Israeli kibbutz

[Rage Against Right]

I was talking to my dad, who spent three years in an israeli kibbutz about how they function and how they govern themselves, for example

each person takes their turn at certain jobs, whether it be in the fields or the kitchens or organisational roles, after a period of times they rotate and you get a chance at another job. T

They have a leader but this leadership like everything else is on rotation so everyone who feels the need to lead can do so.

From my father's talks of the kabbutz they seem like a very equal and fair place to live, because they even give you the opportunity to go travelling or studying.

But dad hasn't been there since the 70's so im guessing they have changed, is that correct?

Did these kabbutz come from any kind of marxist background?
Any opinions on them?
Cheers

[redflag32]

Ive been interested in finding out more about this myself mate,as far as i know they are no longer around, I watched a programme on them one time and they used the "human nature" argument for their downfall. Id like to know the real reason.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

There are still quite a few kibbutz around, but more and more are turning to privatisation... in fact, about a month or two ago Israel'a oldest kibbutz went private.

The kibbutz have lost a lot of prestige, the ideas of collectivism have retreated and subsided to ideas of materialism... Some of this could be attributed to the kibbutz inability to industrialise effectively as a vast majority still worked in agriculture...

The kibbutz that are left suffered greatly in the latter half of the 20th century with ageing and thus declining populations, but I read somewhere that the populations of the remaining kibbutz are rising again...

Maybe someone who knows more than me could fill in the blanks..

[Revolution Until Victory]

the Kibbutz have nothing to do with the left given the fact they are Aprthied Kibbutz where they are jew-only kibbutz, and if arabs are pirmitted, they are only allowed to do the lowest work possible the the jew would refuse to do, not to mention they are built on stolen lands.
Injustice, theft, racism, and Aprtheid got nothing to do with the left.

Here is a list of the "leftist" Kibbutz that are built on stolen Palestinian lands and ethnicly cleansed villages:

Kibbutz Yas'ur on the land of al-Birwa
Kibbutz Gesher ha-Ziv on the lands of al-Zeeb
Kibbutz Kabri on the land of al-Kabri
Kibbutz Gazit on the lands of al-Tira
Kibbutz ha-Zore'a on the lands of Qira
Kibbutz Nachsholim on the lands of al-Tantura
Kibbutz Barqay on the lands of Wadi 'Ara
kibbutz Neve-Yam on the lands of al-Sarafand
Kibbutz Tzova on the lands of Suba
Kibbutz Megiddo on the lands of al-Lajjun
Kibbutz Sha'alvirn on the lands of Salbit
Kibbutz Mishmar David on the lands of Khulda
Kibbutz Palmachim on the lands of al-Nabi Rubin
Kibbutz Biriyya on the lands of Biriyya
Kibbutz 'Amir on the lands of al-Dawwara
Kibbutz of 'En Gev on the lands of al-Nuqayb
Kibbutz ha-Ma'pil on the lands of Qaqun
Kibbutz ha-'Ogen on the lands of Wadi Qabbani

[Rage Against Right]

But didnt when the Jews get their independance, the muslims either left or attacked the jewish, before English imperilism in Palastine the Jews and Muslims lived together, in maybe not harmony but they lived compatibly, or so i have read to believe.

[Coggeh]

Well the kibbutzim was built on Palestinian ethnically cleansed lands true , but the fact remains that during the war the economy was greatly powered by the exploits of collectivization which should be taken as a positive in any case , it shows that even small communes that experiment in socialism can power alot more than there share and function for a long time even in the face of capitalist materialism being fluttered to them left right and center .

[Revolution Until Victory]

Originally posted by Rage Against Right@April 23, 2007 08:49 pm
But didnt when the Jews get their independance, the muslims either left or attacked the jewish, before English imperilism in Palastine the Jews and Muslims lived together, in maybe not harmony but they lived compatibly, or so i have read to believe.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Frist of all, I don't see how can you get your "independence" on lands stolen from others, lands that do not belong to you.

