Does Anti-Zionism mean Anti-Semitism?

[Sir Aunty Christ]

I'm sick to death of soft-left and centre-left commentators condemning elements of the hard and far left of being anti-semitic (check out Harry's Place (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net), there's usually something on there).

The reason why I bring it up is because as someone who would place himself on the hard left, I know that I will be pigeonholed. I also know that (hopefully) everyone on this board does not hold anti-semitic views. The thing that these commentators need to realise is that just because we oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestine (I think there are some Israeli members here, so apologies if I've hit a nerve) does not that we oppose Israelis.

Agreed, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

[Intifada]

The claim that Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitic is a lie used by the Zionists, and the sympathisers of the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, that attempts to undermine what Anti-Occupation activists argue.

It is simply an ad hominem attack.

[Clarksist]

The only issue most of us have with Isrealis in Palestine, is because the Palestines were FORCED off the land. it has nothing to do with who forced them off.

[encephalon]

anti-zionism is no more anti-judaism than zionism is judaism.

[Severian]

It does sometimes happen that "Zionist" is used as a codeword for "Jew." That's more common on the far right than the far left...but not totally unknown on the left either.

One tipoff is when somebody starts going on about "Zionists" in a context that has nothing to do with Israel or the Middle East.

[RedAnarchist]

Semites include Arabs and the Jewish.

Zionists are almost exclusively conservative Jews.

Most Semites are not Zionists, so no, anti-zionism is not anti-semitism.

[JC1]

ye.

Jews, Arabs, Armenians , Somalians, Turks and Kurds are all semitic peoples but only a small section of the jewish nation is zionist. And infact the largest Khassidic dynasty ( Satmar) is decidly anti-zionist.

[Severian]

While Semites include Arabs and other groups, the term anti-Semitism refers to anti-Jewish prejudice. Feel free to check a dictionary if you don't believe me.

[JC1]

Its become a synonm. However , you are nitpicking.

[Xanthor]

Personally to me I hate the Isreali Government not the Isreali's themselves. I hate them because ever since they were given the country of Palestine all they have done is murdered the people that live there to make way for more Zionists to live there. And all Amurica is doing is riding Sharons cock and giving them more tanks and guns and heliocopters etcetra etcetra. but to answer the question No anti-Zoinist doesnt mean your anti-semetic.

[JazzRemington]

It depends. If you just don't want Jews to have their own state and everyone else can, then you probably are anti-semitic. But, if you are anti-ALL States, including an anti-Jewish State, then you probably are not anti-semitic.

[encephalon]

If nobody's noticed by now, they're following roughly the same course that the US government did with the amer-indians. How about we not let such genocidal policies and lies work this time around? :P

[Tokey]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:09 AM
Personally to me I hate the Isreali Government not the Isreali's themselves. I hate them because ever since they were given the country of Palestine all they have done is murdered the people that live there to make way for more Zionists to live there. And all Amurica is doing is riding Sharons cock and giving them more tanks and guns and heliocopters etcetra etcetra. but to answer the question No anti-Zoinist doesnt mean your anti-semetic.
If you couldnt even go to the grocery store without worrying about wether or not your children were safe at home, or if some crazy bastard was gonna blow you to hell, wouldnt you want your government to do something about it? I dont understand why people side with the Palestinians as if they were innocent in all the bloodshed that goes on there. And if the Israelis were hell bent on taking over Palestine why would they be working with Abbas the way they are and making an attempt to leave the west bank?

[encephalon]

If you couldnt even go to the grocery store without worrying about wether or not your children were safe at home, or if some crazy bastard was gonna blow you to hell, wouldnt you want your government to do something about it? I dont understand why people side with the Palestinians as if they were innocent in all the bloodshed that goes on there. And if the Israelis were hell bent on taking over Palestine why would they be working with Abbas the way they are and making an attempt to leave the west bank?


Before making your argument, you should make sure you're aware of the history revolving around what you're talking about.

The fact is, the Zionists took the land from the palestinians.

The fact is, the Zionists continue to take the land and oppress the palestinians.

The fact is, the Israelis were the first to use terrorist tactics in founding Israel. Ever heard of the Likud? Lovely organization. Oh yeah, and sharon was quite the big shot in it.

You seem to forget that a little over 50 years ago, Israel didn't exist. Why is that, you think? Possibly because the zionists took it? That's right, they did. From all over the world, they travelled to that one little "unoccupied" place they now call home. Unoccupied just like the Americas were unoccupied.

They are attempting to leave the west bank the same way the United States attempted to leave the west alone.

Sure, we'll stay out of the West bank. That's yours, the rest we took is ours.

Sure, we'll stay out of the black hills. Sure, we'll stay east of the mississippi. We only want this part that we took. The rest is yours.

See any similarities? Of course you don't.

See any similarites between the Indian revolts and the palestinian revolts? Of course you don't. The native americans didn't exist, and the palestinians are just heartless killers out for blood. You keep thinking that.

