Zionism is a disgrace to the human race

[Conghaileach]

Zionism is a Disgrace to the Human Race
— by: Lorenzo Canizares

[55 years ago they stole our houses, our land, our history and our
present, but they will never be bale to steal our identity, our future
and our rights, even in million years rights will overcome the power,
Zionism is the most racist ideology on the earth they stole our land and
the Jewish identity at the same time]

One of the biggest injustices of the twentieth century — the 55th
anniversary of the establishment of the State of "Israel" — is being
celebrated in a manner bordering on the scandalous. The implantation of
the zionist entity in Palestine has been rightly described as the
al-Nakba (the catastrophe) by Palestinians.

The hoopla surrounding Israeli celebrations conveniently ignores the
fact that European Jews stole Palestine in connivance with the European
powers, primarily Britain. This was only made possible by driving out
the indigenous population — the Palestinians — from their ancestral
lands, through terror and mass murder.

The zionists have peddled the mythology of turning "deserts into
orchards" with the active collaboration of the West. Their claim to
Palestine is based on a complete perversion of historical facts
sprinkled with Biblical references to geography. The Zionists — most of
them secular fanatics who have nothing to do with Judaism — have reduced
the Bible to a real estate manual.

Shedding the blood of the Palestinians launched the zionist colonial
settler enterprise. It has been sustained through terror, the most
common characteristic of the zionists, for 55 years. More than 475
Palestinian towns and villages were completely wiped out. There is no
trace left of them anymore.

Soon after the June 1967 war, Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed Israeli general
(may it burn in the "Gehenna"), had boasted to a group of visiting Jews
from the U.S. that the present generation had expanded the boundaries of
the State of "Israel" this far. Now it was up to the next generation to
take them further. He also candidly admitted that hundreds of
Palestinian villages and towns had been wiped out.

Contrary to zionist propaganda, now admitted even by some Israeli
historians, the Palestinian inhabitants of these once-thriving towns did
not flee on orders from the Arab regimes. They fled in the face of the
zionist terror machine. Deir Yasin (April 9, 1948) was but one example
of numerous zionist atrocities perpetrated against innocent civilians.
Palestinian women were parade naked in the streets. Many of them were
bayoneted to death before their bodies were dumped in wells. At least
750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes in this campaign to
settle European Jews in Palestine. This obscenity is being celebrated
today as a great achievement.

Many leaders of the zionist terrorist gangs (may they also burn in the
"Gehenna") — Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir et el — later became prime
ministers of the "only democracy in the Middle East."

While America continues her massive annual handouts to the parasite
state of Israel, many American citizens are denied many of their basic
needs.

[Blasphemy]

We must not allow ourselves to be blinded by propaganda. Many of the facts presented in this short article are simply untrue.

Deir Yasin was a henious crime perpetrated by the member of the National Military Organization. The LMO was a small organization, his members numbering in around 60-100, which is now looked upon by a large percentage in the Israeli public as a terrorist organization. Around 80 Palestinian were murdered in the village, but there was no parading whatsoever of naked Palestinian women.

Also, the Arab villages were never "thriving" in this land. They were always under-developed, its inhabitants poor, infrastructure was basically non-existant, paved roads were a rarity and clean water remained a dream.

I am not trying to justify the acts of terrorism committed by the underground organizations in Israel. But the crimes committed by them do not testify on Zionism itself. Crimes were committed by Communists as well, but I find it hard to believe that you oppose Communism as an ideology. In itself, Zionism is not "evil" or "fascist", it just doesn't work the way it was theoratically suppose to work.

[Conghaileach]

As my undertsanding, Zionism is the movement for a Jewish homeland. The reason I oppose this ideology is its inherently racist tendencies. Imagine the uproar if there was a "white" homeland, or a "hetero" homeland.

[il Commy]

Self determination is one of the democratic rights. As a part from the socialist revolution we must support all the democratic rights of the proletarians, this one also.

Jew are a nation. Even if a hundred years ago we could argue that, after the events of the 20'st century we can't. Therefore, jews have the right for self determenation (not a facist kind of course).

But jews are not a regular nation. 2000 years ago they were expelled from ancient Judea by the roman empire. In the new age (after the industrial revolution) jews lived in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. But the jewish ancient nation was not earased because jews around the world kept a similar culture and religion which "united" them and kept them from being a full part of the nation which they live in (the jewish religion has national characteristics) .