In the late 19th century a movemnt called Zionism emereged. It was composed of a group of Eastern European athiest jews who wanted to establish a jewish state.
They thought about Argentina, Philipins, and Uganad; and finally in 1906, they decided on Argentina. However, they later changed their mind and decided on Palestine since there was supposidly a hebrew kingdom there over 2000 yrs ago.
The problem was, however, Palestine was already the homeland of someone else.
During that time, jews were less than 5% of the population (of which less than 1% were zionist) and the Arabs were the vast majority owning and operating over 97% of the land. In 1917, while Palestine was under the British colonialism, the zionists were able to obtain a promise from the Bristih Forgien Minister, Belfour, to grant the Jewish people a "homeland" in Palestine. The problem is, again, Palestine didn't belong to the British forgein minister, nor to the zionists. Palestine belonged to its inhabitants who were the 95% of the population and owned and operated the vast majority of the land. Of course, the arabs protested that promise, but in 1948, after the British withdrew, the zionists declared a state on the stolen lands of the Palestinians. Druing the creation of this settler-colony, the majority of the arabs were expelled by the zionists in the biggest campaign of ethnic cleansing and expulsion in modern history. Those expelled were not only muslims, but also christian Palestinians. From that time until this very day, the Palestinians are still demanding their rights, properties, freedom, and independece from the setterl-colony called Israel.

[chimx]

However, they later changed their mind and decided on Palestine since there was supposidly a hebrew kingdom there over 2000 yrs ago.

Hah... you prefaced that with "supposedly?"

The problem is, again, Palestine didn't belong to the British forgein minister, nor to the zionists.

You say this but gloss over the fact that Palestine didn't belong to the Palestinians either. It was Ottoman territory. They didn't even call the area Palestine. And if memory serves... the Ottomans got defeated in WWI, and lost their territory to... now who was it? Oh that's right, the British.

Palestine belonged to its inhabitants who were the 95% of the population and owned and operated the vast majority of the land.

As far as I know, foreign Ottoman feudal landlords owned the majority of the land. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (preferably with evidence). From what I remember, one of the biggest problems was that Zionist funds legally bought a great deal of the land from these foreign land lords, making them the landlords, which allowed them to evict the local population.

Druing the creation of this settler-colony, the majority of the arabs were expelled by the zionists in the biggest campaign of ethnic cleansing and expulsion in modern history.

Well that's a pretty bold statement. Obviously ethnic cleansing occurred, but "the biggest" in all of modern history? Got any statistics to back that up?

But my qualm is that you gloss over the divisions within the intellectual movement of Zionism. Plenty of Zionists were opposed to the domination of the local population and worked to include them in the Kibbutz system.

--

In the end, my largest problem with the anti-Israel folk is that it borders on racist antisemitism half the time. To quote RAAN: "Racism and its historical accomplice, nationalism, have been carefully developed to a point where they can be engineered and manipulated to cause workers around the world and even in the same country to fight each other over the scraps of power thrown to them by the bourgeoisie. Such artificial divisions in the proletariat are always to the benefit of the capitalist system that is ultimately at fault for creating these tensions."

As it is now, LOTS of Jews and Palestinians both live in the area and have for a long time. You sound like you are advocating the expulsion of Jews, or the very least, the creation of Palestinian landlords over Jewish landlords.

Neither is an acceptable solution because it allows class exploitation to persist--something that is blind to ethnicity. Stop making Jews the enemy. Capitalism is.

[RNK]

Rule from Istanbul or Constantinople or whatver the fuck, then rule from London, then rule from Tel-Aviv -- in all cases, the people themselves, who live there, do not rule.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Originally posted by chimx@April 24, 2007 12:11 am

However, they later changed their mind and decided on Palestine since there was supposidly a hebrew kingdom there over 2000 yrs ago.

Hah... you prefaced that with "supposedly?"

The problem is, again, Palestine didn't belong to the British forgein minister, nor to the zionists.

You say this but gloss over the fact that Palestine didn't belong to the Palestinians either. It was Ottoman territory. They didn't even call the area Palestine. And if memory serves... the Ottomans got defeated in WWI, and lost their territory to... now who was it? Oh that's right, the British.

Palestine belonged to its inhabitants who were the 95% of the population and owned and operated the vast majority of the land.

As far as I know, foreign Ottoman feudal landlords owned the majority of the land. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (preferably with evidence). From what I remember, one of the biggest problems was that Zionist funds legally bought a great deal of the land from these foreign land lords, making them the landlords, which allowed them to evict the local population.

Druing the creation of this settler-colony, the majority of the arabs were expelled by the zionists in the biggest campaign of ethnic cleansing and expulsion in modern history.