[Tokey]

So because whites showed they couldnt be trusted to attempt to resolve issues peacefully, that means the jews have no intention of following up on their plans? I understand that land was taken from the palestinians, but that was in response to the death camps & mass murderings the Eurpean jews suffered under Hitler, the jews needed to have their own sovereign state so that they could at least be able to defend themselves if need be.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:41 AM
It depends. If you just don't want Jews to have their own state and everyone else can, then you probably are anti-semitic. But, if you are anti-ALL States, including an anti-Jewish State, then you probably are not anti-semitic.
This makes no sense. The Israeli state is an apartheid state, and it is quite possible to oppose it on that basis - as the PLO did historically. Anarchism and anti-semitism are not the only options.

Some Afrikaners whites demanded a separate white homeland as apartheid was collapsing. The ANC opposed this. Which did not prove the ANC hated Dutch people.

Just like the demand for a united, nonracial, and democratic South Africa, the only lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a united, secular, and democratic state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. What, exactly, is anti-Jewish about that?

[romanm]

Severian left out one thing:

... with the right of return.

[Edward Norton]

I understand that land was taken from the palestinians, but that was in response to the death camps & mass murderings the Eurpean jews suffered under Hitler, the jews needed to have their own sovereign state so that they could at least be able to defend themselves if need be.

From that statement, you don't understand anything!

Yes Hitler did kill jews. What has that got to do with the Palestinians and Arabs in general (don't forget Isreal continues to occupy Syrian land)?

I am sick to death of people using Jewish deaths from Germany as some bizarre excuse for Zionist oppression in arab lands. The holocuast has now been exploited to serve other causes, non of which concern human rights or racial harmony but revolve around the Jewish lobby in the US which has a very tight grip on the US government.

As for the bit about Palestinians being bloodthirsty fanatics, the Second Intifada-Uprising death toll is roughly like this:

*Palestinians 4000 dead.

*Isrealis 1500-2000 dead.

Most of Isreal's dead include their troops and military, FOR WHOM WE SHOULD NEVER MOURN THEIR DEATHS FOR THEY GOT WHAT THEY DESREVED!

Isreali's however have this habit of sending a few Apaches in to bomb a civilian area in some town. They don't even make any effort in catching their so-called terrorist enemies but just are content with killing whoever.

The ONLY just solution for this part of the middile east is the abolition of Isreal and the creation of a Palestinian state, secular or not (Hamas is now the leading force in Palestine, due to thier work amongst the poor, unlike the corrupt sellouts of the PLO). All Jewish people can decide on their own terms to live in this new Palestine or move to another nation. All Jews who reject the concept of Isreal should be given the choice of living in the Levant/Palestine.

[Tokey]

So you believe it to be unimportant that a nation of people be scattered to the wind and at the mercy of whatever government they choose to live with?

[Edward Norton]

Well the same applies for Basque people, white South Africans, American Indians, Scots, Welsh, Bretons and MANY other ethnicities.

Why are Jews so special that they need their own state at other people's expense???

Besides, if the Germans are to blame for the Jews being insecure about Jews living amongst non-Jews, since Germany did the Holocaust, why not give a part of Germany over to the Jews and let them live in a Jewish nation there?

Why is it that the Jews go over to Arab lands, not to live as equals and be on good terms with thier Arab compatriots, but to colonize them, kill them and expel them, which was what the Isreali's did in 1948, just three years after the concentration camps were closed down.

South African white now get along black just fine and they live under one nation under black leadership, why can't the Jews do the same?

[Severian]

Tokey: That sounds more like a description of what's happened to the Palestinians - except they don't get to choose what government they have to live under.

Nobody in this thread has proposed expelling Jews from Palestine. The historic PLO position specified they can stay...with equal rights. Those who can't accept the loss of their privileged racist position may choose to leave, just as some whites have left South Africa now that apartheid's gone.

I think the secular character of a united Palestine is very important, precisely because of the need to assure that Jews (and Christians, and Druse) can stay with equal rights. Few Israeli Jews will accept living under Hamas' rule. I wouldn't care for it myself.

And Israeli Jews are "at the mercy of" the U.S. right now. The whole Zionist argument that Jews can't rely on the mercy of Gentiles is meaningless because Israel is wholly dependent on the U.S. Basically Israel has just concentrated the Jews in one place so they can be wiped out more easily.

And if you, for some reason, think the U.S. can never become anti-Jewish, why shouldn't Jews just move here? What purpose Israel then?

Israel has totally failed to provide a secure haven for Jews or any of the other stated purposes of Zionism, except for being a beachhead of "european civilization" - that is, imperialism - in the Middle East.

***

Agreed, romanm.

[violencia.Proletariat]

my dad was jewish and wanted to take my family to live on a commune type thing in palestine. i dont support what israel is doing. am i anti semetic, no.