Because of that, jews didn't have a national movement against feodalism like the nations of Europe. Their national movement has established because of the sinking of capitalism. The capistalists tried to keep their regime by trying to make the fight for workers rights a nationalist war and not a class war, and in countries like Germany they succeeded. Because the jews were a minority in many lands, they suffered from it alot.

Those events made it necessary for a jewish national movement. But because the jews lived all over the world, a special national movement was necessary - a national imigartion movement.

This was not like the Europian national movements, europians had a land and only had to release themselves from feidalismimperialism. This wasn't like the imigration movments to americasouth africa, because of it's national character.

Am I a zionist? I wrote about it before. I support it in subordination to the socialist revolution. I think jews should gather in Israel and that zionism must be released from imperialism (UK in the past, US now). I also think that like all national-movements of the bourgeoisie we should stop it from conquering other nations (Palestine) for it's needs. I don't support a nationalist jewish state - I oppose a transfer of the arabs, I am in favor of a normal if not open imigration policy and I believe the '48 Nakba refugees should return to their homeland. Co-existence is the future for the workers of Israel and Palestine.

Zionism must be supported against imperialism, than destroyed by a proletarian revolution. After the revolution we will establish two states - Israel and Palestine (Palestine would be on Gaza and the west bank). Than, after all Nakba refugees would return to the houses that were built for them or compensated, after the consciousness of the people would be ready for co-existance - we could unite the 2 states to one.

[Blasphemy]

Quote: from CiaranB on 8:44 pm on May 9, 2003
As my undertsanding, Zionism is the movement for a Jewish homeland. The reason I oppose this ideology is its inherently racist tendencies. Imagine the uproar if there was a "white" homeland, or a "hetero" homeland.


Or even a terrible thing like a "Palestinian" homeland, or a "Kurdish" homeland.

The idea of Zionism is that Jews are not a race, like "white", but a nationality, like the Palestinian nationality, or the Kurdish one.

[Reuben]

Agrees with blasphemy.

At the time zionism came about the jews of eastern europe were a distinct national or ethnic entity who spole their own languae etc. IZionism was modelled on the movement of many stateless ethnic groups who at the time wished to have a state/homeland.

I m not a zionist, however i do not believe that the notion that heir should be a homeland for the jews in any less legitimate han the idea that their should be a homeland for the romani (Gypsie) people or any other ethnic group. I would not have promoted this path for the jews but at the same time i would not have promoted national liberation as means of emancipating the Working class for many of the nationals minorities of europe while still reconising this as a right. If anything, in the context of pre waar eastern europe the jews had a greater claim than many other national groups such as the poles, since the oppression suffered by Jews in the Russian empire hadd been far far greater and was continued by the polish state in the 1930s (in Tsarist Russia there were over 1400 national anti-semitic laws - Orlando Figes)

To conclude i do not [promote[i/] national liberation as necessarily the best way forward for any working class.

I recognise that forming a state whose predominant character was jewish, in the area o palestine was inevitably going to be based on disgustin levels of ethnc cleansing, and that is what occurred.

However i do not regard the the basic idea of a jewish homeland (in no specific area) as less legitimate than the claims mde by many other national/ethnic groups and recognise that in Tsarist Russia, in 1930s poland, in the Warsaw ghetto and in the Displaced persons camp which followedd WW2 it is incredibly understandable that people turned to th idea of jewish national liberation, while the effects of excersising this right in palestine were completely unjustifiable.

I believe that the article was wrong to describe this movement as one of 'Secular Fanatics'. In eastern europe after hundreds of years of continual persecution, persecution which even a socialist revolution did not bring an end to, one would not have to be a fanatic to regard the theoretical idea of a jewish state as not only viable but necessary

[Severian]

The distinction between race and nationality is not the point. Scientifically, there is no such thing as race. Most groups referred to as races or ethnicity are in reality nationalities.

It seems apparent to me that this phony distinction made by blasphemy and Reuben was not Ciaran's point, as he mentions a "hetero" homeland, and obviously heterosexuals are not a race.

Rather, the distinction is between oppressed and oppressing groups. It should not be necessary to point out to people who consider themselves communist that there is a distinction between the oppressed and the oppressor, but apparently it is.

Jews were/are an oppressed group in Europe, of course. In the Arab countries, for that matter. A demand for self-determination directed AGAINST the imperialist powers of Europe could have been supported by communists under some circumstances. Heck, the USSR did actually set up Biro-Bidjan in a sparsely populated area, where it was not necessary to drive out the native people in order to have a Jewish-majority homeland.

But take a bunch of European Jews, or just about anyone from Europe, and transplant 'em to the colonized world, and Presto! oppressing nationality.