Well that's a pretty bold statement. Obviously ethnic cleansing occurred, but "the biggest" in all of modern history? Got any statistics to back that up?

But my qualm is that you gloss over the divisions within the intellectual movement of Zionism. Plenty of Zionists were opposed to the domination of the local population and worked to include them in the Kibbutz system.

--

In the end, my largest problem with the anti-Israel folk is that it borders on racist antisemitism half the time. To quote RAAN: "Racism and its historical accomplice, nationalism, have been carefully developed to a point where they can be engineered and manipulated to cause workers around the world and even in the same country to fight each other over the scraps of power thrown to them by the bourgeoisie. Such artificial divisions in the proletariat are always to the benefit of the capitalist system that is ultimately at fault for creating these tensions."

As it is now, LOTS of Jews and Palestinians both live in the area and have for a long time. You sound like you are advocating the expulsion of Jews, or the very least, the creation of Palestinian landlords over Jewish landlords.

Neither is an acceptable solution because it allows class exploitation to persist--something that is blind to ethnicity. Stop making Jews the enemy. Capitalism is.

I said supposidly coz the condition of that system is disputed. Some say it was a state implying a modern one. Others say it got nothing to do with a state and was simply some loose kingdoms and stuff like this. I never meant it didn't exist.

"it was Ottman terretory"??
what the hell are you talking about??
so Algeria was French terretory during the French colonization according to your "logic"
India was British terretory during British colonization?
France was Nazi terretory during Nazi occupation?
Angola was Portoguese terretory during colonization??
BULLSHIT.
A colonizer and invader would NEVER have a claim to the land he invaded and coloinized, thats absured, to say the least.
they might control it through the government, no question about it.
but the land belongs to its inhabitiants.
I'm not just making this up, during the Belfour decleration, and under BRITISH colonization, not ottman, over 97% of the land was owned and operated by the Arabs. And yes, both the British and the Ottman called the area Palestine (although it doesn't matter what they called it)
but that even doesn't matter, coz right before the creation of the zionist colony, Arabs owned over 94% of the eintire area of Palestine (I will provide the evidence latter in the post)

now again, I'm talking about the Belfour decleration which was almost during the British Mandate times. and during those times, the Ottmans, aside from ending their colonization of Palestine, didn't own most of the land, far from it.

"From what I remember, one of the biggest problems was that Zionist funds legally bought a great deal of the land from these foreign land lords,"

I don't know about you, but for me, the statment "a great deal" seems to mean AT LEAST quarter of the entire land.
the fact is, however, the zionists, due to rejection from Palestinians and restriciton form the Bristih, were able to only purchase 5.8% of the entire area of Palestine.

here is the evidence that Palestine belonged to the Palestinian people, not to the Ottman Sultan, not to the British forgien minister (although it's quiet obvious and doesn't need any evidence) and that the zionists were only able to purchase 5.8%:

- The CCP Refugee Office (a UN offical commitee) estimated that although only a little more than a quarter was considered cultivable, more than 80 percent of Israel's total area of 20,850 km.sq. represented land abandoned by the Arab refugees. Three-quarters of the former Arab land was sub-marginal land or semi-desert in the Negeb.
(The Establishment of the State of Israel as a Jewish State from Chapter I in: Israel –An Apartheid State, by Uri Davis, Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1987)

- According to the Survey of Palestine prepared by the UN prior to the 1947 partition, P.566, over 94% of Palestine's total area belonged to Palestinians, and the zionists own 5.8% (hardly a "great deal" )

- Subcommittee 2 of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question stated in its report to the United Nations General Assembly the following:
Closely connected with the distribution of population is the factor of land ownership in the proposed Jewish State. The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs. This is clear from the following statistics furnished to the Sub-Committee by the United Kingdom representative, showing the respective percentages of Arab and Jewish ownership of land in the various sub-districts of Palestine.
(Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question, Summary Records of Meetings, 25 September-25 November, 1947, pp. 292-293.)

