Question about the "Leftist narrative" on Arab Jews

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why are Arab pogroms against Jews in the 40s all but forgotten? Why is this historical mistake not talked about, and the fact that it drove many non-Zionist Jews from the Middle East to embrace Zionism which was until then largely a European Ashkenazi idea? Is it only OK to talk about antisemitic violence from white people, or is it just some closet antisemitism from the radical community? Worst off, why is the complicity of various Arab regimes in this more or less ignored?

It seems silly to underplay this event especially considering the huge backlash it caused in the Arab Jewish community and the role it played in driving them into the arms of the Zionists. Compare Arab Jews to Persian Jews, where the Jewish population was given a level of political protection - even after the revolution, some level of persecution and a mass Jewish exodus, there are still more Jews in Iran than the rest of the Arab world combined.


Is it because they (wrongly) think it excuses the Zionist position? Is ignoring material reality really the best way of confronting Zionism?

[erupt]

Why are Arab pogroms against Jews in the 40s all but forgotten? Why is this historical mistake not talked about, and the fact that it drove many non-Zionist Jews from the Middle East to embrace Zionism which was until then largely a European Ashkenazi idea? Is it only OK to talk about antisemitic violence from white people, or is it just some closet antisemitism from the radical community? Worst off, why is the complicity of various Arab regimes in this more or less ignored?


Is it because they (wrongly) think it excuses the Zionist position? Is ignoring material reality really the best way of confronting Zionism?

In my opinion, people in general, especially leftists, are paranoid of coming off as chauvinistic against Arabs.

As socialists, we should remember religion, nationality, and ethnicity divide people, and critically analyze what happened between the groups, instead of ignoring it.

[Tim Cornelis]

The role of Al-Husseini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini), whom played a pivitol role in the Muslim-division of the Waffen SS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_ (1st_Croatian)) and met Hitler, in the Arab pogroms is, to me, important. It shows that anti-semitic sentiment in the Arab world was similar to that in Europe and it puts the rise of Israel in a different context. In the leftist narrative the establishment of Israel is often, ahistorically, described as colonialism driving out the Arabs but the pogroms were a major factor in the establishment of Israel. Zionism, in my view, was the nationalism of the oppressed (and now has become the nationalism of the oppressor).

[erupt]

It shows that anti-semitic sentiment in the Arab world was similar to that in Europe and it puts the rise of Israel in a different context. In the leftist narrative the establishment of Israel is often, ahistorically, described as colonialism driving out the Arabs but the pogroms were a major factor in the establishment of Israel. Zionism, in my view, was the nationalism of the oppressed (and now has become the nationalism of the oppressor).

Well said, friend.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Why are Arab pogroms against Jews in the 40s all but forgotten? Why is this historical mistake not talked about, and the fact that it drove many non-Zionist Jews from the Middle East to embrace Zionism which was until then largely a European Ashkenazi idea? Is it only OK to talk about antisemitic violence from white people, or is it just some closet antisemitism from the radical community? Worst off, why is the complicity of various Arab regimes in this more or less ignored?

It seems silly to underplay this event especially considering the huge backlash it caused in the Arab Jewish community and the role it played in driving them into the arms of the Zionists. Compare Arab Jews to Persian Jews, where the Jewish population was given a level of political protection - even after the revolution, some level of persecution and a mass Jewish exodus, there are still more Jews in Iran than the rest of the Arab world combined.


Is it because they (wrongly) think it excuses the Zionist position? Is ignoring material reality really the best way of confronting Zionism?

I think it would be incorrect to say that the left at the time ignored it due to antisemitism considering that at the time the left generally was represented by those who took a principled stand against antisemitism. Stalin himself was perhaps the most militant in opposing antisemitism in his era, going as far as to say:


National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.”

— J.V. Stalin, “Anti-Semitism: Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States” January 12, 1931, Works, Vol. 13, July 1930-January 1934, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955, p. 30

Stalin supported the early state of Israeli so even if he did not comment on the Arab pogroms himself I don't think it would be correct that he did so not out of an indifference to the plight of the Jewish people. If I were to guess, I would say that such an indifference to the state of affairs of the middle eastern jew was caused by the eurocentrism of the left which renders it indifferent to all that occurs outside of the "advanced center of capitalism" and which still plagues the left today. Particularly in the case of Ethiopian and Yemenese jews who still suffer pograms today to a certain extent and go ignored by a left which prefers to look the other way from the plight of the global south and its oppressed peoples. If anything, I'd say the left is worse on antisemitism today than it was back then (though obviously major and drastic errors were still committed back then which I will make no attempt to deny)

[RadioRaheem84]

The role of Al-Husseini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini), whom played a pivitol role in the Muslim-division of the Waffen SS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_ (1st_Croatian)) and met Hitler, in the Arab pogroms is, to me, important. It shows that anti-semitic sentiment in the Arab world was similar to that in Europe and it puts the rise of Israel in a different context. In the leftist narrative the establishment of Israel is often, ahistorically, described as colonialism driving out the Arabs but the pogroms were a major factor in the establishment of Israel. Zionism, in my view, was the nationalism of the oppressed (and now has become the nationalism of the oppressor).
You would consider Zionism a form of national liberation? You would've regarded it as in the sane vein as a pan Africanist movement or something?

[Queen Mab]

In the leftist narrative the establishment of Israel is often, ahistorically, described as colonialism driving out the Arabs but the pogroms were a major factor in the establishment of Israel. Zionism, in my view, was the nationalism of the oppressed (and now has become the nationalism of the oppressor).

So you consider Boer nationalism a nationalism of the oppressed? The Voortrekkers were fleeing British persecution in the Cape. And the Dissenting sects that founded Plymouth colony and murdered the local inhabitants, was that nationalism of the oppressed too?

What on earth does 'nationalism of the oppressed' mean, and what should the stance of communists be towards it as distinct from 'non-oppressed nationalism'? I'll let you explain, but it sounds like moralist nonsense to me.

[Rafiq]

Take into account that Axis powers attempted to fill a very large political vacuum in the middle east, and that the Middle East had fallen to the Nazi propaganda machine in places like Iraq and so on. Anti Semitism in the Arab world today, is, undoubtedly, an exact replica of early modern European anti Semitism.

It is not too much to say that anti Semitism was an effect of colonialism. That being said, do I think the history of anti Semitism in the arab world, and it's current effects, are overlooked by Leftists today.

[Sasha]

So you consider Boer nationalism a nationalism of the oppressed? The Voortrekkers were fleeing British persecution in the Cape. And the Dissenting sects that founded Plymouth colony and murdered the local inhabitants, was that nationalism of the oppressed too?