There have been enough colonial-settler states in history, from North America to Australia to Africa, that this is not really an unknown phenomenon. Many of these colonial-settler states were settled largely groups of people who were oppressed in Europe, but this changed nothing in their relations with the native peoples they drove out.

So the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine is pretty analogous to the idea of an Afrikaner homeland in South Africa. The "voortrekkers" migration definitely also had a "national character", as Il Commy puts it, and was a response to persecution that included concentration camps (though not extermination camps.)

Or perhaps, to one of the excuses for continued British rule in Northern Ireland - the idea that Irish Protestants - the descendants of settlers from Britian - have a right to self-determination that lets them separate from the rest of Ireland.

Communists demand the right of self-determination for OPPRESSED nations.

And, BTW, the demand for a Kurdish or Palestinian homeland does not necessarily involve the demand that someone else lose their homeland, which the call for a Jewish state in Palestine inevitably did. After all, there is already a territory where they are a majority.

Unless you support efforts by Kurdish nationalist parties to ethnically cleanse Arabs and Turkmenis from territory they control, that would be somewhat analogous to support for a Jewish state in Palestine.

[Reuben]

[i]Jews were/are an oppressed group in Europe, of course. In the Arab countries, for that matter. A demand for self-determination directed AGAINST the imperialist powers of Europe could have been supported by communists under some circumstances. Heck, the USSR did actually set up Biro-Bidjan in a sparsely populated area, where it was not necessary to drive out the native people in order to have a Jewish-majority homeland.

But take a bunch of European Jews, or just about anyone from Europe, and transplant 'em to the colonized world, and Presto! oppressing nationality.
[i/]

You appear to have completely misread my post. If you look at my above post i completely condemned the idea of creating a jewish state in palestine saying 'I recognise that forming a state whose predominant character was jewish, in the area o palestine was inevitably going to be based on disgustin levels of ethnc cleansing, and that is what occurred. ' (check it its in my previous post)

All i was saying ( nd you can check this as well) was that i felt that the basic idea of a jewish state in no specific area was not theoretically less legitimate than the claims made by other national liberation movements offer in better circumstances.

You have either not read my post properl or deliberately misread it.

[Severian]

You're right, Reuben, I misunderstood you.

[il Commy]

The problem here is that the facist education system and all other goverment systems shove to peoples head that "anti-semitism is a native phenomenon which appears naturaly within non-jews", "a jewish state is the only thing that can save us", "anyone objecting to a jewish state is a anti-semitic", "the palestinians who demand the right of return only wants to destroy the jewish state and destroy the jews!!".

Zionist jews came here because of the horrors of the sinking of capitalism. They had nowhere else to seek for a home after the holocaust and the pogroms. They didn't came here to commit an ethnic cleansing, at least most of them came to live together with the arabs. But, as everybody was swept by the "jewish state" idea, the Nakba ('the disaster' in arabic) occured. Than the local bourgeoisie started to take control and use racist manipulation to control the masses, a prcess which was pushed much farther in '67 when israeli capitalism discovered that having a few millions conquered slaves in Gaza and The West Bank is kind of nice.

As marxists, we try to penetrate into people and make them see that socialism and co-existance are the best way for all working men and women. But the racism is very strong, and one could see it well when the right-wing Likud won the election big time - though being corrupted and attacking workers financialy.

[Conghaileach]

I'm still having trouble seeing the Jewish people as an ethic group rather than a religious one.

Could someone explain this to me please?

[Severian]

Quote: from il Commy on 4:00 pm on May 14, 2003
Zionist jews came here because of the horrors of the sinking of capitalism. They had nowhere else to seek for a home after the holocaust and the pogroms.

More precisely, the Jewish refugees were not ALLOWED to go anywhere else. Shiploads of refugees were turned away in New York harbor during the Holocaust - without any protest from the major U.S. Jewish organizations, or anyone except socialist and communist groups and parts of the labor movement.

We now know, also, that European Jews would have been safer staying put post-WWII than moving to Israel - probably the one place in the world where Jews are least safe today. Hard for people to know immediately post-WWII, of course.

Ciaran...I dunno. "Ethnic group" is unscientific generally, usually a euphemism for nationality. (If you look up ethnicity in an older dictionary, the definition's all about blood relatedness and similar myth-of-race nonsense.)

It might not be accurate to say that all Jews, everywhere, are one nationality - for one thing, nationality usually implies a common language. But in, say, Eastern Europe, Jews did have a common language, Yiddish, which was distinct from the surrounding Slavic languages - heck, it's mostly German-based. Really, most Marxists and, well, everyone, seemed to recognize Jews in E. Europe and Russia as a separate nationality. Most communists were pretty sceptical about prospects for a national solution to the problem, though, either territorial or cultural-personal autonomy in the Austro-Marxist style.