- Even Ben-Gurion himself, admitted Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people, not the Ottman Sulatn, not the British Forgein minister, and not the zionists (although they do own 5.8%). In a UNCCP document dated July 4, 1947, oral evidence were presented at a public meeting were Ben-Gurion was present. Ben-Gurion was discussing the “disparities between Jews and Arabs” in Palestine. He stated:
“I shall mention only a few [referring to the disparities between Arabs and Jews]. There is the disparity in numbers. There are some 600,000 Jews in Palestine and some 1,100,000 Arabs. There are no reliable figures in this respect. There is an even greater disparity than that. The Arabs own 94% of the land, the Jews only 6%. The Arabs have seven States, the Jews none..."
here is the document found on line to check for yourself:

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7735b7...71?OpenDocument

now serioulsy, what more evidence do you need to believe Palestine didn't belong to the invading Britsih but to the Palestinian people??
forget about everything, just look at what Ben-Gorion statment. He himself saying Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people

I NEVER advocated the expulsion of the jews. Israel is a settler-colony built on stolen land (not to mention Aprtheid). the Palestinains should reclaim their land and a secular democratic Palestine shoud replace this colony where jew and arab have equal right.
Now were the hell was I "making the jews the enemy"
that is an inuslt to me.
I made the ZIONSITS, not the jews, the enemy.

so please, the issue is already complicated, please know what the hell you are talking about before posting

[chimx]

Oh the irony that you mention Ben Gurion. He was apart of the original Jewish Agency that worked with Zionists on immigration. What you forget to mention is that the pre-War Jewish Agency was dominated by socialist thinkers that *wanted* to work *with* the native Arab population.

The Jewish Agency at this time was extremely influenced by the Russian Zionist Achad Ha-Am (meaning "One of the People", his real name was Asher Ginsberg). Achad denounced the political Zionism of Herzl and condemned Jews that cheered the Zionist mantra "a land without people for a people without land." He more than recognized the Arab presence in the region and denounced other Zionists that ignored the Arab question.

This is why the Jewish Agency worked hand-in-hand with the Zionist Fund to purchase land from Arab land owners, as well as work with local Arabs.

Of course, Socialist Zionists that advocated participating with the local Arab population were not the only left wing group. Other less popular groups advocated a "equality between the Jewish and Arab working classes in a binational state."

Zionism as an ideology and its engagement of Palestinians is extremely more complex than what you are trying to simplistically paint it as.

--

Now you keep mentioning the Balfour declaration. Pay attention to the wording of the document in that it was Balfour saying to a leading Zionist that Britain supports the creation of a home for Jewish "in Palestine". Churchill later came out and clarified, in what was one of the first "white papers" on the area, that this meant allowing Jewish immigration so much as it wasn't a strain on the local economy and the Palestinian people.

Then things went back and forth for a while. Sometimes Britain advocated immigration, other times they wanted it to halt all together. In the end a two state solution was proposed in which Jerusalem would become an international city. Israel accepted this proposal while the Arabs declined.

What is also interesting is that if you read the State of Israel Declaration of Independence, you will see that Zionists advocate a stance nearly identical to your own. You say, "the Palestinains should reclaim their land and a secular democratic Palestine should replace this colony where Jew and Arab have equal right." The Israeli Declaration says, ". . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent."

Revolution Until Victory: you are a Zionist and didn't even know it!

Of course, as we all know, this never came about. Surrounding Arabic states invaded Israel to wipe it out, but they got their asses kicked. The result of this war was that about 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war. Many fled to neighboring Arab countries. Immediately after the war, there was some flexibility with returning property to refugees, but for the most part Israel claimed that it didn't have a legal responsibility to return the land. This changed in 1949 when Israel said that it would be willing to look at land return or at the very least compensation, but only with in the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. Unfortunately the latter declined to hold such agreements.

--

As a side note to some of your earlier comments, by the later half of the 1800s, only 20 percent of Galilee and 50 percent of Judea was owned by peasants. Absentee landlords and foreigners owned the rest. Socialist Zionists sought to buy this land, but not to create communities with new landlords, but rather ones that were collectively managed. This is where the Kibbutz system was born to return to the original post. Some Kibbutzim did do this, others allowed the Arab tenets to remain on the land, while other times the Arab tenets were evicted.

The 2nd option is what happened most often. It should be noted that the 2nd wave of Jewish immigration into Palestine was opposed primarily *not* by Muslim Palestinians because they were allowed to continue to work their land more often than not. It was the area's Christian population that was more vehemently opposed to Jews entering the area. Arabic anti-immigration sentiment only really increased a lot after WWI.

--

so please, the issue is already complicated, please know what the hell you are talking about before posting

Cute. I do know what I'm talking about.