[FreeChechnya]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:59 PM
So because whites showed they couldnt be trusted to attempt to resolve issues peacefully, that means the jews have no intention of following up on their plans? I understand that land was taken from the palestinians, but that was in response to the death camps & mass murderings the Eurpean jews suffered under Hitler, the jews needed to have their own sovereign state so that they could at least be able to defend themselves if need be.
So you are saying that the Palestinian people should suffer because of what the Germans (Nazis) did?

Why is the Jewish homeland not in Germany than?
Or in Italy becuase it was the Romans that took Isreal from the Jews first.

Why should the innocent suffer because they are weak?

Use your head, and heart, please.

[Andy Bowden]

The construction of the Israeli state has meant the disposession of the Palestinian people, and a huge refugee problem. It has also done nothing to provide security for the jewish people - do you see Jews being blown up in Europe or America?

A binational solution, in which neither Jews nor Arabs can oppress each other is the best option IMO.

[Omri Evron]

Well, I am an Israeli Jew, and I have quite a lot of things to respond to in here. First of all, I want to say that being a Jew and an Israeli does not mean I can't be an anti-zionist (which I am). I don't hate Jews, I just hate Zionism, and I do not believe that being anti-zionist is the same as being anti-semetic.

I have noticed that most of you have ignored the two-state solution. The occupied Palestinians deserve their free country- and the vast majority of them want their own independent country along the border of 67' and not a unified country with Israel. Actually, this is the stance of all Palestinian parties other than the Hamas (and even leaders of the Hamas have spoken openly of this). The PLO acknowledges the existence of Israel along these borders and wishes to forge an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Also, the Communist Parties of Israel, Palestine, and Jordan support the two-state solution. I think this solution is the best because it is the most practical- a unified country will only be possible after their is peace and tolerance between both people, not before- and both sides simply want an independent state for themselves. Now it will be completely impractical to have all the Israelis and Palestinians under one government- it will symply result in a civil war and masss violance.


Most of Isreal's dead include their troops and military, FOR WHOM WE SHOULD NEVER MOURN THEIR DEATHS FOR THEY GOT WHAT THEY DESREVED!


The Israeli soldiers in Palestine, the American soldiers in Iraq, and other occupying soldiers are only victims of their own government that sends them to die- or to use marxist annalysis: the oppressive and competing system they were born to sent them to kill and die for the interests of other people (do the CEO's of the oil companies went themselves to fight in Iraq?). It is this system that encourages them to fight the working class of other nations for the interests of their bourguise- and although they are holding the weapons they are actually victims of the system as well. So we should not wish death to the soldiers that die in the Imperialist wars- we should wish them to go back home safely and not be part of any more unjust wars.

There are also a few historical mistakes in here. I think it is way too simplistic to blame everything on the Zionist reactionaries and ignore the role of the Arab reactionaries. The imperialist puppet governments of the Arab nations opened the war and sent soldiers against Israel in 1948 and were also responsible for the oppression of the Palestinians. While these armies had no intend to "liberate" the Palestinians but secure Britains rule in the area- Arab communists called their comrades not to fight against Israel but turn their anger against the Imperialist rulers of their own countries (under British commands, the leaders of the Communist Party of Iraq were publicly hanged). These countries are still responsible for the poor state of the Palestinian refugees.

Well, actually I have a lot more to say, but I already wrote a lot and I'm short on time, so this is enough for now... I just wanted to point out that although I am an anti-Zionist (and not an anti-Semetic), I think the people here should look at the Israeli-Palestinian situation a bit more closely and criticly.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Omri [email protected] 19 2005, 11:31 AM
I have noticed that most of you have ignored the two-state solution. The occupied Palestinians deserve their free country- and the vast majority of them want their own independent country along the border of 67' and not a unified country with Israel.
They have a gun to their head, and have agreed to the heavily armed robber taking 78% of Palestine. I'd probably do the same.

But I don't have the gun to my head, and am free to say the truth, which is that this is not any kind of permanent solution. And it's increasingly doubtful that the Israeli government will ever grant it; they've placed more and more settlements in the West Bank (and are still doing so) in an effort to make sure no government ever can.

In everyday politics, it's probably better to concentrate mostly on the demand for an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, as long as that remains Palestinians' main demand, so you have a point on that level.


The imperialist puppet governments of the Arab nations opened the war and sent soldiers against Israel in 1948

Debatable. Attacks on Palestinians began before a single soldier of any Arab state set foot in Palestine, and no Arab army ever entered the area designated by the UN as Israel. The King of Jordan had a secret de facto deal with Israel to divide Palestine with them. So what does it mean, to say the Arab nations attacked Israel at all, let alone first?

Their rhetoric greatly helped Israel justify its attacks on Palestinians. They demobilized and disarmed Palestinians from defending themselves, especially the Jordanian army.

But on the other hand, they were probably the main thing that prevented the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza.


Arab communists called their comrades not to fight against Israel but turn their anger against the Imperialist rulers of their own countries

Probably just another Kremlin-ordered Stalinist betrayal. The USSR was the first country to recognize Israel in '48 - good PR to be seen as pro-Jewish.