One interesting book on the history of all this is The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation by Abram Leon.

[WUOrevolt]

agree with CiaranB

[Blasphemy]

Quote: from CiaranB on 7:26 pm on May 14, 2003
I'm still having trouble seeing the Jewish people as an ethic group rather than a religious one.

Could someone explain this to me please?


It's quite simple - it is not you job to decide for other people if they are a race or a nationality. Let the people decide for themselves. There are about 12-13 million Jewish people in the world. About half of them, 6 million roughly, reside in Israel, and see Judaism as a nationality that came to be through Zionism. A great deal of Jews outside Israel are also Zionists who support the existence of Israel. I think it is safe to assume that a pretty large majority of the Jews worldwide support Zionism and the notion of a Jewish homeland. You do not have the moral right to doubt the beliefs of other people, and of groups you do not belong to when it comes to matters like this. I, as a Jew, chose a different path than the rest of my fellow Jews, and don't believe that Zionism can truly liberate the Jews. I don't think that most Jews are "wrong", but quite clearly, their idea of "liberation" is different than my own.

When millions of people who obviously have more than one thing in common, who share a history of thousands of years and a similiar culture look at themselves as a national group, it is very hard for people from the outside to judge that decision. Don't try to.

[ID2002]

As they say man......... Iron lion zion got the picture ?

[Reuben]

Quote: from CiaranB on 5:26 pm on May 14, 2003
I'm still having trouble seeing the Jewish people as an ethic group rather than a religious one.

Could someone explain this to me please?


Ok if you look at east european jewish history the jewish community in Russia poland romania etc. did have the characteristics of an ethnic rather than religious group.

For one thing they had their own language. This was seperate from which was the language of their religious prayers which could be seen as something of an equeivalent to arabic for Muslims. What i am refferring to is Yiddish ( literal translation is Jewish). This was the mother tongue of almost almost all east european jews both religious and atheistic. It was the first language o all of my great grand parents. SImilarly i know that organisations such as the jewish workers bund ( a staunchly marxist/atheistic groups) regarded thermsleves as a central part of the jewish community ran schools in yiddish.etc. The jews also shatred some common history and were conscious of themselves regardless of religion as a national/ethnic community.

To simply describe the community of ashkenazi jews as a religious community does not recognise the extent to which secular(non-religious) jews existed as a distinct community who has their own language, culture, food history etc. Finally the way jews have been treated by society has not been asa religious group but as an ethnic group.

[Reuben]

Furthermore, where would Ciaran, on the basis of his analysis place the Israeli cabinet the majority of whom I believe are atheists?

[Rastafari]

honestly, we should get a stickied "Zionism" topic where we could post all of this damning evidence against Zionism as a whole

[Conghaileach]

from Reuben:
This was the mother tongue of almost almost all east european jews both religious and atheistic.

So there are atheistic Jews? So there is something of a mix-up between Judaism as a religion and Jews as a kind of ethnic group?

What would happen, for example, if I were a Christian who wished to convert to Judaism?

[Reuben]

Quote: from CiaranB on 12:25 am on May 16, 2003
from Reuben:
This was the mother tongue of almost almost all east european jews both religious and atheistic.

So there are atheistic Jews? So there is something of a mix-up between Judaism as a religion and Jews as a kind of ethnic group?

What would happen, for example, if I were a Christian who wished to convert to Judaism?

Yes i would say there is a mix up but there have been historically communities and people who speak the jewish language, are of the jewish culture and regard themselves jews but do not necessarily believe in or follow the jewish religion.

I recognise theis is complicated by conversions yet what i would say is that like other social groups, the ashkenazi jewish groupiung would be hard to categorise as wholly religious or wholly ethnic. Similarly aan Irishman whose famiuly converted to protestantism a few generations ago may not be regarded as ethnically irish.
What i would say however is that in eastern europe the jews historically exdisted as much more of a national/ethnic group than say the Ukrainians or Bellorussains whose languages were largely constructed in the 19th century and were barely conscious of themselves as a naitonal entity until the early twentieth century.

[il Commy]

So there are atheistic Jews?

Yes, I'm one of them.

And yes, there is a mix of religion and nationality in Judaism, the question 'Who's a jew?' has many answers. But for me, the religion and the natinality are seperated so I consider myself jewish in nationality but not in religion.