[Rage Against Right]

Its good to see debate but i myself kind of mislead it by being misinformed, but i was really asking of the idea of kabbutzims and how the acted socially and whether they may survive today in other countries in a completly different part of the world, this is what i was leaning towards

[Revolution Until Victory]

Originally posted by chimx@April 24, 2007 03:44 am
Oh the irony that you mention Ben Gurion. He was apart of the original Jewish Agency that worked with Zionists on immigration. What you forget to mention is that the pre-War Jewish Agency was dominated by socialist thinkers that *wanted* to work *with* the native Arab population.

The Jewish Agency at this time was extremely influenced by the Russian Zionist Achad Ha-Am (meaning "One of the People", his real name was Asher Ginsberg). Achad denounced the political Zionism of Herzl and condemned Jews that cheered the Zionist mantra "a land without people for a people without land." He more than recognized the Arab presence in the region and denounced other Zionists that ignored the Arab question.

This is why the Jewish Agency worked hand-in-hand with the Zionist Fund to purchase land from Arab land owners, as well as work with local Arabs.

Of course, Socialist Zionists that advocated participating with the local Arab population were not the only left wing group. Other less popular groups advocated a "equality between the Jewish and Arab working classes in a binational state."

Zionism as an ideology and its engagement of Palestinians is extremely more complex than what you are trying to simplistically paint it as.

--

Now you keep mentioning the Balfour declaration. Pay attention to the wording of the document in that it was Balfour saying to a leading Zionist that Britain supports the creation of a home for Jewish "in Palestine". Churchill later came out and clarified, in what was one of the first "white papers" on the area, that this meant allowing Jewish immigration so much as it wasn't a strain on the local economy and the Palestinian people.

Then things went back and forth for a while. Sometimes Britain advocated immigration, other times they wanted it to halt all together. In the end a two state solution was proposed in which Jerusalem would become an international city. Israel accepted this proposal while the Arabs declined.

What is also interesting is that if you read the State of Israel Declaration of Independence, you will see that Zionists advocate a stance nearly identical to your own. You say, "the Palestinains should reclaim their land and a secular democratic Palestine should replace this colony where Jew and Arab have equal right." The Israeli Declaration says, ". . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent."

Revolution Until Victory: you are a Zionist and didn't even know it!

Of course, as we all know, this never came about. Surrounding Arabic states invaded Israel to wipe it out, but they got their asses kicked. The result of this war was that about 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war. Many fled to neighboring Arab countries. Immediately after the war, there was some flexibility with returning property to refugees, but for the most part Israel claimed that it didn't have a legal responsibility to return the land. This changed in 1949 when Israel said that it would be willing to look at land return or at the very least compensation, but only with in the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. Unfortunately the latter declined to hold such agreements.

--

As a side note to some of your earlier comments, by the later half of the 1800s, only 20 percent of Galilee and 50 percent of Judea was owned by peasants. Absentee landlords and foreigners owned the rest. Socialist Zionists sought to buy this land, but not to create communities with new landlords, but rather ones that were collectively managed. This is where the Kibbutz system was born to return to the original post. Some Kibbutzim did do this, others allowed the Arab tenets to remain on the land, while other times the Arab tenets were evicted.

The 2nd option is what happened most often. It should be noted that the 2nd wave of Jewish immigration into Palestine was opposed primarily *not* by Muslim Palestinians because they were allowed to continue to work their land more often than not. It was the area's Christian population that was more vehemently opposed to Jews entering the area. Arabic anti-immigration sentiment only really increased a lot after WWI.

--

so please, the issue is already complicated, please know what the hell you are talking about before posting

Cute. I do know what I'm talking about.

first of all, it's a big lie that the zionists wanted to work with the arabs. They wanted the land WITHOUT the arabs. After the zionist movement gained momentum during the 20th century, the Plan to ethnicly cleanse the Palestinains was getting more clear. I don't think I even need to provide evidence.
true Ahad was opning zionist eyes to the fact that Palestine was not a land without a people. No question about it. He was even talking of how bad the zionist settlers were treating the Palestinains and also opposed the political zionism of Herzel. That is true.

"Zionism as an ideology and its engagement of Palestinians is extremely more complex than what you are trying to simplistically paint it as."

how the hell was I "simplistically paint it as"??

All I said was the zionists expelled over 800,000 Palestinians and weren't intending on living WITH the arabs.