[Omri Evron]

They have a gun to their head, and have agreed to the heavily armed robber taking 78% of Palestine. I'd probably do the same.

But I don't have the gun to my head, and am free to say the truth, which is that this is not any kind of permanent solution. And it's increasingly doubtful that the Israeli government will ever grant it; they've placed more and more settlements in the West Bank (and are still doing so) in an effort to make sure no government ever can

The two-state solution is the only practical solution, and the only peace solution the majority of the Israeli public will agree to. It is true that the Israeli government is trying to make this immpossible- but a one-state solution already is immbossible. Do you realy think that the Hamas and the extremist right-wing Israelis will work under the same democratic government? Are you forgeting there are terrorist and violant anti-democratic groups on both sides that fight zealously for what they see as their nation? Both sides fear eachother greatly- do you think that they won't try to secure their ethnic majority in the country by "extreme" means if they think the other side will have a majority? And how many Jews/Palestinians will be willing to live under a Jewish/Palestinian majority government (remember that both sides have been known to use terrorism against a foriegn government when they didn't have their own independence)?
And the Palestinians don't want to controll the Israelis, they simply want their own independant country. Just like most of the Israelis don't realy want to continiue controlling the Palestinians, but they most certainly do want their own country. The goal of the Palestinians is not to controll the Israelis, and the goal of the Israelis is not to control the Palestinians. Therefore, the only way to bring peace, satisfy both sides and not have a very violent outcome is to give both sides what they mostly want- an independant country. Hopefully, in the futere these two countries could be united, but only after most of the hatered and revenge dies away. And ofcourse I hope that both countries will be secular, democratic and equal for all the citizens (that is- not a Jewish state and a Muslim state). But in any event- peace is the main priority.

[Free Palestine]

To respond to the author of the thread's post, I completely agree. The promiscuous use of the label "anti-Semitic" to tar and feather any critic of Israel has got to stop. I can't see these people's words differ from American Senator McCarthy using the dangerously-loaded slur, Communist, applied to anyone he didn't want working in the State Department or in Hollywood.

I would also point out that the reason so many abuse the taboo of "anti-Semitism" is to support Israel's racist and genocidal policy towards the Palestinians. The campaign against the supposed "new anti-Semitism" is basically a ploy on the part of the Anti-Defamation League (big Zionist think-tank) to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians. This act does nothing less than desecrate the memory of those Jewish victims of the Holocaust, whose death is meaningful only in as much as it serves as an eternal warning to humankind against ALL kinds of discrimination, racism, and genocide.

[Free Palestine]

Sorry to double-post, but saying someone is untrustworthy or anti-Semitic because they are anti-Zionist is like saying they can't be trusted because they are anti-racist and pro-human rights. There's nothing wrong with being anti-Zionist and I doubt anyone who would make such an accusation even knows what Zionism is. The official goal of Zionism has always been the complete explusion of all Arabs from Israel. It is indeed a racist ideology since its purpose is to create a Jewish majority in Palestine. That's why the Jews there have been illegally placing settlements in land that isn't legally part of Israel. Quite ironic set of circumstances actually, since the accuser in this case, by defending Zionism, is the one who is treading on racist grounds.

[Phalanx]

No, Anti-Zionist doesn't mean anti-semitic, but many people hide under the label anti-zionist who are really anti-semitic. Yes, I agree to free palestine, but I also must express frustration to those that complain about the Israelis and yet turn a blind eye to the atrocities in Sudan, Nepal, Uganda, DRC, Colombia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

[Free Palestine]

In my opinion the Palestinian cause is ostensibly ignored and extremely unpopular, even among lefties. Many well-meaning comrades avoid the subject and want nothing of Palestine's controversy. Yet they have time for Bosnia and Somalia and South Africa and Nicaragua and human and civil rights everywhere on Earth, but not for Palestine and Palestinians. It is a thankless cause, after all, you get nothing back but abuse and ostracism. In any case I will never hesitated to declare my affiliation for it.

[Phalanx]

This is true, but then again, the crisises in Bosnia, South Africa, and Nicaragua were much worse than the current situation in Israel and Palestine.

[bezdomni]

I don't believe in a jewish homeland, nor do I believe in an islamic homeland, a christian homeland or anything else. We shouldn't build countries based on religous or ethnic identities, but rather, destroy the social barriers that inherently exist in these differing identities in order to eliminate the need of countries all together. These silly things like religion and ethnicity tear us apart as an international human race, and as socialists we cannot support either Israel or Palestine due to their nature.

However, not supporting Israel doesn't make me anti-semetic just as my lack of support for the KKK doesn't make me anti-white...etc.

Many important people in our movement have been jewish (Marx himself). How can we be anti-semetic when we follow the ideas of a jew?

