What is a Zionist?

[Nemichka]

What is a Zionist exactly? I have heard some people talking about Zionists on this board quite a bit, and I have no idea what that is... I would wikipedia it or something, but I'd like explainations from you guys.
I can trust all of you a little more than that site... :P

[The Grey Blur]

I believe a Zionist is a Jew who is in favour of a Jewish homeland in the middle-east. The modern day nation-state of Israel is a direct result of this Zionist movement. More knowledgable comrades than myself will probably provide a more detailed explanation...

[LSD]

Historically, a Zionist was anyone who supported the creation of a "Jewish homeland" in "Zion" (modern day Israel).

After 1948, it's come to also include anyone who supports the government and actions of the State of Israel.

As a movement, Zionism emerged as a romantic nationalist response to European antisemitism. Whereas orthodox and hyperreligious Jews were content to wait for the "Messiah", more secular-orientated Jewish intellectuals decided to copy a page from the 19th century European playbook and seek a "homeland" for their "nation".

It's often assumed that Zionism was founded by the religious radicals, but the reality is that Zionism's "fathers" were largely agnostic or down-right atheistic Jews who saw a "Jewish homeland" as a secular solution to their dillema of identity.

Like many European "nations" of the time, many Jews were searching to identify themselves following the liberalism of the enlightenment.

Because of the antisemitism of the time, crystalized for most proto-Zionists in the Dreyfuss affair, non-religious Jews became convinced that for the Jewish "nation" to have parity with the great European ones, a definite territorial homeland would be nescessary.

Zionism was merely a Jewish version of European romantic nationalism, nothing more, nothing less. As such, it was, actually, very similar to other nationalist movements of the period, such as the one in Germany that ultimately led to Bismark's united German Empire.

German Nationalists did not believe that they "could not live" with Frenchmen or Poles. But they did believe that Germans needed a "Germany" if they were going to "survive as a people".

Early Zionists felt the same way. And, in the end, their efforts lead to the creation of the State of Israel as an officially "Jewish" republic.

Unfortunately, while most other countries founded on such 19th century nationalist principles have since moved away from that kind of institutional chauvinistic attitude, Israel continues to adhere to the Zionist notion of "homeland" and "national identity".

Indeed, it's presently illegal to run for office in Israel unless one affirms the "need" for a "Jewish state".

Now, there are number of historical and political reasons of this, not the least of which is a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, but it's not an overstatement to say that Israel's refusal to junk this implicitly racist and devisive ideologies is one of the chief barriers to a peaceful solution between Israel and Palestine.

It also goes without saying that Zionists, in any form, are not welcome on this board and, if discovered, will be restricted to OI.

***

It should also be noted that while Zionism technically refers to the above, it is often used euphamistically to refer to all Jews in general, regardless of their politics.

That's certainly the case when neo-Nazis speak of a "Zionist occupied government" or when Muslim fundamentalists blame the invasion of Iraq on "Zionist puppets".

You should therefore always be skeptical when "Zionist" is used in a context that has nothing to do with the State of Israel. 'Cause it almost always indicates that the speaker is really talking about Jews.

[Nemichka]

thank you very much!
so the guy who was talking about how he was confronted by a zionist, that was mostly because people around here support palestine, so they're not so happy about that?

[Fawkes]

I believe a Zionist is a Jew who is in favour of a Jewish homeland in the middle-east
Like LSD said, most of what you said is true excpet that not all Zionists are Jews.

If you want a really blunt definition of a Zionist it is this: an asshole.

[Nemichka]

hahaha... I take it you're not a fan?
My friend started telling me more about the whole deal about Israel and Palestine, and I don't know... It really seems very confusing to me. Not that I can't understand it... I just am being hit with all this conflicting information,
It's either that Israel is the good guy, or the bad guy, and I don't know which to believe...
Does anyone have any articles about this, or can anyone explain. I watched the bit about the spin doctor and how we basically have PR people for Israel so that the US will support Israel.
but...
:wacko:

[Fawkes]

hahaha... I take it you're not a fan?
(Looks at sig)

This website may be a little biased but this is some of the stuff the Palestinians go through daily. CLICK ME (http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org)

[Nemichka]

wow... that site...
thank you for the link

[Fawkes]

No problem.

[Global_Justice]

so anyone who supports a state of israel is a zionist? but i support a 2-state solution. does that mean i'm a zionist? :unsure:

[LSD]

so anyone who supports a state of israel is a zionist?

Where did you get that from?

Again, anyone who supports the government or actions of the State of Israel is de facto a Zionist. As is anyone who supports the conceptual basis of that state -- i.e., the need for a "Jewish homeland".