"In the end a two state solution was proposed in which Jerusalem would become an international city. Israel accepted this proposal while the Arabs declined."

now what part of it doesn't get through your thick skull??
Palestine belongs to the Palestinain arab people. Your again painting the arabs to be anti-peace when they rejected the plan. Why the hell would thy accept it??
what fools on the face of earth would give away over 55% of thier land to recent forgien immigrants whom barley owned 5% of it??? Be serouis.

"Surrounding Arabic states invaded Israel to wipe it out, but they got their asses kicked. The result of this war was that about 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war."

Now, I don't give a shit what that pieace of paper said, singed by about 35 zionist, of which only around 2-4 were born in Palestine and the vast majority of the rest were European, I only care about realties on the ground. I could come up with a beautifuly written paper talking about equality and justice, but do the exact opposite on the ground.
All I know is that when this delceartion came out, Israel was already in possesion of over 55% of the land of Palestine of which the zionists own only less than 6%.
so how on earth the arabs, or anyone else, would accept such a thing?
now here you are proving again you have no idea what your talking about. The result of the war wasn't the expulsion of the refugees. BEFORE one arab soldier set a foot on Palestine, half of the total sum of refugees expelled were expelled by Ben-Gurion and half of the villages depopulated and destroyed too. So the ethnic cleansing started before the arabs attacked.

"Immediately after the war, there was some flexibility with returning property to refugees"

what the hell is your problem?? are you serious?? right after the war, any Palestinian who attempt to return was SHOT ON THE SPOT and was labeled an "infltrator" on his own land!

"but only with in the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. Unfortunately the latter declined to hold such agreements."

ok, again the arab are the bad guys and the zionists are the victims. You steal land, you should return it. Period.

"As a side note to some of your earlier comments, by the later half of the 1800s, only 20 percent of Galilee and 50 percent of Judea was owned by peasants. Absentee landlords and foreigners owned the rest."

what the hell are you talking about??? who mentioned the "latter half of the 19th"??
that is totally irrelivant. That's like saying, I can invade India coz 2000 yrs ago or something, it wasn't owned by anyone!!
I have clearly proven to you, that RIGHT BEFORE the zionists declared thier colony, arabs owned over 94% of the land; I don't care what happned 100 yrs before that.

ok, so what basicly happned is that you claimed Palestine belonged to the Ottmans then to the British, (all of this while claiming to be a leftist ) and I proved you wrong.
I claimed Palestinains were ethnicly cleansed and expelled by the zionist, and you started telling me about the history of zionism and its socialism and what happned at the very begning which is totally irrelivant.
The issue remains. Palestine belogns to the Palestinian people. Israel is an Aprtheid settler-colony built on stolen lands. It should be replaced by a secular democracitc Palestien were jew and arab would live equally together.

and yes, obviously, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[chimx]

"As a side note to some of your earlier comments, by the later half of the 1800s, only 20 percent of Galilee and 50 percent of Judea was owned by peasants. Absentee landlords and foreigners owned the rest."

what the hell are you talking about??? who mentioned the "latter half of the 19th"??
that is totally irrelivant. That's like saying, I can invade India coz 2000 yrs ago or something, it wasn't owned by anyone!!
I have clearly proven to you, that RIGHT BEFORE the zionists declared thier colony, arabs owned over 94% of the land; I don't care what happned 100 yrs before that.

I just got back from a 60 hour work week out of town, so I'm a little too tired to get into it with you. Let me simply point out that your stumbling block is that your arguments are ethnically reductionist. Arab's didn't own 94% of the land, capitalists did. I was pointing out that the legal holdings of the land were absentee landlords and capitalists. Socialist Zionists were trying to work under a economic model alternative to capitalism. Many within this group openly tried to work with the native Arab population.

Of course, your problem remains that the native population should have control of the land, regardless of the legal standings. Capitalists, landlords, Ottoman Turks, etc. had owned the majority of the land. When in history have the Palestinians ever governed their own country? You are astonished when capitalist wars hand land capital from one set of capitalists to the other? Again you make this into an ethnic issue by ignoring the commonality of this incident to others where ethnicity isn't such an obvious factor. You fault Zionists trying to cope with the fuckin' holocaust, despite the fact that a significant portion were socialist and open to working with the population. Neither Zionism, Jews, Islam, or Arabs are the problem. Capitalism is and always has been.