What on earth does 'nationalism of the oppressed' mean, and what should the stance of communists be towards it as distinct from 'non-oppressed nationalism'? I'll let you explain, but it sounds like moralist nonsense to me.

It's a fact though that many of the Jews who came to fight in Palestine did so after the pogroms against the "indigenous" Jewish population, they weren't there already, many where veterans of the resistance or from the Jewish British or US soldiers that fought the nazis. And many where from a leftist anti-fascist background, in fact many of the Jewish communists that where the backbone of the pre-war battle of cable street and the post war militant anti-fascist 43 group went to Palestine/Israel. I think its safe to say that at least for them they saw this as an continuation of the anti-fascist struggle against the anti-semites wanting to destroy judeaism and all Jews. Not a colonial settler project. this is important to understand the narative in which many Israeli view their existence and the pathological siege mentallity that has infect the Israeli soul. To understand the present we should understand the past.

[Queen Mab]

It's a fact though that many of the Jews who came to fight in Palestine did so after the pogroms against the "indigenous" Jewish population, they weren't there already, many where veterans of the resistance or from the Jewish British or US soldiers that fought the nazis.

Okay. So?


And many where from a leftist anti-fascist background, in fact many of the Jewish communists that where the backbone of the pre-war battle of cable street and the post war militant anti-fascist 43 group went to Palestine/Israel. I think its safe to say that at least for them they saw this as an continuation of the anti-fascist struggle against the anti-semites wanting to destroy judeaism and all Jews.


So these 'communists' went to build a capitalist nationalist imperialist-backed state because they didn't like Nazis? Am I supposed to sympathise with them?


Not a colonial settler project. this is important to understand the narative in which many Israeli view their existence and the pathological siege mentallity that has infect the Israeli soul. To understand the present we should understand the past.

Just because the colonial settlers happened to be victims of Hitler doesn't change the nature of their settler colony.

[goalkeeper]

Yes, it is sadly forgotten by the left. Nearly a million Jews were forced out of communities they had inhabited for up to 3000 years.

The fact that some 'heroes' of the left such as Nasser in Egypt were complicit in this is perhaps part of the reason.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Just because the colonial settlers happened to be victims of Hitler doesn't change the nature of their settler colony.

Just as people often underplay genocides in history other than the holocaust, I think that it is also easy to underplay the effect of the holocaust on the jewish psyche. It really is quite profound, and understandably so.

[Queen Mab]

Just as people often underplay genocides in history other than the holocaust, I think that it is also easy to underplay the effect of the holocaust on the jewish psyche. It really is quite profound, and understandably so.

Yes, of course. I agree. But we can't use the Jewish psyche to advance a form of Israeli exceptionalism.

[Sasha]

No, but if you want to end the occupation you have to understand it, echoing the language of Arab or nazi anti-semitism, taking sides in favor of an racialist and nationalist "solution" instead of an internationalist/anti-nationalist perspective will work only counter productive. And the way most "leftists" choose to fight "zionism" really does raise the question wheter their intention is really to end the Palestinian plight. And if that's not their objective it raises the question what their motivation really is.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, but if you want to end the occupation you have to understand it, echoing the language of Arab or nazi anti-semitism, taking sides in favor of an racialist and nationalist "solution" instead of an internationalist/anti-nationalist perspective will work only counter productive. And the way most "leftists" choose to fight "zionism" really does raise the question wheter their intention is really to end the Palestinian plight. And if that's not their objective it raises the question what their motivation really is.

So now you're throwing in a pop psychology accusation that leftists are really closet anti-semites that aren't looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in context?

I think that's pushing it. Zionism doesn't need a free pass.

[Sasha]

yes, because no leftist ever said that the arabs should drive the jews in the sea, oh wait they did, masses of them did and do either out front or only slightly sugar coated. and besides being a despicable, un-leftist thing to say how is that in any way going to help the palestinian cause?

[RadioRaheem84]

yes, because no leftist ever said that the arabs should drive the jews in the sea, oh wait they did, masses of them did and do either out front or only slightly sugar coated. and besides being a despicable, un-leftist thing to say how is that in any way going to help the palestinian cause?

A leftist could say anything it just makes him stupid, but I think the general consensus among leftist and what's written in most left wing journals is that anti-semitism is wrong. It's that simple. I don't hear leftist like Chomsky, Parenti, Sut Jhally or even anyone that I read associated with leftism, and this issue use anti-semitism as an argument.

But this isn't even about that, it's about how Zionism is seemingly getting a free pass almost because it's misunderstood apparently. I wouldn't consider it a national liberation ideology in the slightest.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't see anything wrong with calling Zionism a "national liberation movement" insofar as Jews are a nationality which needed to be liberated from antisemitic regimes in Europe and the Arab world which wanted to kill Jews.

The problem is that political state Zionism necessitated the denial of Palestinian national liberty.

There have been national liberation movements in history which have denied national liberation to other groups of people. In fact, that's a common trend among national liberation movements. That's why radical marxism is a better path to liberation than nationalism.

[Rafiq]

Yes, it is sadly forgotten by the left. Nearly a million Jews were forced out of communities they had inhabited for up to 3000 years.

The fact that some 'heroes' of the left such as Nasser in Egypt were complicit in this is perhaps part of the reason.

What left? Nasser jailed and executed communists and even was insistent upon purging communists and sympathizers in baath state positions because of an alleged communist conspiracy

[goalkeeper]

A leftist could say anything it just makes him stupid, but I think the general consensus among leftist and what's written in most left wing journals is that anti-semitism is wrong. It's that simple. I don't hear leftist like Chomsky, Parenti, Sut Jhally or even anyone that I read associated with leftism, and this issue use anti-semitism as an argument.

But this isn't even about that, it's about how Zionism is seemingly getting a free pass almost because it's misunderstood apparently. I wouldn't consider it a national liberation ideology in the slightest.

For whatever Zionism has become today, I think it's hard to argue that the writings of Herzl, in the aftermath of the show trial of Drayfus, arguing that the Jews will never be accepted by Europe and thus can only be free in a state of their own, is not a 'national liberation' ideology. The Jews of Europe were increasingly persecuted and the promise of equal citizenship before the law was increasingly showing to be a lie; the remaining solution being the liberation of Jews through the creation of their own 'nation-state'. It seems to me a classic example of national liberation ideology; a minority group faces persecution, they imagine themselves as a 'nation', they see best way to prevent and end their persecution being through the establishment of a state for this 'nation'.