That said, there is absolutely no reason that you can't support the existance of the State of Israel for non-Zionist reasons.

Although it must be pointed out that if you're in favour of the maintance of an institutionaly "Jewish" state organized along romantic nationalist chaunivinist principles, you're probably a Zionist of one sort or another.

But merely favouring a 2-state solution does not automatically make one a Zionist. On the contrary, most Zionists are ardently opposed to the creation of any Palestinian state whatsoever.

[Red Menace]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Mormons zionists. Not in the jewish/middle eastern sense, but wasn't a zionist someone who just believed in the creation of their own zion, a utopia basically. I don't know, this is just what I heard.

[Brownfist]

I disagree that a two-state solution is not a Zionist position. Rather, it is the ideal Zionist position as it validates the Zionist state, whilst absolving it of the war crimes that it has committed against the Palestinian populations. Just because there are zionists that do not recognize a Palestinian state does not make two-state solutioners not zionists, rather one can identify them as moderate or soft left zionists. Indeed there is a long tradition in Israel and abroad of labour zionism and socialist zionism. However, this does negate the very fact that they re-validate the state of Israel's existence, and consistently deny the Palestinian population the right to return to their homes. I think the two-state solution especially according to the Oslo and Paris accords ensures that the Palestinian population is confined to small strips of walled land, which some have referred to as bantustans, with minimal access to resources (the Palestinians are not even allowed to have an army or an airport, and all migration is to be regulated by the Israelis). Furthermore, it displaces the policing of the Palestinian population away from the Israeli's to the Palestinian's who are then forced to pay from a small handout provided from international organizations and countries. The entire two-state solution is there to ensure that the Palestinian population is there to provide cheap labor to the Israeli economy, and reaffirm the Zionists state's status in the international community.

[RedKnight]

What about "labor zionism"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_ZionismThere are Jewish Left groups. http://www.left-wing.net/ Are these "zionist" as well? And also what about black nationalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism Is black nationalism inherantly wrong and unjust?

[LSD]

I disagree that a two-state solution is not a Zionist position. Rather, it is the ideal Zionist position as it validates the Zionist state

Again, some proponents of the two-state solution are Zionists, but many are just pragmatists.

The State of Israel isn't going anywhere, not today and not tomorrow. So pinning the hopes of the Palestinian people on a pie-in-the-sky fantasy like a "restored" Palestine is hopelessly idealistic, not to mention incredibly unfair to the civilians involved.

Obviously a single secular a-nationalist state would be better than the perpetuation of the racial chavunist State of Israel in any form, but the point is that 2 state solution would be better than the Status Quo. And there's nothing which says that it has to be the end of the story.

Yes, following the creation of a hypothetical Palestinian state Israel will go on exploiting the people of Palestine. But then they're doing that now. At least this way, they might finally get the IDF out of their living rooms.

In any case, there's no easy solution to this mess. One of the first and most nescessary steps, however, is to get the imperialists out. As long as Israel can count on US backing, it will never negotiate.

Right now the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is grossly overwatched. It would do everyone involved a great service, if the world would get its collective noses out of their affarirs.

And, yes, that includes the international left and its "last great cause" nonsense. Boycotting Israeli scientists isn't going to end the occupation. All it does is play into the bourgeoisie's propaganda that the situation in Israel is far more important than it really is.


whilst absolving it of the war crimes that it has committed against the Palestinian populations

Don't be absurd.

It doesn't "absolve" Israel of anything to say that destroying it isn't a realistic option at this point.

The priority at this point should be ending the occupation, not "punnishing" Israel for its historical crimes.


What about "labor zionism"?

What about it?

Like I said, Zionism was not a primarily religious organization; it was mainly a secular nationalist one. Accordingly most early Zionists were not drawn to theocratic models, nor were they particularly impressed with European organizational structures.

The socialism of the utopians and even early Marxists, however, seemed to offer a distinct social model as well as appealing to the idealistic and romanticized notions of "community" that so many of the Zionists felt.

In fact, one of the main reasons why most Jewish religious organizations opposed Zionism was that it was too secular and socialist for their liking. They saw it as a threat to Jewish traditional living and bitterly opposed it.

Even today, fundamentalist Jews reject the State of Israel as they see it as a violation of "sacred prophesy".

Most zionists were intellectuals, not "rabbis" and so their movement tended to reflect the values of their class. People like Borochov, Ginsberg, and Gordon were all prominant Zionists, but also quite vocal in their socialistic leanings.

That doesn't make Zionism any less nationalist or racist an ideology, however.


And also what about black nationalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism Is black nationalism inherantly wrong and unjust?

I wouldn't say that it's "unjust", especially as it doesn't have the power to enforce its supremecist precepts, but it definitely is the "wrong" approach to take.