[Xanthor]

Well to me, this whole fiasco in palestine (I refuse to call it the I word) is sounding a lot like what Hitler did in Germany. Hitler didnt want any Jews in his beloved Germany so he sent them away in wagons to thier deaths. Sharon doesn't want any Arabs in his beloved Isreal so instead of killing them he makes a deal with the Palestinean leaders. "Take all of your people out of MY country and put them all in a 2 tiny plots of land and then we will build a huge wall so none of your people will taint my pure isrealis". Thats what it sounds like to me.


Many important people in our movement have been jewish (Marx himself). Marx was Jewish by birth but he didnt practice Judaism or really care about jews. As a child if someone would push him he might say something like "don't push me you jew". His father also made his family become a Lutheran so they could become a more prestigous family. also Hitler used him being born jewish to further create hate and animosity towards communists and Jews. Just FYI.

[Phalanx]

I think that the comparison between the two is outrageous. Leftists it seems overreact and never actually think about what they're saying. What is happening in Israel/Palestine to me is nowhere near that of what happened in Rwanda, Germany, Turkey, Sudan, and countless other places.

[Xanthor]

I think that the comparison between the two is outrageous. Leftists it seems overreact and never actually think about what they're saying. What is happening in Israel/Palestine to me is nowhere near that of what happened in Rwanda, Germany, Turkey, Sudan, and countless other places. yes but you got to remember that this thread is about
Does Anti-Zionism mean Anti-Semitism? not the armanien genocide or the jewish genocide or tutsi genocide etcetra etcetra before you make a post like that read the thread title no offense to you

[che-Rabbi]

Alright, first of all
-The origional Zionists were:
-Jaw dropped when they got out of Europe with theyre dicks between theyre legs
-So paranoid of everyone that when they finaly had a home where they werent governed by Gentiles they went insane and became very afraid (as any holocaust survivor would) of people coming to take you away to the death camps.

Listen folks, most jews will agree that what Sharon and Bush are doing in Israel is an atrocity. Nobody wants to see theyre holy land at war and if antisemites want to blame someones religion for Israels support, blame evangelical Christians. Theyre Israels largest supporters.

Most Zionists arent even jewish anymore. At my synagogue, everyone agrees that what does it matter if the we own it and the arabs stay or if they own it and we stay, its our home aswell as theyres and theyres room enough for the both of us so in conclusion, dont blame Israel for everything, its probably the most well behaved counrty in that area and take a good look at all of those arab counrties who have been trying to destroy Israel even before the government had a chance to make ass's of themselves.

[che-Rabbi]

[QUOTE] non of which concern human rights or racial harmony but revolve around the Jewish lobby in the US which has a very tight grip on the US government.

Well thank you for that rediculous comment which im sure will help all faiths work towards racial harmony.

[Severian]

Originally posted by che-[email protected] 3 2005, 10:54 PM
Listen folks, most jews will agree that what Sharon and Bush are doing in Israel is an atrocity. Nobody wants to see theyre holy land at war and if antisemites want to blame someones religion for Israels support, blame evangelical Christians. Theyre Israels largest supporters.
The Israeli Labor Party is also Zionist, and also a supporter of the dispossession of the Palestinian people. And not even in favor of a full withdrawal to the 1967 borders (which would include a withdrawal from East Jerusalem. The Labor Party platform calls for keeping the Jordan River as "Israel's security border."

Whether someone agrees with Bush and Sharon, or not, is pretty unimportant. The Democratic Party and the Israeli Labor Party are no better.

Most American Jews do support the Israeli state. And on issues like a full withdrawal to the '67 borders, they are if anything to the right of the Israeli Jewish population. Some of the most ultrarightist elements of the Israeli Jewish population, including some of the ultraright settlers, are American immigrants.

(Probably has a lot to do with the heavily middle-class composition of the U.S. Jewish population today...it ain't exactly like the 30s when there were millions of Jewish garment workers.)



(Edward Norton) non of which concern human rights or racial harmony but revolve around the Jewish lobby in the US which has a very tight grip on the US government.

(Che-Rabbi)Well thank you for that rediculous comment which im sure will help all faiths work towards racial harmony.

You're quite right there. The "Jewish lobby" line is an ultraright line which seeks to promote anti-Semitism...and is ridiculous on its face, to suggest that the most powerful ruling class in world history cannot pursue a foreign policy that serves its interests. "Edward Norton" has recently gone over to the ultraright, specifically its "Islamic" form, been restricted to Opposing Ideologies, and left this board.

The U.S. government aids Israel because that serves the interests of U.S. imperialism...Israel is one of the clients and proxies which Uncle Sam uses to police the world.

[viva le revolution]

Well in it's beginning Zionism was a secular force, nationalistic but secular. It was not really supported by the israeli right. Only after the israeli victory in the six-day war and the near-defeat in the yom kippur war, only then did the israeli right enter the zionist movement. since then zionist politics have had a profound religious side to their policies. (For info on the rise of zionism i would reccommend karen armstrong's battle for god)
Therefore i would say that zionist policies in the middle-east and the jewish religion are not the same, and are entirely different things. so, no anti-zionism isn't the same as anti-semitism.

