person's permission. Particularly in a thread as contentious is this is likely to turn out. It's a bit different to wishing a poster a happy birthday.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Maybe it’s also to muddy the waters and have a slanging match about terminology, rather than actually debate the real issues that need resolving.

Or maybe i fancy a friendly forum where i can easily start a philosophical debate withought there needing to be any ill intentions to it or that being perceived so by others. Feel free to comment but do not feel forced to the matter. I have no personal axes to grind here, no'r am i going to take anything personal.

The philosophical question rather that i want people to ask if any ideology that aims to arbitrarily create a "homestate" does not have an element of expansionism inherit with its ideal? If a philosophical discussion of that nature does not interest you then feel free to enjoy your day in any other way. ;)

 

[metalblue]

Zionism has many different branches. I’m not sufficiently educated enough to know them all to any sufficient extent.

I fundamentally believe in one general principle that all peoples have a right to peaceful co-existence and don’t give a fuck how it’s labelled.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Is there any other country in the world where one has to be so specific about being against a particular government rather than its people.

History and its baggage.

Its not really hard to just say the Istaeli government are shit. I feel some like the controversy.

On bluemoon what am I thinking? I retract that last sentence:-)

No need to retract. Many Jews, who consider themselves Zionists in the purest sense of the word, hate the current government and the fanatics and bigots it represents.

But I'd turn your first sentence round and ask if there's any other country in the world where one can mask racism by criticism of the government. And as someone who's been to the USA frequently, I'd argue that the Trump government were dangerous lunatics, but I love the American people who are almost unfailingly friendly, generous and hospitable.

 

[west didsblue]

Zionism is a wide movement that covers the whole spectrum of politics and religion. At it's core is the definition posted above. The origin of Zionism was the late 19th century, before the establishment of the state of Israel, when a very significant number of Jews lived in the Russian 'Pale of Settlement', which covered what's now Western Russia, through Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Moldova, Lithuania, etc. They weren't allowed to live outside this area and were increasingly subject to antisemitism including violent pogroms. That's why there was mass migration in the late91th and early 20th centuries, which was greeted in the UK in an even more vehement fashion that the 'Stop The Boats' rhetoric, and led to the Aliens Act of 1905.

The idea of a Jewish homeland, where they'd be free from persecution, was mooted and the Zionist movement started from that. Initially it was a left-ish, more secular movement, and opposed by the more traditional, religious grouping. People started making their way to what was then Ottoman-ruled territory. So that's the original definition - those who wanted a Jewish homeland where they could be secure and live peacefully. Nothing more than that.

Over time the Zionist movement has morphed into that wider and more fractured group, encompassing very secular and left-wing groups (who are more sympathetic to the Palestinian desire for statehood) and the right-wing, religious, settler grouping, who are expansionist and support annexation what they see as biblical Israel, and are (to put it mildly) very unsympathetic and quite aggressive and violent towards the Palestinian residents on the West Bank. They are akin to the sort of 'patriots' we saw on the streets of Southport, Middlesbrough and other places.

That's why using 'Zionist' as a blanket term is completely meaningless. Effectively, they mean 'Jews' but use 'Zionist' to cover their racism.

Similarly, people who use the term 'anti-Zionist' could range from those horrified at the current actions in Gaza (which is perfectly understandable) but who accept an Israeli state within the 1948 borders (or thereabouts) to those who don't accept Israel's right to exist and who wish to see it destroyed. They are antisemites, not anti-Zionists.

Great description Colin.
This thread only started as a result of @FlemishDuck being pedantic about one aspect of this post.
https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/...-july-august-24.365402/page-485#post-17393542

Do you agree that the content of the picture in that post is antisemitic? @FlemishDuck doesn't seem to be able to bring himself to agree with that assessment.

 

[FlemishDuck]

That's why using 'Zionist' as a blanket term is completely meaningless. Effectively, they mean 'Jews' but use 'Zionist' to cover their racism.

See i kinda disagree with that notion. That is to say i dont know about the motivations of the people you describe, however i have used Zionism as a term to specifically point to Israeli expansionism, as i believe there is a strong philosophical argument to make that there is a "strong ideological core component of expansionism to the ideal of Zionism", and that furthermore Zionism can be scrutinized as an ideology for that reason irregardless that this does not need to have bearing on the wellbeing of people within Israel.