Because race is such an artifical construct, "racial" pride is undesirable. Feeling "proud" for what is, ultimately, nothing but a social relic of brabaric precapitalism is reactionary and counterproductive.

If we have learnt anything from biology over the past few decades it's that there is nothing "special" about any "racial" group, whether you happen to be a member or not. And prioritizing your miniscule association with others of similar facial structure only serves to keep the proletariat devided.

Racism as a political force has been dying for decades, perhaps even centuries. Racism itself has been dying for nearly as long, constantly being further marginalized by objective material forces. It's just taking a long time.

Slow as it is, however, it remains an inevitable death as capitalism is inherently anti-racist. Capitalists are often racist, but the economic system itself is coloour-blind.

Despite that, though, racism still survives. And it does so primarily because the racial paradigm survives -- that is the conception of race itself.

It's a pre-capitalist paradigm and its a faulty one at that, but superstition has a way of perpetuating itself, whether or not it has long outlived its usefulness. "Race" is one of these "survivors". The idea is so ingrained in our social history and so little real effort has gone into eliminating it that it has manged to remain in only slightly varying guises.

Today we are taught about "multiculturalism" and "tolerance", but all the while we are still deluged with "racial" theory. This means that no matter how much we are taught that races are "equal" we will always see them as different and difference inevitable leads to comparison and judgment.

When we are told that there are fundamental groups of people and that we are in one group and "black" people, "white" people, "asian" people, "hispanic" people, "indian" people, etc... in others, we assume, rather understandably, that these differences matter.

Well they don't. And "black nationalist" organizations, like any other racial "pride" group, simply don't get that. Unfortunately they themselves are trapped within the same tired racial paradigm. They come at it from a different perspective, yes, but they're playing the same tune.

And racial "pride" can never be the answer to racial hate. Artificial subdivisions are divisive by definition, they cannot be fought by reinforcing their underpinning preconceptions. The only way to defeat the myth of "race" is to fight the myth of "race"!

That means championing humanism, it means abandoning made-up fairy tales and putting aside ones "pride" in an inherently oppressive system.

Race itself is paradigmatically a tool of oppression. Buying into it, even in an "empowering" way, is ultimately self-defeating.

[Brownfist]

Again, some proponents of the two-state solution are Zionists, but many are just pragmatists.

The State of Israel isn't going anywhere, not today and not tomorrow. So pinning the hopes of the Palestinian people on a pie-in-the-sky fantasy like a "restored" Palestine is hopelessly idealistic, not to mention incredibly unfair to the civilians involved.

Obviously a single secular a-nationalist state would be better than the perpetuation of the racial chavunist State of Israel in any form, but the point is that 2 state solution would be better than the Status Quo. And there's nothing which says that it has to be the end of the story.

Yes, following the creation of a hypothetical Palestinian state Israel will go on exploiting the people of Palestine. But then they're doing that now. At least this way, they might finally get the IDF out of their living rooms.

In any case, there's no easy solution to this mess. One of the first and most nescessary steps, however, is to get the imperialists out. As long as Israel can count on US backing, it will never negotiate.

Right now the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is grossly overwatched. It would do everyone involved a great service, if the world would get its collective noses out of their affarirs.

And, yes, that includes the international left and its "last great cause" nonsense. Boycotting Israeli scientists isn't going to end the occupation. All it does is play into the bourgeoisie's propaganda that the situation in Israel is far more important than it really is.

Comrade I disagree with you on several points. Firstly, I think that pragmatism is a liberal way of excusing ones on zionist beliefs. That is like saying that pragmatically there cannot be a world revolution, thus we should all except globalization. No, the very same people who argue for a pragmatic politics in Palestine are the very same that call for an end to global capitalism. I think that this selective utilization of pragmatism in Palestine is a careful deployment and recoding of Zionism. The idealism that you speak of, is what makes great revolutionary struggles and their resulting victories possible.

Secondly, I think that we need to recognize that in the case of South Africa a similar solution was offered in the 1970's and again pressed in the 1980's however, the South African population continued to fight against apartheid and did not accept the deal of a Black South Africa. I think that the Palestinians are currently doing the same thing. Indeed there is a population that has bandied around Fatah, but they grow smaller by the day, as the Palestinians know that the Oslo Accords will not bring them peace. This is especially due to the consistent land grabs that have been made by the Israeli's in the construction of the 'apartheid wall'. I mean we are no longer talking about a return to the 1967 borders or even the Oslo Accord allocating land spaces.

Thirdly, I think that we need to get rid of this false notion that a two-state solution will get the IDF out of Palestinian living rooms. If you carefully read the Oslo and Paris accords you will find that the Israeli's maintain the right to enter Palestine, uninvited, whenever they so please. This has been consistently been seen in the case of "liberated Gaza". This supposed liberation, is just another tactic by which the Zionists are trying to repackage themselves as the good guys, who are actually trying to achieve piece. What we need to recognize is that the two-state solution is there to legitimize the everyday terrorization of the Palestinian population, and the displacement of responsibility from Israeli to Palestinian hands (otherwise, the Israeli's are culpable under the UN conventions regarding an occupying power).

Fourthly, I agree that the international Left, especially the Euro-American Left, has made Palestine the last great cause and that we need to be careful not to fall into this trap, but I do think that we should not downplay the importance of Israel. Israel today plays the role, that Iran pre-1979 played in the Middle East, which is the guard dog and policeman of American oil interests in the region. Israel allows the Americans to have a presence in the Middle East, without being seen to visible. Unfortunately for the American imperialists, and fortunately for the rest of us, G.W Bush has unmasked the American role in the Middle East through his completely erroneous policies in the region. American imperialism has never been so naked to the world.

[LSD]

I understand what you're saying and I largely agree, but my point was not that the two-state solution is a good one, just that those who advocate it are not nescessarily Zionists.

Obviously if they propose the kind of Bantustan-lite "Palestinian state" that the government of Israel's pushing for then they're probably a Zionist, but merely believing that, in the short run, a Palestinian state should be created most certainly does not make one an apologist for Israel.

Insofar as the parallels to South Africa, while they're apt to a point, the territorial lines were much less simple and the history quite different. That's not to say that a two-state plan will work in Israel, but the mere fact that something better came to South Africa does not require that the same must occur elsewhere.

Besides, again, the creation of an independent Palestine woudn't be the end of the story. On the contrary, it would merely represent another stage in the fight.

And I should make it clear that I am not suggesting that a two-state solution is the way forward. I happen to be of the opinion that it would be a generally useless and tokenistic "step forward".

But at the same time I can recognize that honest non-Zionists can disagree with that assesment.


Israel today plays the role, that Iran pre-1979 played in the Middle East, which is the guard dog and policeman of American oil interests in the region.

Agreed.

The point, though, is that no one is addressing this as an issue of imperialism.

You're right, Israel must be recognized for the role that it plays, but that's different from the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Fighting US imperialism as it exists in or through Israel is the same as fighting US imperialism in Iraq and elsewhere. It's a large problem with numerous battlegrounds. Focusing attention on walls, refugees, and suicide bombers, however, doesn't take us to that battleground, rather it avoids it completely.

Now, none of this is to say that the Palestinian people are not suffering, they are. Just not unusally so.

Remember, Saudi Arbia is also an imperialist puppet and is a far more oppressive and repressive state than Israel. Accordingly, if this is an issue of fighting US stooges inthe middle east, Saudi Arabia should be first on the list.

Instead, it's Israel that gets all the attention for no reason other than that the left has tragically bought into this myth that fighting Israel is the "last great cause" of anti-colonialism.

Well it isn't. It's just a very small part of a very big fight against capitalist imperialism. And it's a fight that we can't win if we concentrate on Fatah and Hammas and all the other internecine irrelevencies of the Israeli-Palestianian conflict.

The more we keep attention on the "crisis" of Palestine, the better it helps the imperialists as it keeps the spoptlight off of their own actions.

[Sumac]

I've heard Zionism described in this way. I'm not exactly comfortable with this definition, though, by the way. Sometimes it strikes me as too much, and almost racist. But anyway, here it is:

"Zionism is the movement to establish, maintain and
expand the state of Israel. It is intertwined with other instruments of
Jewish capitalist power. The use of the British and U.S. governments to
implement Zionism revealed, and reveals, the extent of Jewish influence,
ultimately Jewish capitalist power, in those countries (among many others).
The interaction with the Nazis illustrates the way in which ordinary Jews
are manipulated into migrating to Israel and into fierce loyalty to their
leaders, who are seen as vital protectors against oppression. The state of
Israel provides an additional tool for Jewish capitalists to use, one that
is seen as in some ways more secure than states in which Jews are a
minority. Historically Jews have repeatedly become dominant in various
states, only to lose their positions because of resentment; Russia is a
recent example of this. So Zionism is a historically conditioned reflection
of the fact that Jewish capitalists, like other capitalists, need the state
to exercise their power."

If you want to see a good film on what exactly is going on between The Palestinians and the Israelies, watch this film: Palestine is Still the Issue. It's by John Pilger, a very credible journalist. You can watch it for free on Google video. It helped me understand the situation better, and might give you some insight into what Zionism is.