P.s, anti-semitism is not a proper word to use when describing anti-jewish behaviour and attitude, semite does not refer to a specific racial group but to a language group. for example both hebrew and arabic are semitic languages, their speakers are classified as semitic peoples. so anti semitism does not mean only anti-jew but anti-arab attitudes as well. just thought you'd like to know.

[Severian]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 4 2005, 02:01 PM
[Zionism] was not really supported by the israeli right. Only after the israeli victory in the six-day war and the near-defeat in the yom kippur war, only then did the israeli right enter the zionist movement.
No. Zionism - which means, support for the state of Israel, look it up - is and since 1948 has been the common ideology of all parties in Israeli politics, except the Israeli CP, parties supported by "Israeli Arabs", and the far left....

To give you an example, the refuseniks, who refuse to do military service in the occupied territories, have been accused of "not understanding Zionism"...they answer that they are just as Zionist as their pro-occupation opponents. And they're correct.

P.S. although Arabs are also semites, any dictionary will tell you that anti-Semitism means specifically hatred of Jews. Look it up.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:05 PM

No. Zionism - which means, support for the state of Israel, look it up - is and since 1948 has been the common ideology of all parties in Israeli politics, except the Israeli CP, parties supported by "Israeli Arabs", and the far left....

To give you an example, the refuseniks, who refuse to do military service in the occupied territories, have been accused of "not understanding Zionism"...they answer that they are just as Zionist as their pro-occupation opponents. And they're correct.

P.S. although Arabs are also semites, any dictionary will tell you that anti-Semitism means specifically hatred of Jews. Look it up.
Yes it means that, the founders of Israel weren't religious. it was a secular movement opposed by the far right Haredi religious group and various other fundamentalist groups. Zionism in itself atarted out as a secular nationalist movement. The goal: collect the diaspora back into israel.
It has been common ideology since 1948, i did not dispute that, only that the religious right hopped on the bandwagon after the two wars.
The refusniks actually are made up not only of left-leaning but also of fundamentalist elements. for example, the haredi jewsetc. they actually opposed the creation of israel and some military service because of their religious ideology which states that the jewish people are condemned to suffer in this world and suffer persecutionby the gentiles. No action should be taken by the jews to redeem themselves. only the coming messiah can do that and lead the jews to salvation. It is quite interesting because each faction has a different if not conflicting set of beliefs. Again i would recommend the book, it is quite brilliant in trcing the rise of fundamentalism and provides a description of each groups specific beliefs and the initial conflict between the zionist and religious movement in israel. However after the wars the religious right joined in the zionist movement because the very existence of the jews in israel were seen to be at stake, an clear example of fundamentalist tendency to interpret political events and conflicts in an apocalyptic sense.


P.s i do know that the dictionary defines it as such but the fact is that the terminology used is not correct, for example if an arab insults a jew, he will be called an anti semite, my question would be, how could a person belonging to a semitic group himself be accused of anti-semitism?

[LSD]

P.s, anti-semitism is not a proper word to use when describing anti-jewish behaviour and attitude

Yes it is.

The word, as invented by Willhelm Marr (although I suppose you could trace it back to von Treitschke), explicitly means "jew-hatred".

Sometimes historical etymology does not correlate with dissective lexigraphy, just look at "homophobia".


my question would be, how could a person belonging to a semitic group himself be accused of anti-semitism?

Because antisemitism does not mean "hatred of semites", it means "hatred of jews". I understand that the terminology can be somewhat confused, but that's what the word was invented to mean and that's what it's meant for a hundred and fifty years.

[viva le revolution]

Oh okay.
Just one question, what would an anti-arab be called?

[LSD]

Racist.

Because there isn't a history of "scientific" racism with regards to Arabs, as there is with regards to Jews, specialized terminology hasn't been developed.

Recently, "anti-arabism" has become the standard term used to signify racial hatred of Arabs.

[viva le revolution]

ok thanks.

[Free Palestine]

The goal: collect the diaspora back into israel.

You neglect to mention that nearly all Zionist pioneers viewed compulsory expulsion as a necesarry condition for the creation of a viable Jewish state. If you really want to discuss the ideology of Zionism, its origins and its purpose, this fact cannot be ignored.

[Camarada]

It's not anti-semitism to criticize Israeli policy.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 4 2005, 09:15 PM

The goal: collect the diaspora back into israel.

You neglect to mention that nearly all Zionist pioneers viewed compulsory expulsion as a necesarry condition for the creation of a viable Jewish state. If you really want to discuss the ideology of Zionism, its origins and its purpose, this fact cannot be ignored.
Yes that was part of the zionist mission, to displace arabs using compulsory expulsion and intimidation. to create a 'PURE' jewish israel. Sorry for the lack of mention, but that is a step that is pretty obvoius to everyone taking into account israel's history and present policies.