[Revolution Until Victory]

"Arab's didn't own 94% of the land, capitalists did"

you serious??
that is the stupidist thing I ever heard; how the hell does it matter if the paelstinain arabs who owned the land were capitalist, communist, anarchist, socialist or whatever the hell they want to be??? they are still Palestinain arab, regardless of their political ideaologies.
that's as stupid as saying "the English didn't own the land, capitalists did"

"Socialist Zionists were trying to work under a economic model alternative to capitalism. Many within this group openly tried to work with the native Arab population."

I told you that I recognized Ahad Ha'am. True at first, zionism was just a little bet less brutal, but it was still racist and since the very begning Herzel and other leaders were clearly plannig expulsion of the natives.

"When in history have the Palestinians ever governed their own country"

never.
but the situation is the same with most of the states today. Alegria, Congo, Mexico, Guatemala, Keny etc. all of those never governed their own country before gaining independence. wether they had a government before or not is completley irrelivant. What I clearly meant and demonstrated with evidence is that the inhabitants owned the land: the Palestinain arabs.

"You are astonished when capitalist wars hand land capital from one set of capitalists to the other"

don't twist my words. I'm asstonished how anyone, let alone a leftist, claim that "the land didn't belong to its inhabitants, it belonged to the invading colonizers"

"You fault Zionists trying to cope with the fuckin' holocaust, despite the fact that a significant portion were socialist and open to working with the population"

no, you don't cope with an atrocity by commiting a new one. Zionism began way before the Holocaust, and by the time of the holocaust, the zionist have already made their mind on expelling the Palestinains. I did recognize that at the begning, SOME, FEW, zionists were not really keen on expelling the Palestinains, but by the time of the holocaust it was already changed. Name me a zionist group or individual that was ready to work with the arabs.

"despite the fact that a significant portion were socialist and open to working with the population."

Really??? then tell me a little about those "significant" portion. wonder why the arab were being expelled in masse if the "most significant forces were socialist ready to work with the arabs"??!! no seriously, tell me how did the zionsits expell over 75% of the entire Palestinain population if the most significant forces were socialist and ready to work with the arabs?? how could this possibly be?
all the most important zionists were ready to expell the Palestinains and not even think of wroking with them. I don't think I need to proivde any evidence. it's common knowledge. Again, I recgonize there were "good" socialist forces, but they were very few, isolated, had no political effect whatsoever, and were strongly against the views of the infleuental leaders. Among those were Brit Shalom, Yitzhak Epstein, Hashomer Ha-tzair, some members of the MAPAM party, Abba Khoushi, and Dr. Judah L. Magnes (who was the best of them; only argued for a cultural home for the jews not a colony).

"Neither Zionism, Jews, Islam, or Arabs are the problem. Capitalism is and always has been"

true, jews, Islam, or Arab are not the problem. Capitalism and zionims are. Zionism is a racist colonial, imperialist ideology. Herzel, the founder, was very clear about it from the very begning. to say that the zionsits were "coping" with the holocaust, and that most wanted to work with the arab is standard zionist right-wing propaganda line, and to say the least, it is absurd.

here is your beloved "socialist" Ben-Gurion stating in 1944 while trying to "cope with the holocaust" :

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 159)

On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion the "socialist" wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer:

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission:

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)

And in 1938, he also wrote:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas .... I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117)

On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of your favorite "socialist" Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah's regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben-Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2) Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that :

"Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ..... As for the compulsory transfer-- as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

And regarding the Peel Commission, on June 9, 1937 he also stated:

"In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear the greatest material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

On December 19, 1947, Ben-Gurion, trying to cope with the nazi genocide, advised the Haganah on the rules of engagement with the Palestinian population. He stated:

"we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176-177 and Israel: A History, p. 156)
what a great socialist that Ben-Gurion was. what was it?? a significant portion were socialist?

after the unjust partionito plan, the "socilaist" Ben-Gurion expressed how much he is ready to work with the arabs. He stated on November 30, 1947:

"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 190)

Here's another "siginficant socialist force". According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population should be dealt with. It stated:

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

Here we see Mr. I want to work with the arabs ("socialist" Ben-Gurion) expressing his delight that Jerusalem's neighboring Palestinian communities had been emptied. He stated to the Mapai Council on February 8, 1948:

"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arab. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)

I wonder, do you consider Sharett also among those "significant socialist forces"?Moshe Sharett agreed with Ben-Gurion on rejecting Palestinian refugees return, and stated during a Cabinet meeting:

"Can we imagine a return to the status quo ante?" He asked. It was inconceivable. Rather, the government should now perused the Yishuv (Palestinian Jews before 1948) of "the enormous importance of this [demographic] change in terms of the solidity of the state structure and [of] the solution of crucial social and political problems." Israel should be ready to pay compensation for the abandoned land but "they will not return. [That] is out policy. They are not returning." (Benny Morris, p. 141)

here we see the "socialist" at work again. When Ezra Danin, a Cabinet member, proposed installing a puppet Palestinian Government in the Triangle area (northwest of the occupied West Bank), Ben-Gurion had impatiently declared on October 21, 1948 that Palestinians in Israel were good for one thing, running away. He said:

"The Arabs of the land of Israel [ Palestinians] have only one function left to them -- to run away." (Benny Morris, p. 218)

there is just socres and scores of many other evidence by many othe zionists leader, but I think those are enough. I will probably post more latter to demonstrate for you the "significant socialist forces coping with the holocasut"

[Revolution Until Victory]

-_- here is some more evidence of "significant socialist forces trying to cope with the holocaust".

Herzel, the founder, was very clear about his "socialist" views:
In 1895 he wrote in his diary:

"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)

Moshe Sharet, the first zionist forgien minister wrote in 1914:

"We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise." (Righteous Victims, p. 91)
very socialist indeed

While he was director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, declared in 1947:

"Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance." (Righteous Victims, p. 254)

And also he added:

"[W]hen the Jewish state is established--it is very possible that the result will be transfer of [the Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 254)

damn, I thought the most siginifcant forces were socialist or something! hmmm

In August 18 1948, Moshe Sharett wrote to Chaim Weizmann, explaining the Israeli government's determination to block the Palestinian Arab refugees' return:

"With regard to the refugees, we are determined to be adamant while the war lasts. Once the return tide starts, it will be impossible to stem it, and it will prove our undoing. As for the future, we are equally determined to explore all possibilities of getting rid, once and for all, of the huge [Palestinian] Arab minority [referring to the Palestinian Israeli citizens of Israel] which originally threatened us. What can be achieved in this period of storm and stress [referring to the 1948 war] will be quite unattainable once conditions get stabilized. A group of people [headed by Yosef Weitz] has already started working on the study of resettlement possibilities [for the Palestinian refugees] in other lands . . . What such permanent resettlement of 'Israeli' Arabs in the neighboring territories will mean in terms of making land available in Israel for settlement of our own people requires no emphasis." (Benny Morris, p. 149-150)

During the armistice negotiation with Jordan, the zionist colony pressured H.M. King Abdullah to concede sovereignty over Wadi 'Ara area (nearby Tulkarm and Jinin), and Moshe Sharett assumed that the Palestinian Arabs inhabiting the land would be expelled, he said:

"I imagine that the INTENTION is to get rid of them. The interests of security demand that we get rid of them." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 28)
Socialism at work again!

In April 28, 1930 Menachem Ussishkin, probably yet another "socialist" of yours, stated in an address to journalists in Jerusalem:

"We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession .... If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]." (Righteous Victims, p. 141)

Menachem Ussishkin wrote in 1937:

"We cannot start the Jewish state with .... half the population being Arab . . . Such a state cannot survive even half an hour. And about transferring sixty thousand Arab families he said: "It is most moral ..... I am ready to come an defend ... it before the Almighty." (Righteous Victims, p. 143-144 and Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 37)

In 1938 Menachem Ussishkin commented on the partition plan proposed by the British Peel Commission in 1937:

"We cannot begin the Jewish state with population of which the Arab living on their lands constitute almost half and the Jews exists on the land in very small numbers and they are all crowded in Tel Aviv and its vicinity .... and the WORST is not only the [Palestinian] Arabs here constitute 50 percent or 45 percent but 75 percent of the land is in the hands of the [Palestinian] Arabs. Such a state cannot survive even for half an hour ..... The question is not whether they will be majority or a minority in Parliament. You know that even a small minority could disrupt the whole order of parliamentary life..... therefore I would say to the [Peel] Commission and the government that we would not accept reduced Land of Israel without you giving us the land, on the one hand, and removing the largest number of [Palestinian] