Labor Zionism?

[Fourth Internationalist]

What is labor Zionism (any good resources on the subject are welcome) and what are some leftist (aka your) opinions on the subject?

[Skyhilist]

It's a contradiction.

It's a supposedly leftist strand of Zionism. There are more details but I don't think I need to go any farther than that. The simple fact is you can't be leftist while supporting Zionism (which means imperialism, destruction, neo-colonialism, and even racial segregation in Kindergarten classes now).

[Sasha]

Sigh, don't be stupid, labor-zionism predates the foundation of Israel and many labor-zionists oppose the rightward and racist turn Israel took.
It's was wrong as all leftist national-liberation movements are wrong, its contradictions accelerated by Jews lacking an nation to "liberate" to begin with.
But its foundations are absolutely leftist, especially the kibutzim project was a groundbreaking experiment in "socialism in one community".

[Skyhilist]

If you want to talk about its foundations, sure. But someone who upholds labor-Zionism today given what Zionism has come to represent is certainly being contradictory in their beliefs.

[Sasha]

The only people I know that still call themselves "labor-zionists" are peace movement militants, the two state solution they advocate in general might not be really revolutionary but it still more leftist than what most self proclaimed anti-zionists would like to see happen...

[Sasha]

Anyways, the Wikipedia is actually pretty o.k. for an introduction; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Zionism

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Sigh, don't be stupid, labor-zionism predates the foundation of Israel and many labor-zionists oppose the rightward and racist turn Israel took.


Fascism predates world war 2 and many Strasserites oppose the rightward and racist turn Germany took.



It's was wrong as all leftist national-liberation movements are wrong

How silly, as if all nationalism are the same, as if there is no such thing as context and our entire analytical method can be reduced to placing social phenomena into little categorical boxes and saying "This is wrong" or "this is right". That is the attitude of bourgeois moralism, not Dialectical Materialism.

National liberation is the counter part to bourgeois democratic revolution. A bourgeois democratic revolution is not a coup orchestrated by the bourgeois but is a multi-class phenomena where the entire population participates in overthrowing a feudal regime. The democracy is not that of ensuring the right to vote, indeed many bourgeois democratic revolutions have nothing to do with proper electoral conduct, but rather this is a democracy of popular participation in the political process. Just as in France we can see a large working class radical movement and the reign of terror, this can be seen as a bourgeois democratic revolution because the widest strata of society is in participation and because it fundamentally alters the society and transcends feudal norms into capitalist norms. This will never result in socialism, however it is progressive because it represents a working class gain and because the participation of the working class allows for its political radicalization and can possibly serve as a stepping stone to greater possibilities. The french revolution and the egyptian revolutions are good examples of bourgeios democratic revolutions

This does not mean that every time a bourgeois force takes up arms it is revolutionary or progressive. Che Guvera's misadventures in south america were not progressive, they were merely acting as warlords with red flags intending to tie those nations oppressed by American imperialism to Soviet Imperialism. Likewise the Syrian revolt is not progressive because it is simply the phenomena of a few warlords clashing over who can get the most funding from the west, and of course most of the democratic tasks in Syria are already acomplished other than that of establishing formal democracy (which is somewhat lower on the list of to do's for bourgeois progressivism).

National liberation is a bourgeois democratic revolution in a different context. With the advent of monopoly capitalism, the imperialist center has managed to achieve hegemony over the various oppressed nations and peoples of the world. It has forced unto them political, economic and social backwardness and prevented the democratic tasks of capitalism from being fulfilled. The only way for these tasks to be fulfilled is to break the chain of imperial hegemony. This does not mean economic isolationlism, of course nationalist bourgeois revolutions must participate in the international market to survive but the difference being that in liberated nations, a dictatorship of the local bourgeois exists rather than the dictatorship of an international bourgeois. Similar to the bourgeois democratic revolution, there must be a mass, multi-class participation that makes it truly democratic. The Venezualian Bolivian Revolution is a good example of a bourgeois democratic revolution in a country oppressed by imperialism because it shows how a country can develop socially, politically, and economically by breaking the chain of imperialism. Cuba also serves as a good example, after the chain of american imperialism was broken, radical bourgeois democracy was put in place and economic development has been achieved that would allow the proletariat of that country to overthrow the government there without the need for anti-imperialism. It could immediately establish a base from which global revolution could spread.

Of course, the mere participation of the proletariat does not make these revolutions socialist. Cuba and Venezuela will never become classless societies if left by themselves. Only national liberation struggles lead by the proletariat could acheive this and even then there is a good potential for failure. Likewise these states produced by national liberation do not somehow remain progressive, as if time and motion have ceased to operate. These revolutions are bound to falter one way by either losing their democratic, mass multi-class character as in North Korea, by resulting in new imperialist states as in the case of China, or by resulting in comprador bourgeois regimes such as Vietnam.

So even though Cuba and Venezuela were once progressive states, now that the democratic tasks of both have been achieved, they have fallen out of this criteria and as communists we must support the proletariat in crushing these states without confusing them with "progressive" pretensions.

The reason why they are important is not because they produce anything qualitatively permanent. They can not be permanent as long as imperialism exists. The reason why they are important is because they are a working class gain and the participation of the proletariat allows for a class independent political force to intervene and allow for the advent of class consciousness after these regimes faulter.

the key here is formal independence is not what makes these revolutions progressive, it is the weakening of imperial hegemony and their democratic nature.

Quebec independence is not progressive because Canada is an imperialist country and the Quebec bourgeois and proletariat are not oppressed by imperialism. Imperialism is not simply the lines of the map being drawn incorrectly, it is a specific stage in development of monopoly capitalism. Therefore all Quebec independence would result in is another imperialist state and a proletariat disillusioned by nationalism that could easily be tricked into supporting imperialism abroad. We must remember the war of 1812, where the Bourgeois of America were able to launch a second inter imperialist war by labeling it the "second war of independence". Therefore the spliting of large imperialist states into smaller imperialist states is not progressive but reactionary. Unless there is a democratic character to these revolutions, and unless there is national oppression, there is nothing worthy of support.

Zionism must be opposed in all of its forms because it is not even nationalism in the proper bourgeois sense. There is no Jewish "nation" to liberate in the first place, there is no physical place that imperialism is oppressing. So it hardly enters into the category as a bourgeois nationalist movement.

Zionism then represents and ideological manifestation of settler colonialism. Historically before the advent of monopoly capitalism, imperialist states would send their own inhabitants to the far flung seas of the world to carve out territorial claims. More often than not, the people sent to colonize these regions were oppressed people and not privileged people. In the Americas, England sent its religious minorities to endure the harsh winters of the new world. In Australia, she sent her criminals and her social rejects to subdue the aboriginal population.

Israel represents the phenomena where the imperialist powers sent the Jewish people to settle the land of Palestine as reparation to the legitimate grievances and sufferings of the Jewish people.

The middle east has historically been a thorn in the side of world imperialism. From the great Iraqi revolt of 1924 to the resistance of the Palestinian peoples and the great uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, The Middle east is a storm center of world revolution.

The Israeli state is not a part of this phenomena, instead if has historically aligned itself with the powers of western imperialism and tried to prevent the progressive movements of the arab working class. The Israeli state is based on the physical dislocation of the Arab people to make room for a great fortress of imperialism right in the heart of the middle east. If the Arab proletariat is to be victorious, it must tear down the great walls of imperialism and crush the state of Israel. This remains one of the most important task of the revolutionary movement in the Middle East.

So when we look at nationalist movements we must be picky. The German desire for living space and the Zionist desire for a homeland are not progressive, indeed they are ideological manifestations of a imperialism in search of land to steal and plunder. In states that are the creation of settler colonialism we must support the oppressed people who are the victims of this colonialism, not the victors of it. We must support the native Americans and black peoples of America in their struggle against American imperialism, the Zapadistas against the Mexican state and the Palestinians against the Israeli state. For these remain essential democratic tasks that capitalism is unable to fulfill and must be fulfilled by the proletarian movement itself.



But its foundations are absolutely leftist, especially the kibutzim project was a groundbreaking experiment in "socialism in one community".]


Communtarianism is a common trend in history aging from the feudal commune to the modern communes of the late capitalist era. In some cases they can be seen as instances of communuzation but communization is not a radical task in every context. What makes the Paris Commune and the Shanghai Commune great was the fact that they represent the might of the working class overthrowing capitalism. The fact that they shared goods in common is secondary and not the primary aspect of these movements.

The Kibutzim however, is a thoroughly racist project based on the expansion of the Israeli realm. Therefore it must be opposed because it is not based in the working class but in imperialism in leftist garb.

Labor Zionism might have some leftist garb and some radical history, but what great expansionist ideology does not? Can one not look at the late Soviet Union and say that it was not a radical project at some point? Of course not. However good intentions do not change material realities. The Soviet Union was an imperialist state, and labor zionism is a racist ideology, regardless of its ideological contents.

[Sasha]

The irony of saying this
How silly, as if all nationalism are the same, as if there is no such thing as context and our entire analytical method can be reduced to placing social phenomena into little categorical boxes and saying "This is wrong" or "this is right". That is the attitude of bourgeoismoralism, not Dialectical Materialism.
just before launching into attack on Zionism completly void of historical context, acknowledgement of the ideological differences between different strands of Zionism, etc etc

Edit: and seriously "the Arab proletariat [...] must crush the state of Israel" ?!?
What happend to proletarians of the world unite? You write a nice block of text but in the end your just another orientalist hoping for an ethnic based slaughter of those filthy Jews, sorry, "Zionists"

[Sasha]

Maybe of interest to the O.P.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/meir-turniansky-kibbutz-samar

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The irony of saying this
just before launching into attack on Zionism completly void of historical context, acknowledgement of the ideological differences between different strands of Zionism, etc etc

Of course you do not engage in the meat of my argument and focus on some "Irony" you found. I spent my time to explain the concepts of national liberation and bourgeois democratic revolution, and the concrete application to a concrete situation to further educate those who go on the learning forum, and yet I do not see very much educational material in this response.

I did indeed engage Zionism on its historical context, and that historical context is that of settler colonialism.

To concern myself with ideological scrambling would be entirely un-materialist. Yes there might be some dogs of imperialism waving red flags. But these represent bourgeois forces entirely. Were there not those social democrats in Germany and Russia who called for "revolutionary defense of the homeland" against rivaling imperialist states? What about those calling for the "revolutionary disarmament of the state"? Sure they may have made some revolutionary noises but their words were betrayed by their meaning and revealed their bourgeois class character.

Likewise, when was there a point where the leaders of the Soviet Union didn't preach the glory of world proletarian revolution? When did they not laud praised on those great founding fathers of radicalism, Marx and Engels? Did all of this radical rhetoric change the fact that the late USSR was a brutal imperialist superpower?

No, it did not.

Likewise you can point to the Zionists calling for world proletarian revolution if you'd like, you can find me an example of a "non-racist' zionist and you can find me some rather working class adherents of Zionism. But this does not change the fact that all Zionists are apples from the same colonial tree.

[Skyhilist]

The only people I know that still call themselves "labor-zionists" are peace movement militants, the two state solution they advocate in general might not be really revolutionary but it still more leftist than what most self proclaimed anti-zionists would like to see happen...

What is it that you think "most anti-Zionists" would like to see happen?

[Sasha]

Not people who oppose Zionism, I do too, I mean people not from Palestine or Israel who make an political identity out of it.
There are some leftists who have a acceptable fleshed out scenario of what an unified Palestine should look like, this are mostly groups from Israel or Palestine self (like some Trotskyist groups) or anarchists/left communists who oppose all nation states period but people like JABM just want the current bourgeois Arab nations overrun Israel for some ethnic table turning/tit for tat at best and mass murder/ethnic purification at....

[Skyhilist]

Not people who oppose Zionism, I do too, I mean people not from Palestine or Israel who make an political identity out of it.
There are some leftists who have a acceptable fleshed out scenario of what an unified Palestine should look like, this are mostly groups from Israel or Palestine self (like some Trotskyist groups) or anarchists/left communists who oppose all nation states period but people like JABM just want the current bourgeois Arab nations overrun Israel for some ethnic table turning/tit for tat at best and mass murder/ethnic purification at....

I've actually never met any leftists personally who supported what you mentioned at the end. Maybe the people in my area are different from yours though. Most people I know who oppose zionism want (as a short term goal, not a long term one) there to be one state where that one state is called Palestine but where there is no racial/religious segregation and everyone has equal opportunities (and anyone fighting for such segregation would be seen as a terrorist). Obviously being against nations in general, I don't see that as a long term solution, but certainly it's better than both allowing Israel to continue it's tyranny and allowing Islamists to completely turn the tables on Jewish people (which most Palestinians I've seen on facebook at least don't even want).

[Sasha]

Well look no further than above you, YABM is advocating ethnic based "crushing" in this very thread (and has a disturbing record when it comes to this subject).

[Skyhilist]

Well first, I'd like to hear YABM respond to that before I commenting on that in particular, but even if YABM is doing as you allege, one person makes for merely anecdotal evidence of what "the left" wants in Palestine/Israel and doesn't actually demonstrate that a large percentage of people on the left share anti-Semitic viewpoints and want Arabs to "turn the tables".

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sigh, don't be stupid, labor-zionism predates the foundation of Israel and many labor-zionists oppose the rightward and racist turn Israel took.

And these alleged left Zionists, they intended to establish a Jewish nation in Palestine, which had a Jewish minority, and which necessitated the dispossession and expulsion if not outright murder of the Arab minority, but in a very left-wing, non-racist manner?

Oh, no, that happens to be absolute rubbish. "Progressive" colonialism (like the one in Liberia for example) is still colonialism, it still involves dispossession and murder of the native population, continuing racism and oppression and so on. Israel wasn't a good idea implemented badly because of some "right turn", it was a bad idea, period.


It's was wrong as all leftist national-liberation movements are wrong, its contradictions accelerated by Jews lacking an nation to "liberate" to begin with.

So if there was no Jewish nation to liberate, as you yourself acknowledge, how was Zionism a "national liberation movement"?


But its foundations are absolutely leftist, especially the kibutzim project was a groundbreaking experiment in "socialism in one community".

That's some extra-strength irony, coming from someone who recently called "socialism in one country" an "annoyingly anti-communist phrase". In truth, kibbutzim were intended to keep out Arab labour from the Jewish area.



Edit: and seriously "the Arab proletariat [...] must crush the state of Israel" ?!?
What happend to proletarians of the world unite? You write a nice block of text but in the end your just another orientalist hoping for an ethnic based slaughter of those filthy Jews, sorry, "Zionists"

Yeah, that's the only possible interpretation of YAMB's statement. Likewise, French revolutionary communists who advocated crushing the colonial regime in Algiers all really wanted to slit the throats of French people. Parties like the LSSP actually advocated the killing of all Sinhala.

Enough with this pseudo-outrage.

[Homo Songun]

Not people who oppose Zionism, I do too, I mean people not from Palestine or Israel who make an political identity out of it.
There are some leftists who have a acceptable fleshed out scenario of what an unified Palestine should look like, this are mostly groups from Israel or Palestine self (like some Trotskyist groups) or anarchists/left communists who oppose all nation states period but people like JABM just want the current bourgeois Arab nations overrun Israel for some ethnic table turning/tit for tat at best and mass murder/ethnic purification at....

Lets see, you "oppose" Zionism, but you uphold "left" J-street style Zionist talking points like these? I don't suppose you have any bridges for sale?

Zionism was reactionary from day one. Historically, its "labor" aspect was kind of interesting in a clinical sort of way -- it was justly condemned as a unhealthy deviation in the workers movement by jewish and non-jewish Marxists alike. Today, it is just irrelevant. I mean, when your movement has "champions" like Sasha Baron Cohen, who needs polemics against...

[Sasha]

Many radical leftist kibbutzim like kibbutz artzi advocated an bi-national state, the main problem for the arabs was their demand for free emigration which a. leftist should support anyways and b. wasn't unreasonable considering the circumstances for Jews in Europe and Russia at that time.

[Sasha]

Yeah, that's the only possible interpretation of YAMB's statement. Likewise, French revolutionary communists who advocated crushing the colonial regime in Algiers all really wanted to slit the throats of French people. Parties like the LSSP actually advocated the killing of all Sinhala.

Note the use of the word "arab", if he would have written, "proletarians must rise to dismantle the (israeli) state" that would be an acceptable leftist position 100%. The devil is in the details though, and considering his earlier remarks about "anti-Semitism not existing" it wasn't an accident.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Many radical leftist kibbutzim like kibbutz artzi advocated an bi-national state, the main problem for the arabs was their demand for free emigration which a. leftist should support anyways and b. wasn't unreasonable considering the circumstances for Jews in Europe and Russia at that time.

Alright, but that's, what, four kibbutzim? All founded by one party, who did not enjoy mass support. And, of course, socialists stand for free emigration in general, but the Arab majority had very legitimate reasons to fear a Zionist nation-building project, particularly one in alliance with the effendis and the British.


Note the use of the word "arab", if he would have written, "proletarians must rise to dismantle the (israeli) state" that would be an acceptable leftist position 100%. The devil is in the details though, and considering his earlier anti-Semitic remarks it wasn't an accident.

What anti-Semitic remarks?

I actually agree that the participation of the Jewish proletariat in the destruction of Israel is crucial. But if I and YAMB disagree, it is because they generally think that oppressed groups need to lead the struggle for their emancipation, whereas I think these struggles should be strictly joined to the general socialist struggle. This is a question of strategy, however. If you genuinely think that YAMB wants Jewish people to be killed for being Jews, well, you haven't proven it.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

'Labour Zionism'? Is that like Workers' Manifest Destiny? Boer state unionism? Strasserism?

What ridiculous terminology. You can't have a leftist current in an ideology dedicated to irredentism, imperialism, racism, adherence to divine-right concepts for invasion and ethnic supremacism. That's just as plausible as the moronic concepts outlined above.

The only zionists I can think of who were active participants in the socialist movement were those involved with the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks (who were later kicked out for.... wait for it ... being zionists).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

'Labour Zionism'? Is that like Workers' Manifest Destiny? Boer state unionism? Strasserism?

What ridiculous terminology. You can't have a leftist current in an ideology dedicated to irredentism, imperialism, racism, adherence to divine-right concepts for invasion and ethnic supremacism. That's just as plausible as the concepts outlined above.

The only zionists I can think of who were active participants in the socialist movement were those involved with the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks (who were later kicked out for.... wait for it ... being zionists).

Unfortunately, there really was a lot of racist and colonialist sentiment in the labour movement prior to the Second World War; consider the support many socialist and labour organisations gave to British imperialism for example.

And, in the early Russian labour movement, "Zionism" simply referred to the notion, supported by elements of the Bund, the SERP etc., that Jews should form their own independent national unit to escape persecution. Palestine was mentioned rarely if at all; it was commonly understood that the projected national unit would be in Russia, particularly the Pale. The majority in the RSDRP, SDKPL and so on., recognised the real problems the Jews faced, but argued against separatism.

[Sasha]

Saying that all Zionism, including historical strands whose supporters would abhore modern day rightwing Israeli chauvinism, envisioned the current Israeli state as their goal is like calling Marx and Engels Krutchevnites. Even if you think it was an dialectic certainty that it would happen like this (which is idiotic considering that no one expected the holocaust) you are still working with hindsight. Early labor Zionist were revolutionary leftists, leftists who made mistakes but if leftists wouldn't make mistakes we would already be living in a communist utopia.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Saying that all Zionism, including historical strands whose supporters would abhore modern day rightwing Israeli chauvinism, envisioned the current Israeli state as their goal is like calling Marx and Engels Krutchevnites. Even if you think it was an dialectic certainty that it would happen like this (which is idiotic considering that no one expected the holocaust) you are still working with hindsight. Early labor Zionist were revolutionary leftists, leftists who made mistakes but if leftists wouldn't make mistakes we would already be living in a communist utopia.

Zionists in the Western European sense (those who advocated the colonisation of Palestine) envisioned an Israeli national state in the Palestine. And there was simply no possible way for this state to be established without the dispossession and expulsion of the existing Arab majority. That is why their propaganda needed to delude people with stories about "a land without a people".

[Sasha]

That simply not true, most pre-war Zionists wanted to live in Palestine, not an Israel, don't forget there was precedent for very peaceful coexistence between Islam and judeaisn, both in the otteman empire as is Moorish Spain.

[Tim Cornelis]

I would say that Zionism was the nationalism of an oppressed people, the same as black nationalism. I fail to see how it necessarily meant "settler colonialism."

[Rurkel]

I don't find the "Palestinians unite against Israel" rhetoric offensive at all, they definitely have the most.. incentive of all people to oppose the Israeli state. Ways of such opposition can be debated, for sure.


I would say that Zionism was the nationalism of an oppressed people, the same as black nationalism. I fail to see how it necessarily meant "settler colonialism." We really need a new category: "settler-colonialism of the oppressed people". Of course, in the process of said colonialism they stop being oppressed and become the oppressors.

Zionism in the modern sense of the world does mean "support of an exclusively or predominantly Jewish nation-state in the land". Reducing it to "Jews living there" would mean that advocates of expulsion of all Jews from Israel/Palestine are the only "anti-Zionists" in the world. Not exactly a welcome conclusion.

[Sasha]

Zionism in the modern sense of the world does mean "support of an exclusively or predominantly Jewish nation-state in the land".

which is stupid because it makes a mess of discussions like this if we talk about historic zionism, again, thats like saying on the height of the cold-war "communism does mean alignment with the current USSR in everything" and use that in turn to discredit the leftist credentials of all marxists.
the OP asked about labor-zionism, saying that all labor-zionists way back to the 1900's are settler-colonists is simply not true, dishonest, void of context etc etc
just as the current day nation of islam or the NBPP have little in common with the original black panters..

lets make me one thing clear, the example of Israel in this current day does make current day zionism completely incompatible with revolutionary leftism. but that doesn't mean that there isnt valuable insight to be won from an honest factual discussion on its historic foundations.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Edit: and seriously "the Arab proletariat [...] must crush the state of Israel" ?!?
What happend to proletarians of the world unite? You write a nice block of text but in the end your just another orientalist hoping for an ethnic based slaughter of those filthy Jews, sorry, "Zionists"

The world proletariat must crush every bourgeois state on earth if it is to achieve emancipation.

The demand for the end of the Israeli state is a necessary component of any minume programme because it is a demand that comes straight from the arab working class themselves. Because Israel is a colonialist and imperialist entity the end of the Israeli state comes with particular precedence because its present existence has lead to the displacement of tens of thousands of Arab peoples and its intelligence force is a constant wrecking force in the Arab Communist Movement. The Dissolution of the Israeli state would therefore be a working class gain.

Of course, only one who looks down on oppressed people could think that the smashing of the state would be something to be afraid of. This attitude is no different than that of the bourgeois quaking in his boots in fear that those dirty proletarians might spread anarchy and disorder. To quote a favorite work of mine:


The storm of the people’s revolution in Asia, Africa and Latin America requires every political force in the world to take a stand. This mighty revolutionary storm makes the imperialists and colonialists tremble and the revolutionary people of the world rejoice. The imperialists and colonialists say, “Terrible, terrible!” The revolutionary people say, “Fine, fine!” The imperialists and colonialists say, “It is rebellion, which is forbidden.” The revolutionary people say, “It is revolution, which is the people’s right and an inexorable current of history.”
~Apologists of Neo-Colonialism


Well look no further than above you, YABM is advocating ethnic based "crushing" in this very thread (and has a disturbing record when it comes to this subject).

Why, you disgusting little charlatan! How dare you accuse me of advocating ethnic cleansing you slanderous piece of garbage? Do you even think of what you are saying, do you understand the words that come out of your keyboard? And I have a "disturbing record"? How dare you accuse of me such!

If Psycho insists on bringing up my record, then I will do it for him! I have already outlined my position on the matter here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2637410&postcount=19

I support the equality of all the peoples of Palestine and a one state solution, because it is a demand that comes from the people of the Palestine themselves, and is the stance of the Popular Liberation Front of Palestine and other progressive National Liberation movements. Because I trust the demands of the oppressed more than I trust the good intentions and crumbs given by the oppressor.

And as for a "record". Psycho, I was one of the first and last people to defend you from the accusation of Zionism even when everyone else accused you of it because I wanted to hear your own oponion on it instead of what people are slandering you for.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2637457&postcount=30

There are other times when I have defended you on other mediums but I can not find them right now.

If only you would extend the same courtesy and refrain from slander yourself. But clearly by accusing me of being genocidal here, you have no such principles!

What is this evidence that convinced me that you are a apologist of neo-colonialism? There is plenty, but I will not present all of it because I do not wish to drag this matter out into an assault on Psychos character, I simply wish to defend myself from his vicious slander.


But fact is that that was originally the idea for the Zionists that went to Palestine, that material/historic conditions changed this can't mean you can discard the people who want to return/hold true to this ideal. To invoke Russia again, you would not accept that communism equals Stalinism just because a majority of ignorant people think this to be the case.


Ah yes, because colonialism is just a "good idea". The British sending their prisoners to Australia as a humantarian act while ridding themselves of those pesky natives. And what of all of those communistic religious sects sent to the Americas? Surely that was just a good idea gone astray when they turned around and pillaged the natives. And I am sure it was awfully progressive for the Soviets and the late Chinese to fund those "socialist" warlords to burn the Angolan countryside to the ground. Likewise, wasn't it nice of the Soviets to help the Afghan government against the scourge of native islamist rath to pave the way for glorious socialism?

Throughout history of colonialism and imperialism, pseudo radicalism has always paved the way for the worst atrocities known to man.

Find me your progressive zionists, find me those who wish to treat the arab people with benevolence. Block quote them like Ismail block quotes Enver Hoxha. But their good intentions will never change what actually happened in Israel. And what actually happen is a shameful history of cleansing and imperialist wrecking of the working class movement. So no, I don't care about your good intentions just like I do not sympathize with the catholic church when they fought against the slaughter of the native peoples at the hands of the Spanish, because they were the ones to legitimize their claim to the new world in the first place!


But those Israeli didn't just show up one day and settled, without the holocaust the Jewish population would have seen a far smaller/steadier increase probably leading to a stable multi ethnic secular state, early labour-zionism unmistakingly helped Palestine devellop from the backwater colonony it was at the time.


Ah yes this imperialist myth, those benevolent imperialists came into Palestine to "develop" it. Of course it wasn't to subject the arab proletariat to misery and suffering, why we have all of these good intentions to back that up! Just like how the English were being progressive by giving the new world to all of those persecuted Puritans!

Yes, Israel has developed hasn't it? It has developed by sucking the blood of the Palestinian people. It has developed by stealing 80% of the water supply of Palestine and leaving the Arab people to wither away in the desert sun. It has forced the Arab Proletariat out of their homes and driven them from their lands into the Gaza strip and the west bank.

And please, I do not wish to hear of their good intentions any more, it has already been proven bunk:

http://www.hybridstates.com/2011/12/the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine-and-the-burden-of-proof/

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the burden of proof among “liberal Zionists”
by YANIV REICH on DECEMBER 2, 2011
Aafter an overly long hiatus from Hybrid States due to extreme time pressure in other fields of my life, I read Gershom Gorenberg’s excerpt from his new book The Unmaking of Israel, which deals, ironically enough, with the making of Israel via the removal of 80 percent of the non-Jewish, indigenous population. A response to his rather odd arguments was to be a perfect re-introduction to Hybrid States activity.

But then Noam Sheizaf wrote the piece for me. Sheizaf highlights the weak and frankly silly assertion, made by Gorenberg, that early 20th century Zionists could not have been ethnic cleansers because of the existence of a little committee known as the Situation Committee. This group outlined plans for running the country-to-be, and these plans included provision of education and health services to Arab communities. In Gorenberg’s strangely uncritical reading, this constitutes “strong evidence” against ethnic cleansing.

Sheizaf writes:

Gorenberg goes on to quote plans made by the Situation Committee for civil services in the new state of Israel which include the Arab population; this is the “strong evidence to the opposite” he is referring to. Yet the reason “evidence [for plans of transfer] is missing,” is because Israel has never released these bits in the archives, like it did with most documents from that time. So the public papers reveal what’s necessary to be revealed and conceal the rest – and I have a feeling Gorenberg is falling for this trap. More importantly, by concentrating on the debate in the Jewish leadership before the war, Gorenberg omits the decisions on this issues that were made during the war.

[...]

These paragraphs create the impression that in some cases, local initiatives by commanders led to forced evacuations, but it wasn’t policy. Yet we know for example that by early July 1948, Ben-Gurion had ordered the army to expel the entire populations of the Palestinian towns Ramle and Lod. The orders were given to Yigal Alon, and carried out by Yitzhak Rabin. Many of the refugees were looted by IDF soldiers as they were leaving their homes (see for reference Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli war, p.317 of the Hebrew edition; in a footnote Morris states that there is a censored part in the government’s meeting protocols dealing with the evacuation). This is the most famous case; there were others.

But Sheizaf lets Gorenberg off the hook too easily. Although many of the most sensitive records remain classified, we do know that the Haganah had conducted detailed cartographic work on Palestinian villages and had precise estimates of the Palestinian population across regions, as well as where there were real or imagined pockets of “resistance” to Zionist plans. We also know of the infamous Plan Dalet, which instructed military commanders to preemptively destroy (via “setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris”) population centers “difficult to control continuously”. Plan Dalet specifically targets not only sites that might field “regular and semi-regular forces”, but even those that might be used by irregular, “small forces”, which can mean just about anything, as the liberal interpretation by military commanders demonstrates.

The most shocking omission from Gorenberg’s account of 1948, given that his entire argument rests on the existence of the Situation Committee, is his non-discussion of the Transfer Committee. I asked Gorenberg via Twitter whether his book discusses the Transfer Committee, but he failed to respond. This group, established days after Israel was founded, was comprised of leading Zionists such as Yosef Weitz (of the JNF), and was tasked with overseeing the permanent removal of Palestinians from their former villages. And as we know, they were extraordinarily successful in eliminating more than 400 Palestinian villages from the Zionist map, either through outright destruction or by renaming them and passing them and their material possessions on to Jews. What on earth could be considered ethnic cleansing if not this?

If Gorenberg hadn’t relied on such a puny measure of “strong evidence”, he could have found ample evidence that Zionists perpetrated an ethnic cleansing that was imagined and fantasized about for 50 years, implemented under remarkably clear military orders (even based on the limited evidence we currently know), institutionalized through an ethnic cleansing committee by another (euphemistic) name, and which created the foundational legal framework for excluding one ethnic group from civic and political life (i.e. established Israeli apartheid).

That he failed to do so says much about the ability of Gorenberg, and so-called “liberal Zionists” more generally, to confront the essential crimes of Zionism.


And let's not forget this little gem:
http://politicalblindspot.com/new-archeological-find-proves-ethnic-cleansing-in-palestine-can-there-be-reconciliation-without-acknowledgement-of-past-wrongs/

Now then, with all of this brought to light, with my position clarified, I demand that you apologize for slandering my character. Perhaps you think I am using a harsh tone, but I since you just accused me of supporting ethic cleansing then I do not think a single thing I said was out of line!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That simply not true, most pre-war Zionists wanted to live in Palestine, not an Israel, don't forget there was precedent for very peaceful coexistence between Islam and judeaisn, both in the otteman empire as is Moorish Spain.

Now, hold on, can you name one Western European organisation that was called Zionist (as I sad, the term "Zionism" meant something slightly different in the Russian Empire), and that did not advocate nation-building in Palestine? I can think of one, at best - the Jewish section of the London Bureau, and even that organisation participated in the colonial administration in Palestine.

Also, I have to note that you still haven't specified what anti-Semitic comments by YAMB you were talking about Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, is a very serious charge, and even you don't appear to believe it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

IMO it seems a little simplistic to criticize Zionism without recognizing that it was a response to White European racism and antisemitism (which of course culminated in the holocaust). I think that this can be done without justifying the dispossession of Palestinians and gives a better historical context to the anxieties which led many Jewish people to embrace the movement in its various forms.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

IMO it seems a little simplistic to criticize Zionism without recognizing that it was a response to White European racism and antisemitism (which of course culminated in the holocaust). I think that this can be done without justifying the dispossession of Palestinians.

Alright? That still doesn't make Zionism progressive - just as the Liberian colonial project is not progressive because it was started by descendants of American slaves (and of course, both projects were heavily sponsored by imperial powers that were responsible for anti-Black and anti-Jewish violence, imagine that). The October Revolution demonstrated that anti-Semitism could be smashed without a section of the Jews becoming a new oppressing dominant nation after expelling the natives of some region.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Also, I have to note that you still haven't specified what anti-Semitic comments by YAMB you were talking about Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, is a very serious charge, and even you don't appear to believe it.

I was also curious about this charge and If there was a serious incident of anti-Antisemitism on my behalf then I would like to self criticize for such deplorable behavior. However when I searched for Zionism under my user name I could find no such posts. Infact I have only used the word "Zionism" in three threads because I generally dislike discussing the topic, and because ironically as I have already meantioned I generally dislike how psycho is treated in these threads and the only reason why I am responding he is because of how he accused me of supporting genocide.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php?searchid=5516114

To be absolutely secure, I also searched Israel and found nothing which substantiates Psycho's claims against me. So far there is no evidence that I have acted improperly.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php?searchid=5516170

You may look through those threads, you will find no Antisemitism here! So this claim that psycho is making is demonstrably bunk and nothing but a very crude way of marginalizing me.

[Sasha]

Vincent quoted me while i was still editing my post, i was referring to your lovely statement that anti-semitism doesnt exist because jews are supposedly more privileged than whites.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Vincent quoted me while i was still editing my post, i was referring to your lovely statement that anti-semitism doesnt exist because jews are supposedly more privileged than whites.

In the thread where I mentioned that, I self criticized for not clarifying my position. Within the context of the U.S and Israel, the Jewish people suffer no structural oppression. It was wrong for me to say that they were "more privileged". To say that would be half true, and half wrong. Because although the Jewish people tend to have a higher income level in the U.S, they do not have a "Jewish" privilege, rather this privilege comes from being fully in-cooperated into white america, and does not extend to non-white jews. And of course this does not apply to orthdox jews who are oppressed in both nation states. Likewise there are many states where Jews do suffer structural oppression and this should always be opposed

Is that all? I even corrected the wording of that post later in that thread. That's hardly a basis for accusing someone of antisemitism or supporting genocide

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Alright? That still doesn't make Zionism progressive - just as the Liberian colonial project is not progressive because it was started by descendants of American slaves (and of course, both projects were heavily sponsored by imperial powers that were responsible for anti-Black and anti-Jewish violence, imagine that). The October Revolution demonstrated that anti-Semitism could be smashed without a section of the Jews becoming a new oppressing dominant nation after expelling the natives of some region.

The October Revolution showed no such thing about antisemitism being smashed - antisemitism is a global phenomenon, not just a Russian one, and anyhow once most of the early Bolsheviks were dead, the Stalinists didn't see anything wrong with throwing around antisemitic propaganda about "rootless cosmopolitans". Antisemitism still exists in Russia to this day, often more openly and violently than elsewhere. Nor is the point that antisemitism justifies the way the state of Israel was created so much as it explains the ideological shift that occurred after the war.

Nor was I saying it was progressive or otherwise - it's just important to recognize the fact that the extreme violence of antisemitism and the holocaust were the material conditions that led to the violent dispossession of Palestinians and the kind of hypernationalist and militaristic zionism of the postwar era.

[Sasha]

Change Jews for Asians in your post and tell me that's an statement that's acceptable.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Change Jews for Asians in your post and tell me that's an statement that's acceptable.

But that would entirely change the historical context and would engage an entirely different set of circumstances. There really isn't a comparison. And of course "asian" isn't a homogeneous group. Who are we talking about when we say asian? The decedents of the Japanese and Chinese who faced internment-ship and discrimination? Or the modern immigrants who have a higher income than the average Caucasian? Even with the latter group I'd say a certain degree of discrimination exists due to the creation of the stereotypical asian archetype and the anti-asian bias in Higher Education created by the faulty program of Affirmative action that needs to be overhauled and fixed. Plus I think the anime culture in the west is deeply orientalist and discriminatory. But although these are real grievances, I do not think that in this latter case we can speak of a structural racism, though perhaps in the former group we could speak of it though that is an interesting topic for another day. That post you are refering to did indeed note that the jewish people in the U.S suffer discrimination, but that is different than structural racism. Likewise I did not assume that the Jewish people are a homogenous group and I did say that the Haredi people face structural racism. However they are only 7% of the jewish population.

We really can't just "change words" and construct this idealistic view of what constitutes as racism. We must approach this question dialectically like all others. To quote Lenin, "the living soul, of Marxism is a concrete analysis of a concrete situation". By substituting my words for words that are not my own, you are building a very flimsy basis for your argument. It's quite hard to strech that statement into an endorsement for antisemitism and genocide.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But that would entirely change the historical context and would engage an entirely different set of circumstances. There really isn't a comparison. And of course "asian" isn't a homogeneous group. Who are we talking about when we say asian? The decedents of the Japanese and Chinese who faced internment-ship and discrimination? Or the modern immigrants who have a higher income than the average Caucasian?

The descendants of Japanese who were interred are as much a victim of racism as the Jews who were victims of antisemitic politics in the pre-war era. Interestingly, many Jews fleeing from Europe faced a lot of xenophobia.


Even with the latter group I'd say a certain degree of discrimination exists due to the creation of the stereotypical asian archetype and the anti-asian bias in Higher Education created by the faulty program of Affirmative action that needs to be overhauled and fixed.

There is a "successful Jew" stereotype, too.


Plus I think the anime culture in the west is deeply orientalist and discriminatory.

Jews are a victim of orientalism too - in fact, Jews were one of the first real targets of orientalism. The whole "Christian Zionist" movement is a form of orientalism, for instance, but pro-Zionist Jews who associate with Christian Zionists don't seem to know (or care) about that.



We really can't just "change words" and construct this idealistic view of what constitutes as racism. We must approach this question dialectically like all others. To quote Lenin, "the living soul, of Marxism is a concrete analysis of a concrete situation". By substituting my words for words that are not my own, you are building a very flimsy basis for your argument.


There's nothing wrong with analogical reasoning, although it is true that the context needs to be spelled out.

[cyu]

There are good people there, and some you might consider misguided. Much like any movement I think.

I wouldn't say it's inherently evil, although certain manifestations in current events may be - just as I wouldn't say anarchism is evil, although certain things done by self-proclaimed anarchists may be things I do not support.

There may be other ways for Jewish people to find safety in the world, but considering the trauma many went through, it shouldn't be surprising there would be at least some level of paranoia among certain subsections of the Jewish people, even among Jewish leftists who dream of brotherhood with non-Jews. Not everybody is good, evil, or even stupid - some are merely reluctant, resigned, or lacking in energy or strength to push for what they truly want.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The descendants of Japanese who were interred are as much a victim of racism as the Jews who were victims of antisemitic politics in the pre-war era. Interestingly, many Jews fleeing from Europe faced a lot of xenophobia.


Of course, however these policies do not exist in the modern era and they face little to no economic discrimination, hence no structural racism.



There is a "successful Jew" stereotype, too.


There are also stereotypes for caucasian people. But that doesn't prove any structural racism. Likewise even if stereotypes exist for the modern American Jewish people, they don't prove a structural racism though they do perhaps prove some prejudice which must be combated.


Jews are a victim of orientalism too - in fact, Jews were one of the first real targets of orientalism. The whole "Christian Zionist" movement is a form of orientalism, for instance, but pro-Zionist Jews who associate with Christian Zionists don't seem to know (or care) about that.


Correct, but as I said, discrimination isn't structural racism. None of this proves that they are as oppressed in a qualitative fashion like the black population in America or the Palestinian people in the occupied territories.


There's nothing wrong with analogical reasoning, although it is true that the context needs to be spelled out.[/QUOTE]

The problem with it is that there is no distinction made between the qualitative and the quantitative. It isn't that these groups face a greater or lesser degree of the same treatment, but that each suffers a very different oppression which is qualitative different. Hence analogical reasoning in this context is absurd.

and even still, this is still very flimsy evidence that I support antisemitism and genocide when all other evidence shows to the contrary.

[Remus Bleys]

Well, I do think jews should have a "homeland" and that israelis should be able to remain in israel. However, I do believe they should have done a better job to promote binationalism. That said, I do view israel and many of its conseptions as being imperialist.
So a view that zionism was and is imperialism, but that the idea of a jewish homeland isn't necessarily bad or imperialist.
Personally I think the ussr shoulda done it. (Of course the conspiracies would be far too much to bear) so, labour zionism had potential.

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

Personally I think the ussr shoulda done it.They did.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/Home/News/biro/html/panels/panel01.jpg

[Sea]

Anyways, the Wikipedia is actually pretty o.k. for an introduction; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Zionism

Unlike the "political Zionist" tendency founded by Theodor Herzl and advocated by Chaim Weizmann, Labor Zionists did not believe that a Jewish state would be created simply by appealing to the international community or to a powerful nation such as Britain, Germany or the Ottoman Empire. Rather, Labor Zionists believed that a Jewish state could only be created through the efforts of the Jewish working class settling in Palestine and constructing a state through the creation of a progressive Jewish society with rural kibbutzim and moshavim and an urban Jewish proletariat.Huh. So it is just zionist bullshit then.


Sigh, don't be stupid, labor-zionism predates the foundation of IsraelYeah okay but so does right-wing "stupid arabs" zionism. Sigh, that's a really useless argument. Consider the following: Would it be possible to have founded the State of Israel without a movement, predating it, that looked towards its founding?
many labor-zionists oppose the rightward and racist turn Israel took.So they advocate colonization and get all confused when the results of colonization start to materialize? Looks like our "leftists" have a really misguided and short-sighted analysis. Scientific socialism? Nah, who needs that!
However, I do believe they should have done a better job to promote binationalism.Why nationalism of any sort? Why should you feel all attached to a plot of land? I'm not buying that blood-and-soil "homeland" stuff.

[Remus Bleys]

They did.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/Home/News/biro/html/panels/panel01.jpg

I know. That's why I referenced it. But didn't the ussr give up on it?

[Sasha]

The oblast was pretty much a really roomy ghetto, when Israel was founded most oblast Jews moved there.

[cyu]

What's the difference between a roomy ghetto and a nation? Lack of autonomy maybe? Then again, many nations today (maybe even most) lack autonomy.

Personally I think the only way Jewish people can stop discrimination against Jewish people is to not work in those terms altogether. Almost like asking people not to think of a pink elephant. The best way to get them to stop thinking about pink elephants is to not mention it at all, and get them to, for example, build space stations, work on marine colonies, or to destroy capitalism =]

[Sasha]

"the best way to end discrimination and sexism is if those bothersome blacks and women would shut up about it already"

dude....

[Paul Pott]

All Zionists are the enemy, period.

The destiny of the Arab working class is to run 'em out.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

"the best way to end discrimination and sexism is if those bothersome blacks and women would shut up about it already"

dude....

Perhaps you ought to listen to your own advice in regards to the Palestinian National Liberation. Or perhaps you will still cling on to opposing it because it is "nationalism" and supporting such would be a greater heresy than supporting the Palestinian people in having their legitimate demands redressed.

Of course, I understand you oppose Israeli on the "oppose all nations" ticket. However of course this line of thought assumes that both zionist nationalism and Palestinian nationalism are equal and exist within the same context which is flatly incorrect and represents a eurocentric view of the national question from someone who has the privileged of living in an imperialist nation state rather living in a territory besieged by neo-colonialism

[Sasha]

All Zionists are the enemy, period.

The destiny of the Arab working class is to run 'em out.


and another usual suspect who throws it on "the arabs" to end zionism instead of on the united proletariat, gentile and jewish... color me shocked :rolleyes:

[Remus Bleys]

Why nationalism of any sort? Why should you feel all attached to a plot of land? I'm not buying that blood-and-soil "homeland" stuff.

Well, there would have been the obvious "jewish identity" that can't be swept away, no matter how much I disagree with nationalism.
The Palestinian nationalism is an obvious reason.

That's what palestine should look like, a binational state, because they consider themselves two different "people."which is honestly better than one group oppressing the other.

And if anything, wouldn't the blood and soil argument be used against the israelis?

[Sasha]

no disagreements with this though;


What's the difference between a roomy ghetto and a nation?



although the reason why people moved from the oblast to israel was of course that the return of anti-semitism under stalin destroyed the viability of the oblast and put the jewish populace under thread again.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

and another usual suspect who throws it on "the arabs" to end zionism instead of on the united proletariat, gentile and jewish... color me shocked :rolleyes:

Because asking this is like asking the "united proletariat" to end segregation through proletarian revolution during the 60's when clearly the "united proletariat" didn't exist as a coherent social force and that a large section of the proletariat did indeed oppose this demand.

Sure it sounds left wing but in reality it ignores that it is the black working class who suffer the most from segregation and that by preventing them from emancipating themselves and forcing them to wait for a revolution across the sunset instead of acknowledging that we as communists must oppose a majority of the "proletariat" at times is nothing more than a betrayal of oppressed peoples. Such opportunism is Left in form, right in essence

Likewise, the (mainstream) jewish people of Israel are quite content with their role as colonists. In such a situation where there is a reactionary section benefiting off the oppression of the subaltern section of the proletariat, we must oppose the colonist and win them over through demoralizing them, much like we ought to win over the workers of the police force not by pandering to them and supporting their protests for the right to kill more black people, but by opposing them rigourously as to split them when/if a revolutionary crisis arises.

[Sasha]

Actually there was a widespread message of ending the (not only inhuman but also economic disasterous) occupation under the mass demonstrations last year in Israel.

If not anti-Semitic your consequent denial of the existence of an left/potentially revolutionary Israeli (jewish and not) proletariat is awfully 3th worldist.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

64% of Israelis support the settlements. I wouldn't call that a significant change in the public opinion. And this number is significantly less impressive when you consider that 20% of Israelis are arab, which I imagine would mean that if you exclude arabs from that poll than it'd be an even smaller number.

Source: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23257/Default.aspx




If not anti-Semitic your consequent denial of the existence of an left/potentially revolutionary Israeli (jewish and not) proletariat is awfully 3th worldist.



So basically if I disagree with you I am one of two restrictable positions?

Seriously, this is pathetic. I mean, I've engaged you point by point and all you've been doing is deflecting my arguments by creating a strawman of my positions and subtly threatening administrative action against me.

Seriously psycho, you're better than that.

[Sasha]

Anyways, since people clearly have no idea it might be usefull to explain the origin story of zionism, its founding in material circumstances, a bit.

During the enlightentment Jews made an unprecedented move out from the getto's, the promise of equality and liberty of the French revolution made many Jews dive into broad society. The age of reform judeaism was seen as an golden age and people like Spinoza first and Mendelssohn later saw themselves as human first, Jew second.
This ended rather abruptly with the arrival of modern anti-Semitism all over Europe.
The attack by Wagner on Jews in the arts was already felt deeply but the crucial turning point was the Dreyfus affair ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair), an deeply loyal career soldier, who gave everything for France was falsely accused of treason, on no other ground than being a jew.
In front of an huge jeering crowd the mans insignia where ripped of his uniform, his sword broken etc etc. One of the few people in attendance not screaming for the Jews blood? A young journalist called theodor hertzel.
Who not much later wrote a book that founded Zionism.

I understand that the crimes of the Israeli state make it difficult to honestly approach Zionist history but like said, just as marx can't be held responsible for Stalinism etc. Early zionists had good reasons even well before the holocaust to not trust their fellow Europeans with their safety anymore.

[Sea]

Anyways, since people clearly have no idea it might be usefull to explain the origin story of zionism, its founding in material circumstances, a bit.

During the enlightentment Jews made an unprecedented move out from the getto's, the promise of equality and liberty of the French revolution made many Jews dive into broad society. The age of reform judeaism was seen as an golden age and people like Spinoza first and Mendelssohn later saw themselves as human first, Jew second.
This ended rather abruptly with the arrival of modern anti-Semitism all over Europe.
The attack by Wagner on Jews in the arts was already felt deeply but the crucial turning point was the Dreyfus affair ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair), an deeply loyal career soldier, who gave everything for France was falsely accused of treason, on no other ground than being a jew.
In front of an huge jeering crowd the mans insignia where ripped of his uniform, his sword broken etc etc. One of the few people in attendance not screaming for the Jews blood? A young journalist called theodor hertzel.
Who not much later wrote a book that founded Zionism.

I understand that the crimes of the Israeli state make it difficult to honestly approach Zionist history but like said, just as marx can't be held responsible for Stalinism etc. Early zionists had good reasons even well before the holocaust to not trust their fellow Europeans with their safety anymore.So that's your rationale for being sympathetic to nationalistic colonialism? I'm sure most people here know damn well about the Dreyfus affair, but your implication that antisemitism justifies Zionism is just as ridiculous as saying that racism in the United States justified Libera!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Anyways, since people clearly have no idea it might be usefull to explain the origin story of zionism, its founding in material circumstances, a bit.

During the enlightentment Jews made an unprecedented move out from the getto's, the promise of equality and liberty of the French revolution made many Jews dive into broad society. The age of reform judeaism was seen as an golden age and people like Spinoza first and Mendelssohn later saw themselves as human first, Jew second.
This ended rather abruptly with the arrival of modern anti-Semitism all over Europe.
The attack by Wagner on Jews in the arts was already felt deeply but the crucial turning point was the Dreyfus affair ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair), an deeply loyal career soldier, who gave everything for France was falsely accused of treason, on no other ground than being a jew.
In front of an huge jeering crowd the mans insignia where ripped of his uniform, his sword broken etc etc. One of the few people in attendance not screaming for the Jews blood? A young journalist called theodor hertzel.
Who not much later wrote a book that founded Zionism.

I understand that the crimes of the Israeli state make it difficult to honestly approach Zionist history but like said, just as marx can't be held responsible for Stalinism etc. Early zionists had good reasons even well before the holocaust to not trust their fellow Europeans with their safety anymore.

That young journalist also claimed that trying to fight anti-Semitism was futile, that Jews "spread anti-Semitism" by appearing in other countries as "guests" and so - that the Jews need to establish their own state. And how are national states established where there is no nation? Not by peaceful means, that is certain. Herzl's opinions were understandable for an educated, demoralised European Jew in an era of rapacious colonialism, but that doesn't make the Zionist project any less colonial or racist.

[Sasha]

So that's your rationale for being sympathetic to nationalistic colonialism? I'm sure most people here know damn well about the Dreyfus affair, but your implication that antisemitism justifies Zionism is just as ridiculous as saying that racism in the United States justified Libera!

No, im saying that while you can maybe blame the first US colonists for what happened to the natives you can't blame them for slavery. And even if they where "wrong" in going there it doesn't help to understand what happend by just screaming "native genociders" over and over again...

[cyu]

Imagine 100 or 1000 years into the future. Imagine if "we" as the society of earth had managed to take the correct path for once, and there is no longer prejudice based on perceived ethnicity or gender. What would such a world look like?

Would the state of Israel exist? If so, what would it look like in Israel? What would people think in terms of social relationships, whether in Israel or in New York City?

Historically, are Jewish people not disproportionately involved in communist and anarchist movements? Why would something like that happen?

Distraction is a powerful tool. Militaries use it. The media uses it. Parents use it on their kids. I would say that communist and anarchist movements are one way for a minority to distract attention away from the fact that they are minorities, and focus on issues in which they can get common cause with the rest of society.

However, I wouldn't say it's purely a cynical ploy to avoid persecution. I would say communist and anarchist movements are actually things worth pursuing - in other words, if you have to have a distraction, rather than make people focus on misdirection or trivial things, better to work for justice and a society where people are actually better off than under the systems in which they are encouraged to fight like rats in a cage.

[Sasha]

Oh, no disagreements there, al nations need to be destroyed period, I'm just very skeptical of non Palestinian and Israeli people who make it their priority to destroy Israel first.
You can not dismantle one nation, we need to bring them all down.
Dismantling the occupation and apartheid is something on the other hand that should be archievable in our lifetime, and should be, for everyones sake, Palestinian and Jew the priority. And the only way that is going to happen if we don't sound like a bunch that want to hand the Israeli jews over to more persecution and death.
People here have no idea how deeply traumatized the whole of judeaism is, after so many centuries of persecution and eventually even an attempt at complete analihation, even my mother, born after the war, shows PTSS symptoms because of the trauma of her parents.
The only way to end the Israeli-Palestinian problem is by making Jews trust the world again with their safety. Statements like made in this thread certainly don't help in that. After all even in the struggle against apartheid there where no widespread calls to destroy south Africa.
Language is a powerful weapon, wield it wisely.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No, im saying that while you can maybe blame the first US colonists for what happened to the natives you can't blame them for slavery. And even if they where "wrong" in going there it doesn't help to understand what happend by just screaming "native genociders" over and over again...

Er, you could definitely blame the first colonists for the genocide of the native Americans, as well as for the introduction of slavery in the modern form. Comrade Sea was talking about Liberia, though, another colonial state founded by an oppressed people (African-Americans in this case). Surely you don't mean to say that the idea of settling African-Americans in parts of Africa and having them displace the native population was a good one?




Historically, are Jewish people not disproportionately involved in communist and anarchist movements? Why would something like that happen?

Distraction is a powerful tool. Militaries use it. The media uses it. Parents use it on their kids. I would say that communist and anarchist movements are one way for a minority to distract attention away from the fact that they are minorities, and focus on issues in which they can get common cause with the rest of society.

However, I wouldn't say it's purely a cynical ploy to avoid persecution. I would say communist and anarchist movements are actually things worth pursuing - in other words, if you have to have a distraction, rather than make people focus on misdirection or trivial things, better to work for justice and a society where people are actually better off than under the systems in which they are encouraged to fight like rats in a cage.

I wouldn't say it's a "cynical ploy to avoid persecution" at all, but a conscious attempt to transcend the conditions that lead to persecution. Given that the Jews are still discriminated against in Europe and America, I think a large number of Jewish communists - like gay communists, women communists etc. - is a sign of a healthy workers' movement in those countries. Proletarian Jews, as a specially oppressed ethnic group, have a direct material interest in the overthrow of capitalism.


Oh, no disagreements there, al nations need to be destroyed period, I'm just very skeptical of non Palestinian and Israeli people who make it their priority to destroy Israel first.
You can not dismantle one nation, we need to bring them all down.
Dismantling the occupation and apartheid is something on the other hand that should be archievable in our lifetime, and should be, for everyones sake, Palestinian and Jew the priority.

Israel, and Sri Lanka, and Liberia and quite a few other countries. Not all bourgeois states are equal. Colonial states need to "go first" (of course, given the conditions of combined and uneven development, this doesn't mean that their destruction will literally happen first - but it's a democratic demand rather than a socialist one) because they are structurally committed to colonial, settler-racist policies. If, after the dismantling of the Israeli apartheid system, the return of Palestinian refugees and so on, a viable Hebrew-speaking nation remains, then, sure, those people have the same democratic right to self-determination as the Palestinians. But this doesn't mean that Israel is the same as, I don't know, Belgium.


And the only way that is going to happen if we don't sound like a bunch that want to hand the Israeli jews over to more persecution and death.
People here have no idea how deeply traumatized the whole of judeaism is, after so many centuries of persecution and eventually even an attempt at complete analihation, even my mother, born after the war, shows PTSS symptoms because of the trauma of her parents.

You really shouldn't presume to speak on behalf of all Jews. Many of the most outspoken critics of Israel are Jewish, as are many Palestinian communist activists who have struggled against the Israeli state. If you want to get personal, my parents' (Jewish) best man survived Auschwitz, yet consistently opposed Zionism and Israel.

I'm sorry, but what gave you the idea that anyone on this thread would like to "hand the Israeli Jews over to more persecution and death"? Do you really think the Palestinians are some barbaric horde that is simply waiting to descend on the Jews and kill them? That's the same sort of panicked attitude that led Struve away from the workers' movement. Oppressed groups are not saints, I should know that better than anyone, but neither are they subhuman mass murderers.


The only way to end the Israeli-Palestinian problem is by making Jews trust the world again with their safety.

The policies of the state of Israel don't exactly improve the safety of Jews, particularly not in Israel.

[Sasha]

small note, belgium was founded explicitely with the purpose as an buffer zone and a place for the major imperial nations at the time to fight their differences in.
also, israel could exist for another 100 thousand years like it is today and still wouldnt have killed as many Palestinians as the belgians did in 3 decades.
it is estimated that up to 10 million africans perished there under colonial rule

maybe choose your examples with a bit more care.
but yeah, all the more proof that your, YABM and Paul Pot (disgusting name by the way) obsession with israel isnt really about what you say it is or at least that you dont care an inch about historical material facts.

i'm done with this discussion, i said what needed to be said, if anyone else is interested in actually discussing historical zionism i'll be back.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

small note, belgium was founded explicitely with the purpose as an buffer zone and a place for the major imperial nations at the time to fight their differences in.

Even so, the Waloon and the Flemish people did not displace and destroy the native population of the region that present-day Belgium is situated in.


also, israel could exist for another 100 thousand years like it is today and still wouldnt have killed as many Palestinians as the belgians did in 3 decades.
it is estimated that up to 10 million africans perished there under colonial rule

maybe choose your examples with a bit more care.

No, my example is fine. Belgium is a standard bourgeois nation. The Belgian Congo, and before that the Congo Free State, was a colonial regime, and the consistent socialists called for its destruction as well. Likewise with French Algiers.


but yeah, all the more proof that your, YABM and Paul Pot (disgusting name by the way) obsession with israel isnt really about what you say it is or at least that you dont care an inch about historical material facts.

Oh right, I forgot we three are some sort of Spartaco-Maoist-Hoxhaist-Nazi triumvirate that wants to kill Jews because we're evil racists. For some reason.

I am not "obsessed" with Israel. I am opposed to all colonial regimes, from French Algiers to Israel to Sri Lanka to the situation in the Krajina and Syrmium in Croatia. But no one has ever accused me of being anti-French for opposing the existence of French Algiers, nor have they tried to whitewash French imperialism, at least not on this site.

[cyu]

I'm just very skeptical of non Palestinian and Israeli people who make it their priority to destroy Israel first.

Yep - I don't want to sound too callous about it, but to me the Israel/Palestine situation is small potatoes compared to the problems of capitalism and authoritarianism - both of which are much more universal problems. Even if the revleft community were able to have complete sway over the area, and fix things just the way we want it, what does it give us? Merely one small area that may be nifty, while capitalism continues to kill people in the rest of the world.


People here have no idea how deeply traumatized the whole of judeaism is... even my mother, born after the war, shows PTSS symptoms because of the trauma of her parents.

I've got some friends in Israel, although considering myself part of what may be the world's largest ethnic group, that's probably quite a different perspective from those that fear they may be on the verge of extinction.

I think some of the trauma may be self-induced, although not without good reason. It is only logical for people to be prepared for the worst - instead of pretending like it can never possibly happen again. Maybe self-traumatization isn't the best way to achieve it, but preparation must be achieved somehow. Then again, I see leftist movements as another way to "prepare for the worst" - in that the stronger leftist movements are, the less likely s**t like that would rise again.

Anyway, in general I prefer to leave myself out of Israel/Palestine issues and go after bigger fish instead. However, sometimes I get the feeling that people question whether I'm against certain groups of people, just because I'm trying to destroy capitalism.

[Paul Pott]

and another usual suspect who throws it on "the arabs" to end zionism instead of on the united proletariat, gentile and jewish... color me shocked :rolleyes:

The Arab working class, of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Get it right or don't even bother burning your strawmen.

If the Jewish working class settled in Palestine desires to unite with them, which they can, they can only do so by taking on a Palestinian identity. As long as Zionism is upheld in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, their future lies with the Zionist ruling class, because the interests of the Arab working classes and Zionism are objectively irreconcilable. Especially if the "labor Zionists" want to retreat into ethnic enclaves.

Let me clarify: the only progressive outcome is the unilateral reclamation of Palestine by the Palestinian people. Whether the people who have colonized it now want to be a part of history or be dispossessed by it (from their Zionist point of view) is up to them.

[blake 3:17]

I think you all have been missing the point. Anybody read psycho's link to the wikipedia entry on labor zionism?

The foundation of settler project in Israel was its "left" -- it was laborites who led the ethnic cleansing, kicked out Arab workers, laid the foundation for the IDF, and formed maybe the most racist union in the world - Histadrut.

As for Herzl -- the man was insane. Nothing to do with Israel, he was just plain nuts.

[synthesis]

The only way to end the Israeli-Palestinian problem is by making Jews trust the world again with their safety.

Pretty clever way to say that Palestinians are entirely to blame for their own predicament - and, implicitly, that therefore the Israeli state should share none of the blame.

[Crux]

Flame post by Paul Pott removed and infraction handed out. That post would not have been allowed elsewhere on the forum, and it's even less ok that it was made here in the Learning subforum.
/Admin

[Paul Pott]

That was not a flame post. I was commenting on posts of a certain user who is a chronical apologist with poor politics, that is all. I sincerely hope they better themselves. My post was aimed at their posts, not at them personally.

comradely respects.

[Crux]

That was not a flame post. I was commenting on posts of a certain user who is a chronical apologist with poor politics, that is all. I sincerely hope they better themselves. My post was aimed at their posts, not at them personally.

comradely respects.
You would be more respectful if you reviewed the rules for this forum. If you have an issue with those rules or with the BA this is not the thread for it. I would remove your post but I'll let it stand to make a point. Any further off-topic posts will be removed.
/Admin

[Sasha]

To get back on topic, this might be of interest to the OP; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poale_Zion

[Alonso Quijano]

It's not relevant. It doesn't help the Israeli Jew. Trust me, I'm one.

It's originally more Lenin and less Marx. National determination, utopian communism made artificially, and if Leninism was state capitalism than this was commune capitalism, as it had economical relations with other Kibbutzim. It was committed to direct democracy of the residents.

It didn't have racist intentions, just the naive illusion that the Palestinians will endorse and join them. With time time turned from activism to settle on having a state with a parliament. They didn't look to oppress Arabs but to reward their "proletariat" (provided was not Marxist). Failed to care about Arabs, about non-Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated after the state formation, and lost all relevance. Then they fell and came privatision and bourgeois capitalism.

Kind of like Leninism itself - taking an idea that sounds good, worrying about vanguard survival and not the people, and the final result: Convincing an entire generation that "socialism doesn't work".

[Alonso Quijano]

The Arab working class, of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Get it right or don't even bother burning your strawmen.

If the Jewish working class settled in Palestine desires to unite with them, which they can, they can only do so by taking on a Palestinian identity. As long as Zionism is upheld in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, their future lies with the Zionist ruling class, because the interests of the Arab working classes and Zionism are objectively irreconcilable. Especially if the "labor Zionists" want to retreat into ethnic enclaves.

Let me clarify: the only progressive outcome is the unilateral reclamation of Palestine by the Palestinian people. Whether the people who have colonized it now want to be a part of history or be dispossessed by it (from their Zionist point of view) is up to them.

The term "reclamation" is misleading. Palestinians only formed as a nation separate of Syrians and Lebanese due to colonialist maps and as a response to Zionism. And I know Palestinians with Israeli passport, they don't have an urge to get rid of Jewish presence here. But what Palestinian identity do you commend me to take? And what about distinct sub-identities between Palestinians and Jews?

The complete opposite of Zionism isn't a Palestinian identity but an internationalist one.

How can a Jew adapt a Palestinian identity?
(not a rhetorical question)

And why do you throw in the Egyptians? Syrians or Lebanese I can understand, closer culturally and physically (the Sinai peninsula is between Israel and Egypt), and dialect close to a common one spoken in proper Israel, even though not in the territories. But why Egyptians? Those Coptic Christians who live there don't even think of themselves as Arab. And the muslims only started a century ago and still some resist the notion. It's even more common in Lebanon, rejecting pan-Arabism, but at least they have some practical connection.

[Paul Pott]

The term "reclamation" is misleading. Palestinians only formed as a nation separate of Syrians and Lebanese due to colonialist maps and as a response to Zionism.

Typical, but watered down attempt to obscure the fact that the Palestinians are the native people, and were ethnically cleansed. To anyone that recognizes that, "reclamation" is entirely appropriate.


And I know Palestinians with Israeli passport, they don't have an urge to get rid of Jewish presence here.

Subtle, but I know what I'm dealing with. No one said anything about 'getting rid of Jewish presence'.


But what Palestinian identity do you commend me to take? And what about distinct sub-identities between Palestinians and Jews?

You tell me. You're the one who supposedly opposes Zionism.


The complete opposite of Zionism isn't a Palestinian identity but an internationalist one.

The opposite of Zionism is international solidarity with the Palestinian working class in its goals of national liberation.


How can a Jew adapt a Palestinian identity?
(not a rhetorical question)

Listen, I know it might be hard for you, Palestinians having been what is called "the other" all of your life.

Let me put it this way - the Jews are not a nation, so what identity should they adopt? That of the people they live among.


And why do you throw in the Egyptians? Syrians or Lebanese I can understand, closer culturally and physically (the Sinai peninsula is between Israel and Egypt), and dialect close to a common one spoken in proper Israel, even though not in the territories. But why Egyptians? Those Coptic Christians who live there don't even think of themselves as Arab. And the muslims only started a century ago and still some resist the notion. It's even more common in Lebanon, rejecting pan-Arabism, but at least they have some practical connection.

All of those states rule over parts of the Arab nation, of which the Palestinians and the Egyptians are subsets. That's why its not surprising when the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian junta have to tell their people what they want to hear to gain legitimacy while abetting the existence of the Zionist state in every way possible. For example, the other day Egypt officially celebrated the 1973 war while it helps to tighten the stranglehold of Gaza more than ever.

[Sasha]

let me put it this way - the Jews are not a nation, so what identity should they adopt? That of the people they live among.

the whole concept of nation states is an 19th century construct, one could well say that the zionist national project is considerably older than the Palestinian one.

also, i'm sure there that the millions of people who dont identify as arab in your "arab nation" are thrilled with your chauvinist, reactionary and racialist analysis.
so where do i live? the germanic nation? the aryan nation?
fuck off.

[Thirsty Crow]

This approach "the X" are not a nation is complete bullshit. Nations had been and are historically constituted.

The issue at hand is not the concept of the nation, but of the social and political practices that underpin the formation of the nation-state.

And all of this crap about taking whichever cultural-national identity as prerequisite of unified class struggle is beyond unbelievable. As Alonso says


The complete opposite of Zionism isn't a Palestinian identity but an internationalist one.

[cyu]

Personally I like (even admire) these guys. They don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk. And they actually hang out with Palestinians, like friends and family. If you ever wanted a picture of what it would look like if Jews and Arabs could live in peace, these guys would be exactly it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/37/Anarchists_Against_the_Wall_logo.png/220px-Anarchists_Against_the_Wall_logo.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists_Against_the_Wall

the Israeli Defense Forces shot and wounded Gil Na'amati, an anarchist and former paratrooper.

Itay Levinsky was shot in the eye with a rubber bullet.

Jonathan Pollak was shot in the head with a tear gas canister from an M16, leaving him with internal brain hemorrhaging and a wound requiring 23 stitches.

Matan Cohen, a 17-year-old member of Anarchists Against The Wall, was shot with rubber bullets by Israeli soldiers. Cohen, whose left eye was injured, later told reporters, "My feeling is that the blood of left-wing activists and the Palestinians is cheap."

an Israeli border police officer shot Limor Goldstein in the head with a rubber coated steel bullet. border police officers at the scene initially refusing to provide medical treatment to his injury, or let others treat him properly. Goldstein suffered brain damage

[Rurkel]

@ cyu: These people are anarchists, though, therefore they're is at least supposed to be different from left-nationalists of whatever country, Israel included.

Also, why is the "Ethnicity" column of Soviet passports rarely included in conversations on the perennial "who's a Jew" theme? It played a non-negligible part in shifting the balance of "Jewishness" in Eastern Europe towards ethno-national aspects.