[Donnie]

It depends. If you just don't want Jews to have their own state and everyone else can, then you probably are anti-semitic. But, if you are anti-ALL States, including an anti-Jewish State, then you probably are not anti-semitic.
It's a well known fact that Mikhail Bakunin was anti-semitic, for some reason I don't know why? Most of the stuff Bakunin said was right but his anti-semitic views I do not agree with at all for example he stated this:

the Jews as "one exploiting sect, one people of leeches, one single devouring parasite closely and intimately bound together not only across national boundaries, but also across all divergences of political opinion ... [Jews have] that mercantile passion which constitutes one of the principle traits of their national character"

Although some people debate whether he was talking about Semites or about those practicing Judaism; but it must be noted that he did at all times spoke out against all religions and Christianity and Judaism are dominant in Europe of his time.

[YKTMX]

No, that's a stupid suggestion. Firstly, there is a great amount of Jewish history and thought which is fundamentally opposed to the creation of a Jewish state on both religious and moral grounds.

Secondly, we are anti-Zionist not because we sometimes mistrust the Jews but because we always oppose racism and imperialism. Israel, as it stands, is a racist state - like apartheid South Africa. Did anyone suggest that perhaps Nelson Mandela was an "anti-white extremist" (well, some did)? And we also oppose Zionism because we have seen what it leads to, and in who's interests it works.

Since it's inception, the Hijack state has been a tool of Western Imperialism in the Gulf, and the source of many the West's current problems with Islamisism. I favour the creation of ONE STATE, called Palestine, with Jews and Muslims living together without racism or religious division. It might not seem like it now, but it's possible, and desirable.

[Seeker]

non of which concern human rights or racial harmony but revolve around the Jewish lobby in the US which has a very tight grip on the US government.

Well thank you for that rediculous comment which im sure will help all faiths work towards racial harmony.

Replace "jewish lobby" with "Israeli lobby" and the statement become accurate.

Yesterday it was reported that 2 more Israeli spys had to be deported. It seems like we find a few more every couple months or so. This begs the question, "Just how many are there?"

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:02 PM
Replace "jewish lobby" with "Israeli lobby" and the statement become accurate.
How? Both statements refer to the same groups, like AIPAC. It's just that one statement is openly anti-Semitic and other is thinly-veiled anti-Semitism.

What I said earlier applies to both:
The "Jewish lobby" line is an ultraright line which seeks to promote anti-Semitism...and is ridiculous on its face, to suggest that the most powerful ruling class in world history cannot pursue a foreign policy that serves its interests.....The U.S. government aids Israel because that serves the interests of U.S. imperialism. Israel is one of the clients and proxies which Uncle Sam uses to police the world.


Yesterday it was reported that 2 more Israeli spys had to be deported. It seems like we find a few more every couple months or so. This begs the question, "Just how many are there?"

Who cares? Except maybe from a "patriotic American", i.e. pro-imperialist starting point, where you start looking for "unpatrotic" or maybe "rootless cosmopolitant" minorities to pillory for endangering "America"s "national security"....

[viva le revolution]

Well actually the term Israeli lobby is pretty accurate. The makeup of the administration contains a lot of protestant fundamentalists and hawks. They are most vocal about support for israel. This not out of love for the jews but because they believe that a jewish state in the middle east will hasten the second coming of christ or something like that. Religion plays a big part in american politics, so yes there does exist an israeli lobby, but made up of protestant fundamentalistswho are doing it for their own reasons.

[viva le revolution]

a classic example of why religion and politics don't mix well.

[BuyOurEverything]

I think the problem with this whole situation is that the issues and even the terminology have been so confused and the situation is incredibly complex, yet everyone looks for simplistic solutions. One of the problems is that the term 'jew' doesn't neccessarily mean one who practices the jewish religion. So does being anti-jewish make you racist or anti-judaism? Second, the issue of Zionism has been incredibly confused. Zionism gained popularity after WWII because of the persecution Jews had been through and because Europe and the US were still very anti-semetic and Jews had no where to go. Most other cultures, ethnicities, and religions had countries (Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims all have them, even if they exist within the structure of a secular state there's no way anyone can say the US isn't a Christian country). At that point in time, Zionism made sense, it had nothing to do with anti-Palestinian feelings or a desire to enslave another people. At that point, pretty much every surrounding Arab country invaded, and Israel's desperate need for a military coincided nicely with the US's need for a friendly military power in the middle east.

I would argue that the current oppression of the Palestinian people is not so much a product of Zionism as it is a combined product of opopertunist Right wing Israelis and oppertunist Arab countries. Arab countries set up refugee camps and purposely kept them poor so that they could be used as weapons against Israel. Right wing Israelis used the ensuing conflict to grasp power and expand Israel's borders. If history has shown us anything it's that it's easy as shit to get people to support militarism and exsesive security when there's bombs going off left and right.