Of course, like all national liberation movements, from Risorgimento nationalism in the 19th century to decolonisation nationalist movements in the 20th century, once a nation-state is founded the state acts like, well, all nation-states.

[Sasha]

It's an nationalist project, and like all nationalism, particularly one with "racial" undertones it leads to chauvinism and exclusion. But the Arab or for example Turkish national projects or many of those in asia or central america, many of which the left actively and enthusiastically supported, killed more, displaced more, give less equal rights to their minorities etc etc. We should do away with all nation states, with all borders. Yet many off the left are seemingly obsessed by Israel which is already suspect in itself but if you not only ignore other equally criminal national projects but even positively rally behind them, excuse them with national liberation bs while at the same time denying that same defense to those you don't like a deeply traumatized community with an well founded persecution complex might wonder what makes them such special enemies, why they get singled out.
But jadijadija "colonialism!!!". Well face it, all those glorious national liberated places turned oppressors them selves, butchering their (often way more indigenous) minorities or their neighbors, sending workers to die for capital and the bourgeoisie. "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"". guess what, its not even the people's stick, its merely a slightly more local bourgeois stick the proletariat died for getting in place.
Anti-imperialist and national-liberation theory and praxis has been proven to be just as much anti-leftist criminal failures as Zionism. And its still important to understand how people came to this stupid ideas, if only to avoid them in the future.
dont forget that we are all settlers...

edit: got ninja'd by goalkeeper & sinister cultural marxist sayint it way better than i again.

[goalkeeper]

You often also see the near 1million Jewish refugees explained away by 'anti-zionists' in a number of disingenuous ways such as the claim that Jews had lived entirely peacefully in Arab countries before '48, ignoring the increasing anti-semitism in the beginning of the 20th century (and numerous resulting pogroms). And then the more intense anti-semitism faced by Arab Jews (and their resulting exodus) in the 1950s explained away as an 'understandable' response to the the creation of the state of Israel. Or you get conspiracy theory type explanation of it all being the result of 'Zionist agents' setting off bombs among Jewish communities in Arab countries to scare them off.

Arab nationalism is generally upheld by the left as progressive as it challenged US Imperialism and allied itself with other 'socialist' movements, but I think you can draw some parallels with Zionism and how it resulted also in persecution of non-Jews (primarily Arabs), while Arab nationalism resulted in increasing persecution of non-Arabs (Often Arab Jews). It is more of a problem with nationalist ideology than specifically either Arab nationalism or Jewish nationalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is getting silly. Zionism had embedded within it the idea of transfer and uprooting any local populations in the land of Palestine. Even hardcore Israeli historian Benny Morris admitted this much.

I agree that leftists should steer clear of giving too much support to national liberationist movements but this idea that Zionism had these good intentions but was corrupted along the way is ridiculous. And these accusations of anti-semitism among the left because they don't agree with Zionism one bit or bringing up the couple of leftists that may have said anti-Semitic things is also spurious.

I don't know why this site gives Israel and Zionism these little passes?

[goalkeeper]

This is getting silly. Zionism had embedded within it the idea of transfer and uprooting any local populations in the land of Palestine.

Well, it has embedded within it exclusionary elements, as all nationalist movements do, as nations need to define themselves in opposition to other populations.


Even hardcore Israeli historian Benny Morris admitted this much.

What is a 'hardcore Israeli'?


I agree that leftists should steer clear of giving too much support to national liberationist movements but this idea that Zionism had these good intentions but was corrupted along the way is ridiculous.

Its not a question of 'good intentions'. But if you want to go down that root, fine; when Herzl wrote in the late 19th century that the Jews, as a result of increasing persecution have no place in their European society and that this persecution and anti-semitism can only get worse unless the Jews cease being minorities, assimilated of ghettoised, and create their own state. Now as communists this solution is not for us and is obviously no real solution and what was needed was proletarian revolution, but considering the next 70 or so years of history, Herzl's arguments and concerns were not entirely misplaced. He (and other early Zionists) sensed a storm gathering over Europe and a coming disaster for Europe's Jewish communities. In this he and Zionism was entirely correct. In a world of growing integral nationalism, there seemed no place for Europe's Jewish minority communities, even in the shtetl.


And these accusations of anti-semitism among the left because they don't agree with Zionism one bit or bringing up the couple of leftists that may have said anti-Semitic things is also spurious.

No, its not spurious at all. The left does have a real problem with its understanding and view of Jewish history.


I don't know why this site gives Israel and Zionism these little passes?

LOL, no it doesn't. Just wait.

[Remus Bleys]

It's a fact though that many of the Jews who came to fight in Palestine did so after the pogroms against the "indigenous" Jewish population, they weren't there already, many where veterans of the resistance or from the Jewish British or US soldiers that fought the nazis.
This does not justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

And many where from a leftist anti-fascist background, in fact many of the Jewish communists that where the backbone of the pre-war battle of cable street and the post war militant anti-fascist 43 group went to Palestine/Israel. Such communists. Yes, the establishment of a Bourgeois State is just so communist. I sincerely can't think of something a communist should do other than create an imperialist capitalist state. :rolleyes:

I think its safe to say that at least for them they saw this as an continuation of the anti-fascist struggle against the anti-semites wanting to destroy judeaism and all Jews. I think it's safe to assume Khruschev imagined he was working towards FULL COMMUNISM, yet that doesn't mean anything at all

Not a colonial settler project.That's what it became.

this is important to understand the narative in which many Israeli view their existence and the pathological siege mentallity that has infect the Israeli soul. To understand the present we should understand the past.I honestly don't give a damn on how people view themselves, I want to know how they really are.

Just as people often underplay genocides in history other than the holocaust, I think that it is also easy to underplay the effect of the holocaust on the jewish psyche. It really is quite profound, and understandably so. This is true. However, this does not follow that the state of israel should have been created.
In addition, Israel does not represent the Jewish people of the world. It represents the Israeli Bourgeoisie.

No, but if you want to end the occupation you have to understand it
So, you want me to be empathetic to the Israeli oppressors? You want me to feel sorry for them?

echoing the language of Arab or nazi anti-semitism, taking sides in favor of an racialist and nationalist "solution"Wow. Did you just fucking accuse anti-zionists of buying into nazism or antisemitism? I mean fucking seriously, do you or any israeli apologists have any other arguments than argumentum ad hitlerum?
Give me a fucking break.

instead of an internationalist/anti-nationalist perspective will work only counter productive. And lol. using ultraleftist terms to justify zionism. You aren't fooling anyone.

And the way most "leftists" choose to fight "zionism" really does raise the question wheter their intention is really to end the Palestinian plight.I'm afraid you have to be more specific.

And if that's not their objective it raises the question what their motivation really is. Oh! It's not that I hate the oppression of the Palestinians, it's that I hate Jews! Thank you for clearing that up for me! :rolleyes:
Fucking seriously. Fulfilling Godwin's law just shows how immature you are, and the fact you have no real argument.

yes, because no leftist ever said that the arabs should drive the jews in the seaYes. Only an antisemite disguised as an anti-zionist would say that.

oh wait they didI was in that thread you are refering to, and he talked about the Israeli ruling class.

masses of them did and do either out front or only slightly sugar coated. Source.
Fucking source. Give me a source about how all anti-zionists are actually anti-semitic.

and besides being a despicable, un-leftist thing to say how is that in any way going to help the palestinian cause? Its not. Hence why no anti-zionists say that.

The fact that some 'heroes' of the left such as Nasser in Egypt were complicit in this is perhaps part of the reason. :laugh:
Who the fuck upholds Nasser as a "leftist hero"?

Of course, like all national liberation movements, from Risorgimento nationalism in the 19th century to decolonisation nationalist movements in the 20th century, once a nation-state is founded the state acts like, well, all nation-states.
Then why are you apologizing for it?

It's an nationalist project, and like all nationalism, particularly one with "racial" undertones it leads to chauvinism and exclusion.
So, Zionism leads to chauvinism and exclusion you admit?
Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2665421&postcount=57), you state "Early zionists had good reasons even well before the holocaust to not trust their fellow Europeans with their safety anymore."
So, they had good ideas, even though they lead to exclusion of arabs?
And I'm the Nazi...

But the Arab or for example Turkish national projects or many of those in asia or central america, many of which the left actively and enthusiastically supported, What "left"?

killed more, displaced more,Yall heard that folks.
Zionism rests entirely on two things:
1. Accusing people of anti-semitism
2. the notion that two wrongs make a right

give less equal rights to their minorities etc etc. Interesting that you think minorities should be "given rights." Awfully telling. Should the proletariat ask the bourgeoisie permission for some "rights" too?

We should do away with all nation states, with all borders. Just don't say the arab proletariat should destroy the state of Israel! Cuz thats antisemitic!:rolleyes:

Yet many off the left are seemingly obsessed by Israel which is already suspect in itself but if you not only ignore other equally criminal national projects but even positively rally behind them, excuse them with national liberation bs while at the same time denying that same defense to those you don't like a deeply traumatized community with an well founded persecution complex might wonder what makes them such special enemies, why they get singled out. You're just ranting and whining tbh.
So, you admit that national liberation is a bad thing, whilst defending Zionism as a National Liberation experience? You have stated multiple times you were a zionist (in the sense noam chomsky was).

But jadijadija "colonialism!!!". Well face it, all those glorious national liberated places turned oppressors them selves, butchering their (often way more indigenous) minorities or their neighbors, sending workers to die for capital and the bourgeoisie.Again, you realize that nationalism is inherently a bad thing, yet still support people such as Herzl.
Quit coopting ultraleft terms so you can justify Israel.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick""What the fuck does that bullshit Bakunin (muh anti-authoritarianism) quote have to do with anything?

guess what, its not even the people's stick, its merely a slightly more local bourgeois stick the proletariat died for getting in place.See above.

Anti-imperialist and national-liberation theory and praxis has been proven to be just as much anti-leftist criminal failures as Zionism.Yet you still support zionism "in its earlier phase"
Psycho, quit coopting ultraleft terms in order to support Zionism. It makes literally no sense.

And its still important to understand how people came to this stupid ideas, if only to avoid them in the future.IE we need to still feel bad for Zionism. Even though national liberation is shit. :rolleyes:

dont forget that we are all settlers...
Really? Every single one of us?
Again, Zionism rests on the notion that two wrongs make a right.

Your posts are really confused. Which makes sense seeing as you are trying to use anti-zionist ideas to support your zionist agenda.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, it has embedded within it exclusionary elements, as all nationalist movements do, as nations need to define themselves in opposition to other populations.

It doesn't matter that all liberation movements do have that element, I would disagree that not all do, but the point is that Zionism is more than just a national liberation movement its also a religious one too, that wanted to uproot an entire population to realize it's own liberation.



What is a 'hardcore Israeli'?

Israeli State Zionist apologist, I meant.



Its not a question of 'good intentions'. But if you want to go down that root, fine; when Herzl wrote in the late 19th century that the Jews, as a result of increasing persecution have no place in their European society and that this persecution and anti-semitism can only get worse unless the Jews cease being minorities, assimilated of ghettoised, and create their own state. Now as communists this solution is not for us and is obviously no real solution and what was needed was proletarian revolution, but considering the next 70 or so years of history, Herzl's arguments and concerns were not entirely misplaced. He (and other early Zionists) sensed a storm gathering over Europe and a coming disaster for Europe's Jewish communities. In this he and Zionism was entirely correct. In a world of growing integral nationalism, there seemed no place for Europe's Jewish minority communities, even in the shtetl.

So he was correct in that anti-semitism would create the conditions for a mass extermination campaign, that means that his Zionism was not all that bad? I mean what does that have to do with anything? There is a difference in noticing this trend, and coming with a national liberationist movement that didn't involve the uprooting of entire indigenous population.




No, its not spurious at all. The left does have a real problem with its understanding and view of Jewish history.

No it doesn't. What the hell are you talking about? When I hear Norman Finklestien or Noam Chomsky or Sut Jhally argue against the Israel Zionist propaganda, I don't think they don't understand Jewish history at all, I think they get it quite clear.



LOL, no it doesn't. Just wait.


Wait for what? For others to come in to tell you the same thing? This site has it's share of Zionist apologists.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't even buy this junk that Zionism began with good intentions, it was and has always been an ideology of colonization. It was never a national liberationist movement, and I cannot believe I was bamboozled into arguing that it merited that distinction.

As, Remus Blays noted, our Zionist sympathizers are clearly engaging in some double talk.

[Remus Bleys]

I don't even but this junk that Zionism began with good intentions, it was and has always been an ideology of colonization. It was never a national liberationist movement, and I cannot believe I was bamboozled into arguing that it merited that distinction. Nah. Zionism totally was a national liberation movement that happened to be a settler colonial movement at the same time.


As, Remus Blays noted, our Zionist sympathizers are clearly engaging in some double talk.
Why thank you.

[goalkeeper]

I don't even buy this junk that Zionism began with good intentions, it was and has always been an ideology of colonization. It was never a national liberationist movement, and I cannot believe I was bamboozled into arguing that it merited that distinction.

As, Remus Blays noted, our Zionist sympathizers are clearly engaging in some double talk.

So, which of the following discounts Zionism from being a 'national liberation' movement?

1. Jews were, unlike the other peoples of Europe, unable to construct a national identity and view themselves as a nation? Or perhaps Italians, German, Czech, Magyars etc. were 'real' nations and Jews not?
2. Unlike other national liberationist movements, Jews were not a persecuted people looking to overcome this (mistakenly) by constituting themselves within one state? They did not seek liberation through national mobilisation and state building? Were they not seeking liberation? Were they not persecuted? Did they not attempt to organise European Jewry on national lines to these ends?
3. The end result of the Jewish national movement, because it resulted in persecution of those excluded from 'the nation', discounts it from being a 'national liberation movement', ignoring that this is a general feature of nat. lib. politics?

[RadioRaheem84]

Herzl rejected even the most progressive ideals of the 19th century–democracy, socialism, republicanism–and embraced the most reactionary– monarchy, nationalism, chauvinism, and racism. Zionism identified with the imperialist powers who carved up the globe, and accepted racist ideas about the "civilizing" virtues of colonization and "the white man’s burden" that made up the ideology of the capitalist class. In The State of the Jews, Hertzl wrote,

The unthinking might, for example, imagine that this exodus would have to take its way from civilization into the desert. That is not so! It will be carried out entirely in the framework of civilization. We shall not revert to a lower stage, we shall rise to a higher one. We shall not dwell in mud huts; we shall build new, and more beautiful, more modern houses, and possess them in safety.… We should there form a part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism…. [Europe] would have to guarantee our existence.

http://isreview.org/issues/24/hidden_history.shtml

Herzl courted the imperialist powers to set up his State. In 1903, he went to the Russian Tsar to see if he could convince Russia to pressure the Ottomans into handing over Palestine. In an infamous meeting, Herzl actually sat down with Count von Plehve, the organizer of the pogroms, the butcher of Jews. Herzl argued with von Plehve that Zionism was the solution to Russia’s "Jewish problem," namely, the enormous number of Jews who were flooding into revolutionary organizations. Herzl later recalled that he told von Plehve "Help me reach land sooner and the revolt will end. And so will the defection to the socialists."

It was always a reactionary ideology. Your incessant apologizing for this movement is beyond the pale. I cannot believe how you just masked your argument in the vein that I am just overlooking how the Jews suffered at the hands of antisemitism in Europe.

Get it through your head. Zionism doesn't get the slightest bit of a pass. It's worse than other national liberationist movements.

[goalkeeper]

I think it would be incorrect to say that the left at the time ignored it due to antisemitism considering that at the time the left generally was represented by those who took a principled stand against antisemitism. Stalin himself was perhaps the most militant in opposing antisemitism in his era, going as far as to say:



Stalin supported the early state of Israeli so even if he did not comment on the Arab pogroms himself I don't think it would be correct that he did so not out of an indifference to the plight of the Jewish people. If I were to guess, I would say that such an indifference to the state of affairs of the middle eastern jew was caused by the eurocentrism of the left which renders it indifferent to all that occurs outside of the "advanced center of capitalism" and which still plagues the left today. Particularly in the case of Ethiopian and Yemenese jews who still suffer pograms today to a certain extent and go ignored by a left which prefers to look the other way from the plight of the global south and its oppressed peoples. If anything, I'd say the left is worse on antisemitism today than it was back then (though obviously major and drastic errors were still committed back then which I will make no attempt to deny)

Sorry, just thought that this madness about Stalin should be pointed out. For whatever he said in 1931, it didn't stop him from engaging in Jew baiting after WW2.

[Red_Banner]

Arabs are Semites.

[Rafiq]

Arabs are Semites.

That doesn't mean anything in relation to anti Semitism and what it ideologically represents.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

People are quite clearly confusing an attempt to explain the material conditions underpinning the attraction of Zionism to the Jews of Europe with an attempt to "justify" denying political rights to Palestinians.

"Look, over here, it's Psycho's argument:"

http://principal.jenksms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/strawman2.jpg

BTW, what exactly do people think the Jews of the Arab world should have done? Just died?

It sucks that Native Americans lost their land to Irish immigrants, but I'm not going to blame the Irish immigrant who nearly starved to death under British rule and had to escape across the ocean. Zionism may be a rotten ideology but its also a logical response by Jews of the time to their conditions, and understanding that might, you know, be kind of useful in overcoming those conditions, or in convincing Israeli Jews that those conditions are no longer so relevant. I think explaining the 1000 years of close connection between Jews and Muslim Arabs, and the material conditions that led to that relationship changing, is of significant importance to understanding and solving the conflict.

But why do that and resolve the underlying conflict between Jews and Palestinians when we can just wait 500 years for the armies of some reactionary state to finally succeed in some kind of genocide and drive the Jews into the sea?


RadioRaheem-there are people whose politics were just as reactionary who were making the case for national liberation. Baathism arguably had an element of national liberation too, but the Iraqi state joyfully crushed Kurdish aspirations. Pakistani Muslim and Indian Hindu fundamentalists were focused on national liberation but they were determined to slaughter members of the other faith to protect their "own" nation. Indonesian national liberation also came at the point of bayonets pointed towards the smaller islands (like Timor). Burmese national liberation led to the violent repression of pretty much every non-Burmese ethnic group in Burma. Even Leftist movements like those in Vietnam and Laos committed vile ethnic cleansing against various nationalities that had been used as proxies by the USA. Leaders of national liberation movements and their adherents are particularly prone to reactionary ideas, simply because their discourse is itself rooted in nationalism and is deeply conservative in ways which Leftists should be more wary of.

Basically, there is no contradiction between struggling for national liberation and being a reactionary asshole. So the fact that Herzl was a dick and Zionists disrespect the rights of Arabs doesn't change the fact that the Zionist drive had similar roots as other national struggles.

[Alonso Quijano]

As my Turkish-born grandfather says, Jews started thinking of Zionism when they realised the power of antisemites, and in Turkey, of the Nazis approaching the East. You're right that people ignore how Jews of Arab/Muslim societies grew to Zionism as a response to antisemitism, but it's true to Ashkenazi Jews as well.

As I've stated before, Zionism and Communism have the exact same origins. Herzl (a lunatic no doubt) only spoke of Jewish nationalism in response to the Dreyfuss affair, having previously supported assimilation to European nations.