I do understand that some have a different impression of what Zionism means, and are as many describe here against the current expansionism. And i do understand it would be annoying to be attributed an ideal to which you dont subscribe simply because of how people differently interpret the term.

It is a semantics debate for sure, but perhaps its not completely fair that one would argue that "anyone arguing against the ideoligy of zionism, has malicious intentions we should attribute to it". Atleast in the thought that you would ascribe all of them to be racist. I would think that for some of them zionism exactly means that which many others dont agree with either for what regards Israeli policy's in particular to colonization.

 

[FlemishDuck]

This thread only started as a result of @FlemishDuck being pedantic about one aspect of this post.

Oh i am being pedantic, but i would argue it started by you holding up some proverbial argumentative red flag like a Spannish toreador to charge on and get the thread derailed, whereas i thought the philosophical aspect on the matter of what zionism means kinda engaging so i charged that flag, where you were "for some reason" explaining zionism in a more self defined fashion in that thread. ;)

So you had a link where 59% people said they were zionists and 90% claimed they supported a Jewish homeland and you equated that to "90% are zionists" because "zionist=supporting jewish homeland, and only that", right?

Do you get why this is a bit of a matter of contention?

 

[west didsblue]

Oh i am being pedantic, but i would argue it started by you holding up some proverbial argumentative red flag like a Spannish toreador to charge on and get the thread derailed, whereas i thought the philosophical aspect on the matter of what zionism means kinda engaging so i charged that flag, where you were "for some reason" explaining zionism in a more self defined fashion in that thread. ;)

Do you think that poster in Finchley was ok?

 

[bugsyblue]

Yeah I understand both views but tend to side with West Dids here. I’m a Zionist in that I believe in Israel’s right to exist but I hate their government and believe Palestine should have its own state.

You sound like a reasonable decent human being. Amazing how so many people can’t/won’t see it this way

 

[FlemishDuck]

Do you think that poster in Finchley was ok?

Do you think this is a proper rhetorical device in relation to the argument we are having?

 

[hilts]

No need to retract. Many Jews, who consider themselves Zionists in the purest sense of the word, hate the current government and the fanatics and bigots it represents.

But I'd turn your first sentence round and ask if there's any other country in the world where one can mask racism by criticism of the government. And as someone who's been to the USA frequently, I'd argue that the Trump government were dangerous lunatics, but I love the American people who are almost unfailingly friendly, generous and hospitable.

It's specific to Jews and Israel, how that ever stops I don't know.

 

[west didsblue]

Do you think this is a proper rhetorical device in relation to the argument we are having?

It was a simple question that you seem incapable of answering. From that I can only assume you think it’s ok to suggest that at least 59% and possibly up to 90% of Jews should be removed from Finchley. That’s what the argument was about from my perspective and you still haven’t answered the question.

 

[Vic]

Zionism is a wide movement that covers the whole spectrum of politics and religion. At it's core is the definition posted above. The origin of Zionism was the late 19th century, before the establishment of the state of Israel, when a very significant number of Jews lived in the Russian 'Pale of Settlement', which covered what's now Western Russia, through Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Moldova, Lithuania, etc. They weren't allowed to live outside this area and were increasingly subject to antisemitism including violent pogroms. That's why there was mass migration in the late91th and early 20th centuries, which was greeted in the UK in an even more vehement fashion that the 'Stop The Boats' rhetoric, and led to the Aliens Act of 1905.

The idea of a Jewish homeland, where they'd be free from persecution, was mooted and the Zionist movement started from that. Initially it was a left-ish, more secular movement, and opposed by the more traditional, religious grouping. People started making their way to what was then Ottoman-ruled territory. So that's the original definition - those who wanted a Jewish homeland where they could be secure and live peacefully. Nothing more than that.

Over time the Zionist movement has morphed into that wider and more fractured group, encompassing very secular and left-wing groups (who are more sympathetic to the Palestinian desire for statehood) and the right-wing, religious, settler grouping, who are expansionist and support annexation what they see as biblical Israel, and are (to put it mildly) very unsympathetic and quite aggressive and violent towards the Palestinian residents on the West Bank. They are akin to the sort of 'patriots' we saw on the streets of Southport, Middlesbrough and other places.

That's why using 'Zionist' as a blanket term is completely meaningless. Effectively, they mean 'Jews' but use 'Zionist' to cover their racism.

Similarly, people who use the term 'anti-Zionist' could range from those horrified at the current actions in Gaza (which is perfectly understandable) but who accept an Israeli state within the 1948 borders (or thereabouts) to those who don't accept Israel's right to exist and who wish to see it destroyed. They are antisemites, not anti-Zionists.

I've posted plenty on the Israel-Palestine Conflict thread about Zionist history so don't intend to start all over again, but briefly

1. There's a huge range of what Zionism might mean but the return to Zion was seen as a colonial enterprise (at least, once it was obvious that it was not "a people without land for a land without people"), and there's a huge range of views about the extent of Eretz Israel (from just somewhere to be safe to a claim to the full extent of Solomon's kingdom - not just from the river to the sea but way beyond the river).

2. Anti-Zionism was originally a Jewish view, by those who regarded the Diaspora as G-d's will and didn't think a Jewish state was right. That was certainly the case in 19th century America, and see Edwin Montagu's 1917 argument against the "Anti-Semitic" Balfour Declaration (neither Mr Balfour nor Lord Rothschild is the Messiah). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-...Government,_Edwin_Montagu,_23_August_1917.jpg

3. It's all relevant because indeed Anti-Zionism can now be code for Anti-Semitism - despite the origins in (2) - but also because there are Zionists now who do need to be opposed - unless those who do believe in the right of Israel to exist also want to be "pro" these sorts of Zionists: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...erritory/00000190-2b9d-d340-a1f8-2b9d18220000

 

[SebastianBlue]

Zionism is a wide movement that covers the whole spectrum of politics and religion. At it's core is the definition posted above. The origin of Zionism was the late 19th century, before the establishment of the state of Israel, when a very significant number of Jews lived in the Russian 'Pale of Settlement', which covered what's now Western Russia, through Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Moldova, Lithuania, etc. They weren't allowed to live outside this area and were increasingly subject to antisemitism including violent pogroms. That's why there was mass migration in the late91th and early 20th centuries, which was greeted in the UK in an even more vehement fashion that the 'Stop The Boats' rhetoric, and led to the Aliens Act of 1905.

The idea of a Jewish homeland, where they'd be free from persecution, was mooted and the Zionist movement started from that. Initially it was a left-ish, more secular movement, and opposed by the more traditional, religious grouping. People started making their way to what was then Ottoman-ruled territory. So that's the original definition - those who wanted a Jewish homeland where they could be secure and live peacefully. Nothing more than that.

Over time the Zionist movement has morphed into that wider and more fractured group, encompassing very secular and left-wing groups (who are more sympathetic to the Palestinian desire for statehood) and the right-wing, religious, settler grouping, who are expansionist and support annexation what they see as biblical Israel, and are (to put it mildly) very unsympathetic and quite aggressive and violent towards the Palestinian residents on the West Bank. They are akin to the sort of 'patriots' we saw on the streets of Southport, Middlesbrough and other places.

That's why using 'Zionist' as a blanket term is completely meaningless. Effectively, they mean 'Jews' but use 'Zionist' to cover their racism.

Similarly, people who use the term 'anti-Zionist' could range from those horrified at the current actions in Gaza (which is perfectly understandable) but who accept an Israeli state within the 1948 borders (or thereabouts) to those who don't accept Israel's right to exist and who wish to see it destroyed. They are antisemites, not anti-Zionists.

I agree with most of this post and it complements a post I had been composing for the Israel-Palestine Conflict thread in response to @west didsblue ’s original post in the UK Far-right thread until I saw this new thread pop up. I would only say that the original form of Zionism was more fractured than I think you have portrayed.

I think many people use the overly simplistic definition of “Zionism” as simply holding the belief that Israel has a right to exist.

I don’t think any sane, compassionate, knowledgable person would disagree that Israel has a right to exist. But that is not really Zionism; at least, it is an especially incomplete definition, whether of the many original or modern forms. And I believe it is a dangerous one for many of the reasons you have outlined.

In the interest of full disclosure to others in the thread that may not be aware, I am Jewish by blood but a modern humanist, so am an atheist (I rejected Jewish religious practice and belief systems 20 years ago), and thus harbour no religious ties to Palestine. I have lived and worked in Israel, Palestine, and Jordan, and have family and friends that live in Israel now.

I actually consider myself more of an “anti-Zionist” these days, although I do very much support the existence of Israel and its right to defend it self (as long as it is actually defence, not aggression and expansion). My “anti-Zionist” tilt is based on my belief that the modern form of “Zionism” now most pervasive in Israel (and elsewhere) is a dangerous and destructive ideology, both for Israel, Palestine, and the wider world. Unsurprisingly, then, I do not agree with the concept of Eretz Israel, just as I denounce absolute Palestinian right to the region based on historical ethnic or Islamic empirical claims. I find most discussions and rhetoric concerning Zionism, Israel, and Palestine to be woefully simplistic and sectarian, often undertaken by people that are not Jewish, Israeli, or Palestinian and have never actually been to the region, and very often by people that have not even really taken the time to actually educate themselves on the subjects they are debating (that is not directed at @west didsblue or anyone else in the thread, I am just disclosing this for purposes of clarifying how I often come to these sorts of discussions).

With that said, I think it is especially important to take a balanced, compassionate view of the century old Israel-Palestine conflict (I mean the modern iteration; the greater conflict obviously stretches far beyond the last 100 years or so), that recognises the inherent contradictions, tensions, and complexity, something I strongly believe the current ultra-right Israeli government does not do. In fact, I think they actively seek to eliminate the nuance in public discourse and policy, as do other bad actors of Jewish (and Christian!) affiliation.

And I believe they—and ultra-right actors before them—have worked to weaponise the terms “Zionism” and “anti-Zionism”, including attempting to make any critique, opposition, or support of them equivalent to antisemitism. I find that to be both brazenly malicious and tragically dangerous for both modern Israel and Palestine, not only because it makes genuine antisemitism that much more difficult to recognise and combat, but because it works to silence dissent of their inhumane and destructive beliefs, policies, and actions, just as Iran’s, and more specifically Hamas’s (and other bad actors in the region), attempts to mark any “Zionist” as pro-genocide and anti-Palestine in order to destroy nuance and inflame sectarianism, even beyond the confines of the Middle East.

For this reason I wanted to share the following links to work that I think help to highlight the more complex nature of “Zionism” and what it can mean to different people.

I believe this passage near the beginning of the brief history shared below is a good reminder for everyone participating in the discussion:

The subject of Zionism – the term for Jewish nationalism first used by the Austrian journalist Nathan Birnbaum in 1890 – elicits strong feelings. For some, the Zionist movement and its progeny, the State of Israel, represent national liberation; the chance for Jews to rule themselves. For others, Zionism is a racist, colonial project. Such a Manichean understanding of Zionism – national liberation versus settler colonialism – is too reductive. The story of Jewish nationalism is more complex.​

A brief (I think balanced) history of early Zionism and the establishment of the modern state of Israel by William Eichler, a British journalist that focuses on the politics and history of Israel and Palestine:

Herzl’s Troubled Dream: The Origins of Zionism | History Today

www.historytoday.com

An interview with Derek Penslar, former professor of Israel Studies at Oxford University, regarding the complexity (and often contradictory) nature of Zionism with a view of modern British politics:

Theodor Herzl and the trajectory of Zionism

An interview with Professor Derek Penslar, former professor of Israel Studies at Oxford University, offers one possible explanation for why Jewish nationalism is so divisive and garners such controversy.

www.opendemocracy.net

An overview of Jewish support and opposition to Zionism via interview with Shaul Magid, professor of Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College:

Zionism’s History Is Also a History of Jewish Anti-Zionism

Defenders of Israel’s brutal war on Gaza have attempted to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. But since its beginning, different forms of Zionist ideology have competed with varied anti-Zionisms for Jewish allegiance.

jacobin.com

I would also encourage those interested in the subject of Zionism and anti-Zionism more generally to consider reading ‘Jews Against Zionism: The American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948’ by Thomas Kolsky, which is an extensive history of the original American Jewish opposition to Zionism during the 1940s. I obviously don’t agree with all of the positions of the ACJ, but I do think their opposition to “Zionism” brings a different perspective to the historic account of it’s development and proliferation within the global Jewish community.

I also wanted to ask @west didsblue if it was possible that the “Nazis” referenced in the poster he shared was meant to represent antisemites, hence why “antisemites” where not explicitly written?

 

[FlemishDuck]

It was a simple question that you seem incapable of answering.

How do you mean incapable? I have a keyboard and an internet connection and all that. I could answer it, i just see it as an obvious fallacious element to the debate, one in which answering it would be a wrong act for what regards the correct form of the discussion.

From that I can only assume you think it’s ok to suggest that at least 59% and possibly up to 90% of Jews should be removed from Finchley.

Is that the only option you can assume? Out of all assumable options? I have to say i think you lack immagination there as to what could motivate a person to not answer on one of your selective talking points while you are completely ignoring the matter raised in each of your reply's. I have to say though, i have no particular feelings about anyone whatsoever to need to be removed out of Fichley, in part because i have absolutly no effing clue whatsoever even where Finchley is or which forsaken souls live there and in part because im a humanist and against ethnic cleansing. does that happen to answer any small part of your question? Do you feel its ok to make very superficial judgements on the oppinions people hold based on them not replying to specific things you raise for them to answer?

 

[Postman Pep]

 

[hilts]

You sound like a reasonable decent human being. Amazing how so many people can’t/won’t see it this way

@SWP's back does gave his moments:-)

 

[FlemishDuck]

I believe this passage near the beginning of the brief history shared below is a good reminder for everyone participating in the discussion:

The subject of Zionism – the term for Jewish nationalism first used by the Austrian journalist Nathan Birnbaum in 1890 – elicits strong feelings. For some, the Zionist movement and its progeny, the State of Israel, represent national liberation; the chance for Jews to rule themselves. For others, Zionism is a racist, colonial project. Such a Manichean understanding of Zionism – national liberation versus settler colonialism – is too reductive. The story of Jewish nationalism is more complex.

I believe this matter of "reductivness" is what spawned the topic. The person i reacted to reduced the term to "people who support the existance of a jewish homeland" withought further nuance. Furthermore, he misquoted his source to wrongly quantify those who are self described Zionists, based on his own reinterpretation of the term.

I dont think such discussions should clutter threads that have a different topic, initially i proposed to the OP to depabe this in pivate or for him to create a thread on the matter but he continued the matter in the thread where it shouldt belong. I think he might feel it as a bit pedantic that i single out those 2 lines he said in a post and then spawned it into a thread like this, i certaintly agree its a complex and contentious matter and i do think it can serve as some sort of red flag to people to react on.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

See i kinda disagree with that notion. That is to say i dont know about the motivations of the people you describe, however i have used Zionism as a term to specifically point to Israeli expansionism, as i believe there is a strong philosophical argument to make that there is a "strong ideological core component of expansionism to the ideal of Zionism", and that furthermore Zionism can be scrutinized as an ideology for that reason irregardless that this does not need to have bearing on the wellbeing of people within Israel.

I do understand that some have a different impression of what Zionism means, and are as many describe here against the current expansionism. And i do understand it would be annoying to be attributed an ideal to which you dont subscribe simply because of how people differently interpret the term.

It is a semantics debate for sure, but perhaps its not completely fair that one would argue that "anyone arguing against the ideoligy of zionism, has malicious intentions we should attribute to it". Atleast in the thought that you would ascribe all of them to be racist. I would think that for some of them zionism exactly means that which many others dont agree with either for what regards Israeli policy's in particular to colonization.

You're not Jewish and clearly have little idea of the history of the Zionist movement, or what the term means. I've tried to explain it as best I can but you've either completely ignored, not understood or deliberately misinterpreted what I said.

Zionism is not a synonym for the aggressive, expansionist view. It's a wide movement covering every shade of politics and religion. You don't even have to be Jewish to be a Zionist, and you don't have to be a Zionist if you're Jewish (although the overwhelming majority would consider themselves to be). If you did a quadrant with increasing religious adherence on one axis, and the left to right political spectrum on the other, and asked a series of questions, you'd find people calling themselves Zionists in every quadrant.

And not everyone who calls themselves an anti-zionist is an antisemite, but undoubtedly some are. Politics is a wide spectrum - on the left of the political spectrum there are people who are social democrats, liberals, centre-left, socialists, far-left, Communists, etc.

Just because you see it in terms of the expansionist view, doesn't make it the default definition.

 

[BayernMan]