The only solution for this situation is a two state one and an end to all military aggression on both sides. As badass as it may seem to support some poor bastard who straps a bomb to himself and blows up a bus or a military outpost, all it does is help the right wing, who by now are already pretty much firmly in control. And of course, they continue to shoot rockets off into residential areas in hopes of provoking more of these attacks. No more military action is needed.

As for the equating anti-semitism with anti-Zionism, I'd say there's actually a grain of truth to it. I mean, I'm as anti-country as the next communist but I'm also a realist; it's not gonna happen overnight. There's nothing wrong with opposing the government of Israel or its actions or those of its military, but to oppose Israel's right to exist without opposing every other country's with equal ferver smacks of anti-semitism (or as I'd say is more the case at this site: of mindless dogmatism). Most people here support an independant Kurdistan, and Palestine for that matter, why not Israel?

[BuyOurEverything]

bump

[Reds]

If anti-zionism means anti-semitism then one of my close friends is an anti-semtic jew.

[Weltmann]

Originally posted by "Severian"+--> ("Severian")Zionism - which means, support for the state of Israel, look it up - is and since 1948 has been the common ideology of all parties in Israeli politics, except the Israeli CP, parties supported by "Israeli Arabs", and the far left....[/b]
Besides the Anti-Zionism of the small radical left (and of the Arab parties), the ultra-orthodox religious parties in Israel (some of which are represented in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, having 5 members out of 120) have also traditionally considered themselves "non-Zionist", but from a religious point of view. They believe that it is wrong to establish a secular Jewish state, and that a Jewish state in Palestine can only be established after the 'Geula', the 'redemption', i.e the coming of the messiah. This debate between Zionists and ultra-religious, dates back to the late 19th century, when the Zionist movement first emerged in the Jewish communities of Europe.

It's worth to mention that although ideologically these parties are self-labeled 'non-Zionist', they are effectivelly Zionist, with their support for the occupation, the discrimination against the Arab-Palestinian minority within Israel, etc.


"Severian"
To give you an example, the refuseniks, who refuse to do military service in the occupied territories, have been accused of "not understanding Zionism"...they answer that they are just as Zionist as their pro-occupation opponents. And they're correct.
The refusenik movement in Israel is quite diverse. You're referring to the "Courage to Refuse" (http://www.seruv.org.il/english/default.asp) folks, which are more moderate and center-leaning than other refuseniks. They actually produced a campaign called "Refusing the occupation is Zionism", which represented a total misunderstanding of the nature of Zionist ideology and practice.

Luckily, there are far more radical elements in the refusenik movement, most notablly the Shministim (http://www.shministim.org/), which are a group of highschool students who refuse to enlist to the army. Currently, there are two jailed refuseniks (both are 18 years old) and in September, another one will be jailed. The Young Communist League of Israel (YCLI) is very active in the Shministim movement, to the point that "Makor Rishon" - a major rightwing newspaper in Israel - published an article that tried to prove that it is actually a front organization for YCLI... :D

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:09 AM
It's worth to mention that although ideologically these parties are self-labeled 'non-Zionist', they are effectivelly Zionist, with their support for the occupation, the discrimination against the Arab-Palestinian minority within Israel, etc.
Exactly. If anything, they object that the Israeli state is too "secular."


The refusenik movement in Israel is quite diverse. You're referring to the "Courage to Refuse" (http://www.seruv.org.il/english/default.asp) folks, which are more moderate and center-leaning than other refuseniks. They actually produced a campaign called "Refusing the occupation is Zionism", which represented a total misunderstanding of the nature of Zionist ideology and practice.

Why is that a misunderstanding? If the occupation is ended, that would be a major step forward of course, but Israel will remain a Zionist state founded on the exclusion of the refugees and a second-class status even for Palestinian citizens of Israel.


Luckily, there are far more radical elements in the refusenik movement, most notablly the Shministim (http://www.shministim.org/), which are a group of highschool students who refuse to enlist to the army. Currently, there are two jailed refuseniks (both are 18 years old) and in September, another one will be jailed. The Young Communist League of Israel (YCLI) is very active in the Shministim movement, to the point that "Makor Rishon" - a major rightwing newspaper in Israel - published an article that tried to prove that it is actually a front organization for YCLI... :D

Right. That's why I specified, refuse to serve in the occupied territories. From what I've seen, that seems like a much larger group than those who refuse to serve, period.

[Weltmann]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:17 PM
Why is that a misunderstanding? If the occupation is ended, that would be a major step forward of course, but Israel will remain a Zionist state founded on the exclusion of the refugees and a second-class status even for Palestinian citizens of Israel.
The "Courage to Refuse" movement claims that Zionism, in essence, has a democratic and humanistic vision, and that the occupation and the settlers are distorting the true image of Zionism...

Thus they display a misunderstanding of the nature of Zionist ideology (which is racist and bourgeois) and Zionist practice (which is colonialist, and closely linked with the interests of Western imperialist powers).