It was Moses Hess who was the original Communist, and later the original Zionist. The reason Jews played such a big part in the Communist movement is probably the realisation that in order for Jews to be free, there needs to be an internationalist society. Later, feeling disillusioned with antisemitism, he claimed that first there has to be a national liberation. And that's why I'm suspicious towards any national liberation movement today.

Marx's descendants grew to Zionism as well. Karl stated that "Tussy (his youngest daughter) is me" regarding her ideology. And she was a proud Jewess who, especially in her later life, responded to antisemitism with shouting "I'm a Jewess!", and she's described by some as "almost Zionist". Karl's grandson, I think the son of his eldest daughter, who grew up with Communism, openly supported Zionism.

Just like Marx's history of materialism, history of Jewish nationalism can be described - if from a certain point it can be put gernerally as:
1. The enlightment gets Judaism out of a ghetto state of mind.
2. Jews want to assimilate to their nations.
3. Nations don't accept them.
4. Jews grow from national identity of where they lived (German, Polish, French, etc.) to internationalist identity, seeing that in a nationalist discourse they can't be accepted.
5. Jews become disillusioned with the hope of an immediate international, and start uniting as Jews to protect themselves.
6. Internationalism is put on hold to focus on Zionism as urgent means of survival.
7. Arabs attack Jews on antisemitic basis, the European left criticise Zionism and refuse to support it.
8. Jews abandon internationalism, feeling left alone and betrayed by the left.
9. Revisionist Zionism grows stronger, as leftist Jews who practice Zionism are rejected by the international left.
10. Complete transformation to militaristic sectarian nationalism.

Zionism was inevitable, just as other nationalist forms, and just as capitalism was. The modern Zionist sees no reason why other people are "allowed" to practice nationalism and he doesn't, seeing that when he had no nationalism as a form of self-defence he was brutally slaughtered.

Any approach and criticism of Zionism that doesn't acknowledge this is futile. As long as Zionism is seen by the Jews as his means of survival, he feels attacked when Zionism is attacked. Without understand WHY that is, Zionism can't be fought. Without an alternative - that is, an internationalist communist society - the Jew won't trust the left and won't give up on his nationalism (of course I'm generalising here).

Jews today grow disillusioned with Zionism as well, but they still don't abandon it they don't see any alternative. For them trusting "the Arabs" is the same as trusting Europeans in interwar Europe. Then many of them still put their trust in the left, ignoring antisemitism, and ended up in gas chambers.

For Jews to abandon Zionism they have to become more and more disillusioned with capitalism, and grow to real socialism once again. But for that to happen they have to feel "safe", that is, that there are others, especially in the Arab world, who are committed to fighting antisemitism.

You can call it apologetics, I call it the use of logic and reason in effort to come to REAL understanding of Zionism and the Jewish state of mind.

Also, the left ignores the history of the Arab world and it's nationalism, including and not only pan-Arabism, but that's for another topic. Although that is another URGENT point in my opinion.

[Tim Cornelis]

In a previous thread I asked, what makes Zionism "settler colonialism" and never got an answer. Is the moving from one place to another "settler colonialism"?

[Rurkel]

s the moving from one place to another "settler colonialism"? No, immigration is not settler colonialism. Immigrating with the intention of creating a nation-state for the immigrants when there're already people living here who might object (and Arabs aren't to be blamed for their own counter-Zionist nationalist projects any more then Jews for their own nationalism) inevitably would acquire colonialist features, in particular if done in an age of colonialism in general. And yes, I do think that Zionism is a rather "unholy" amalgamation of settler-colonialism and nat-lib.

[Sasha]

so i say this:


this is important to understand the narative in which many Israeli view their existence and the pathological siege mentallity that has infect the Israeli soul.


end the occupation [..] internationalist/anti-nationalist perspective


help the palestinian cause


It's an nationalist project, and like all nationalism, particularly one with "racial" undertones it leads to chauvinism and exclusion. [..] just as much anti-leftist criminal failures as Zionism. And its still important to understand how people came to this stupid ideas, if only to avoid them in the future.

and the usual suspects start screaming "ZIONIST!", "PSYCHO IS AN ZIONIST!!!!" again...
yet god forbid i dare to suggest there is an irrational side to some anti-zionists here and in the broader left. :rolleyes:

so let me spell this out once again, no, not every anti-zionist is an anti-semite, i certainly dont think people like radioraheem or other rational user who just have a different position than i are anti-semites. i do think however that many take more offense at mine (and more importantly less rambling posters as goalkeepers and sinister cultural marxists) than at the irrational hysteric strawman of YABM and reymus bley in each and every of this threads, who keep on thanking posts by obvious anti-semites etc etc are telling of the radical lefts problem when it comes to anti-semitism and comes full circle back to the point i was trying to make;
the only way jews, esp israeli jews, are going to trust the revolutionary left with their safety is if the radical left dissociates it self not only from the all out, unabashed anti-semites but also takes a stand against the enablers, the code speakers, the anti-semites who refuse to acknowledge their anti-semitism because their cognitive dissonance made them believe their self that as long as they hate on "zionists" instead on Jews, even if that still involves all the old caricatures, the blood libel, the international financial cabal of behind the scenes string pullers etc etc, that its not anti-semitism.
there is no big tent possible here, take care of the anti-semite problem in the revolutionary left and we'll have a decent chance to end the suffering of the Palestinians and end Zionism, keep giving an inch to the anti-semites and their willing enablers and you are part of the problem, not the solution.

[goalkeeper]

What left? Nasser jailed and executed communists and even was insistent upon purging communists and sympathizers in baath state positions because of an alleged communist conspiracy

Well, within Egypt 'the left' has a strong wing that is Nasserist. You will also find Nasser idealised by those from stalinist or anti-imp third world traditions. I didnt think this was controversial? Ask a member of an old moscow-official CP their view of Nasser; they will probably call him a great anti-imperialist and progressive nationalist.

They are, of course, entirely wrong.

[Remus Bleys]

Wow. Psycho just called me an antisemite, or at the very least an apologist for antisemitism.
Well, Psycho, I lost family in the holocaust too. These are very serious fucking charges you are making, and I demand you back yourself up.

[Sasha]

Did I injure your feelings? Poor soul, its totally o.k. to keep calling me a Zionist again and again with no base what so ever though... Knock it off and I might reconsider my analysis (as far as it comes to you).

[Remus Bleys]

Did I injure your feelings?
Not really. Why would I have done that? But when someone baselessly calls me an anti-semite, that is not a question of my "feelings being hurt" thats a question of backing yourself up. Anti-semitism is a very serious thing, and when you call everyone that it ruins what it truly means.
You disregard the victims of anti-semitism by continuously refer to me and others as anti-semite.

Poor soul, its totally o.k. to keep calling me a Zionist again and again with no base what so ever thoughUhh... I was in several threads that you said you were a zionist (albeit the chomsky type).

... Knock it off and I might reconsider my analysis (as far as it comes to you).What analysis? Psycho, you haven't addressed any of my points, all you have done is make blatant accusations of anti-semitism.
edit:
I like how I say:

I lost family in the holocaust
And Psycho responds with

Did I injure your feelings?

[Sasha]

I never said I was a Zionist, I said I was intrested in the leftist origins of Zionism. There is no way you can find any quote of me calling myself a Zionist without the context making it absolutely clear it was an sarcastic remark against yet more strawmans and libel of you and your little circle.
But keep lying and putting up strawman.

[Remus Bleys]

I never said I was a Zionist, I said I was intrested in the leftist origins of Zionism.
But keep lying and putting up strawman.

Anyways, I'm a Zionist, you convinced the world, too bad there are no more Zionists like me though, you know, those kind who build schools in Palestine with their holocaust restitution money, you know Zionists like me and my family, Zionists who refuse to visit Israel, who refused Israeli citizenship even though they where made stateless by the dutch state for fighting in the Spanish civilwar, etc etc. Source.' (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2637489&postcount=40)
This may be sarcastic, but in it, you make it quite clear you believe that the early state of Israel was good for Palestine. You make t quite clear that you "oppose the current state," but you make it quite clear that early zionism was good for the palestinians, which is objectively zionist thing to say. The "I'm a Zionist" may be sarcastic (you presented it that way, though I suspect it to be the truth), but the "build school for Palestinians" show that you do have support for the early zionists.
You have supported Kibbutz as being examples of "Socialism in One Country." You show all signs of being a labor zionist, and the only reason that you don't explicitly say you are in a non-sarcastic way is because you have to keep up the ultraleft rhetoric.

[Sasha]

Like said, sarcasm.
No wonder you can't see the obvious anti-Semitism within the anti-Zionist left if you cant even see the obvious sarcasm in that quote. But credit where credits due, at least you had the decency to quote me in full, i'm pleasantly surprised...

[Remus Bleys]

Like said, sarcasm.
See my edited reply. In my haste, I assumed what i later wrote was implied.

No wonder you can't see the obvious anti-Semitism within the anti-Zionist left
Anti-semites are neither left nor anti-zionist. They are anti-semitic.
Now, show me the anti-semitism I have displayed.

if you cant even see the obvious sarcasm in that quote.
That post was riddled with sarcasm and truth.

But credit where credits due, at least you had the decency to quote me in full, i'm pleasantly surprised...
I always full quote. I am one of the few people that do that.

[Sasha]

No you dolt, I myself and my family gave RECENTLY our holocaust restitution money to a Palestinian NGO to help build schools there, like in 5 fucking years ago.
Your insane.

[Remus Bleys]

No you dolt, I myself and my family gave RECENTLY our holocaust restitution money to a Palestinian NGO to help build schools there, like in 5 fucking years ago.
Oh. Okay.

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.

Source. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2663842&postcount=18)
Here you say that kibbutzim is radical leftist, which is just so laughable regardless of its imperialist origins.
you are apologizing in this post for Israel's foundation, presenting a "bination" as some great thing and saying that everyone should have been fine with israelis colonizing palestine under the guise of immigration.

Your insane.
Why does everyone say that?

[Remus Bleys]

I want to bring up the fact psycho has turned this thread into how he thinks anti-zionism is anti-semitic, instead of addressing any of my original points.

[Sasha]

oh yeah, i made this thread go off the rails...... :huh:

and no, not all anti-zionism is anti-semitc, but yes, some, no not some, way, way to much of it is and its closely related to the question asked in the OP of this thread.

[Remus Bleys]

oh yeah, i made this thread go off the rails...... :huh:

and no, not all anti-zionism is anti-semitc, but yes, some, way, way to much of it is and its closely related to the question asked in the OP of this thread.
look at the history. The OP asked "What about the jewish pogroms in arabia" and people replied. Then you came in and said "anti-zionists are antisemitic!!!"
Then I replied to you. Instead of addressing my or radioraheem points you accused me of anti-semitism and then make baseless assertions about how i am apparently "insane."

[Sasha]

you really dont see any connection between the question "why does the revolutionary left turn a blind eye to (historic) Arab anti-semtism" and the answer "The self labeled "anti-imperialist" and "anti-zionist" revolutionary left up till this day has an anti-semite problem that is among other things expressed in exactly the same thinly veiled language as that of traditional Arab anti-semitism."??

the only logical conclusion of national liberation (read the foundation of an arab ethinic national state that hasn't existed yet) in the whole of israel and palestine is the disappearance of the jewish population, saying stuff as "the zionist entity must be exterminated" "the arab proletariat must crush the state of israel" will confirm to the jewish proletariat that this is the plan and they will rally only stronger around the Zionist right. Only after being chalenged for about 12 pages and the banning of some obvious anti-semites you and your friends will occasionally make some fumbled statement about that there should be place for the jewish proletariat as well in an united palestine but besides that its always half arsed (often with some coded suggestion that it will only count for the "indigenous" jews and the rest should basically fuck off where they came from) its just bankrupt posturing, the only way the state of israel will ever abruptly seize to exist as an zionist national project instead of gradual phasing out into an multi ethnic, equalist bi-national state is under a global communist revolution in which also all the other national projects seize to exist.
demanding an end to the state of israel (instead of the reasonable tangible demand of an end to the occupation of palestine as set by the 1967 borders and an end of inner israeli appartheid and racism) is cherry picking one national ethno-supremacist project over the next. And if you do that you lose all rights to complain over the state of israel. its not that their various neighbors are socialist paradises now are they?

[Remus Bleys]

you really dont see any connection between the question "why does the revolutionary left turn a blind eye to (historic) Arab anti-semtism" and the answer "The self labeled "anti-imperialist" and "anti-zionist" revolutionary left up till this day has an anti-semite problem that is among other things expressed in exactly the same thinly veiled language as that of traditional Arab anti-semitism."??
Because that is mainly irrelevant, as these people are not the revolutionary left.
I like how you conveniently continue to ignore my original points.

[goalkeeper]

Because that is mainly irrelevant, as these people are not the revolutionary left.
I like how you conveniently continue to ignore my original points.

wait aren't you a Bordigist LOL? Surely then there is no genuinely revolutionary left but only left wings of capital?

[Remus Bleys]

wait aren't you a Bordigist LOL? Surely then there is no genuinely revolutionary left but only left wings of capital?
I am certain that you do not know what Bordigism is.

[Remus Bleys]

the only logical conclusion of national liberation (read the foundation of an arab ethinic national state that hasn't existed yet) in the whole of israel and palestine is the disappearance of the jewish population, saying stuff as "the zionist entity must be exterminated" "the arab proletariat must crush the state of israel" will confirm to the jewish proletariat that this is the plan and they will rally only stronger around the Zionist right. Only after being chalenged for about 12 pages and the banning of some obvious anti-semites you and your friends will occasionally make some fumbled statement about that there should be place for the jewish proletariat as well in an united palestine but besides that its always half arsed (often with some coded suggestion that it will only count for the "indigenous" jews and the rest should basically fuck off where they came from) its just bankrupt posturing, the only way the state of israel will ever seize to exist as an zionist national project is under a global communist revolution in which also all the other national projects seize to exist.
demanding an end to the state of israel (instead of the reasonable tangible demand of an end to the occupation of palestine as set by the 1967 borders and an end of inner israeli appartheid and racism) is cherry picking one national ethno-supremacist project over the next. And if you do that you lose all rights to complain over the state of israel. its not that their various neighbors are socialist paradises now are they?
How many times do I need to explicitly state "Fuck National Liberation"?

[Sasha]

how many times do i need to say "i'm not an zionist"?

[Remus Bleys]

how many times do i need to say "i'm not an zionist"?
Stop acting like it. Stop giving tacit support to barbaric things such as kibbutzim.

[Sasha]

how was the kibbutzim ideal barbaric? maybe i was wrong about you, maybe you just have no bloody clue what you are talking about, but its not me giving tactic support here to dodgy shit...

oh, and goblin, you might want to come out and actually participate in these discussions for a change instead of only thanking this very select kind of posts that you do you coward.

[Remus Bleys]

Because the kibbutz were an exclusive thing created by the israeli ruling class to create a false division between the arab and iraeli proletariat?
Maybe that's why its bad?

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

There have been national liberation movements in history which have denied national liberation to other groups of people.

Northern Ireland is a prime example of this.

[Remus Bleys]

Northern Ireland is a prime example of this.
How did the UKIP British Imperialist get on the learning forum?

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Anti-semitism is a very serious thing, and when you call everyone that it ruins what it truly means.

That's rich coming from you, who claims that anyone who doesn't think racism is based 100% on economics is a racist.

Hypocrisy 101.



Also, stop using the plight of your ancestors as some kind of tool to win arguments and get sympathy for yourself, it's f*cking disgraceful

[Remus Bleys]

That's rich coming from you, who claims that anyone who doesn't think racism is based 100% on economics is a racist.

Hypocrisy 101.
Almost all things are determined by class struggle you git.

[Remus Bleys]

Also, stop using the plight of your ancestors as some kind of tool to win arguments and get sympathy for yourself, it's f*cking disgraceful
Who is doing that? Proof? Evidence?

[Sasha]

Ukip dick restricted for obvious reasons.

[Sasha]

Because the kibbutz were an exclusive thing created by the israeli ruling class to create a false division between the arab and iraeli proletariat?
Maybe that's why its bad?

Where did you get that preposterous idea? The early kibbutz movement was an communization project and at least since the second aliyah founded on socialist ideals that in general kept very warm relations with their Arab neighbors until the pogroms started, there are still some multi-ethnic kibbutzem till this very day (way to little obviously) but like this whole discussion its about the origins, not the way it turned out. Obviously a discussion could and should be had whether this outcome of dominantion by the Zionist right was ever avoidable, the discussion about Arab and "leftist" antisemitism and the inherent chauvinism embedded in nationalism is important in that imho though.

obviously my position is that it was, even without all the historic complications that the shoah brought, even if palestine was indeed "a land without people for a people without a land" which it clearly wasnt, even if all the world powesr would have butted out and didnt make such a mess off carving up the ottaman empire, indeed unavoidable because nationalism is an dead end period, but that makes the leftist origins of the whole fiasco only more interesting to study and discuss.

[Thirsty Crow]

I agree that leftists should steer clear of giving too much support to national liberationist movements but this idea that Zionism had these good intentions but was corrupted along the way is ridiculous.
I simply can't see how Zionism - the project of establishing a specific nation-state - is something other than an example of national liberation struggles is beyond me. Perhaps the point is that leftists are simply befuddled by this romanticizing of national liberation itself.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think psycho's main point is just this. Jews in the 40s were a violently oppressed nationality, and between the holocaust and violent antisemitic pogroms around the world they were alongside Roma, homosexuals and blacks unlucky enough to live in Germany and the American South, perhaps some of the most unfortunate recipients of the reactionary violence of others. Taking all moral judgement out of our view of the early Zionist settlers, we can see that European Jews were facing a holocaust and Arab Jews were facing violent riots. We can see that this violence gave them a reason to adopt a narrative of national liberation and desire to move to some place in common where they could keep one another safe more easily. Demographic reality ultimately brought them into conflict with the native Palestinians, who quite understandably were angry at being completely ignored over the question of Israel. We can object to zionism based on the effects on Palestinians but understanding the material conditions that motivated Jews to see Israel as the best possible alternative and disregard the interests of Palestinians will be important to resolving the problem.

It also helps to highlight some of the problems of national liberation struggles, and the fact that the Jewish "nation" isn't a whole lot different than other "nations" of the time, except for the fact that most who lived in their "ancestral homeland" were migrants. I will draw the parallel to Pakistani independence again - we can see how Muslim Indian nationalists had good reasons to support Pakistan from their historical point of view, but the creation of Pakistan led to the violent removal or massacre of millions of Hindus. Pakistani national liberation was national liberation for Muslims living in India, not the Hindus. On the other side, Hindu national liberation led to the same vile treatment of Muslims. Even aside from the anti-Muslim pogroms in India, Hindu national liberation ultimately prevented the national liberation of Kashmiris! Another good example from the Indian continent is Sri Lanka - Sinhalese "national liberation" led to the violent repression of the Tamil nation. Does that make all Sinhalese nationalists terrible people? Or does it make them people living in a certain context of oppression? Understanding WHY national liberation struggles focus on the problems of one group while disregarding the interests of other groups, and WHY people might support these struggles nonetheless, will be important in critiquing them from a historical, objective, non-moralistic point of view. That doesn't mean we need to throw out our moral disgust at the effects of Zionism, but it does mean we should try to get some historical perspective on its early adherents, and try to get a more nuanced view of why they believed what they believed.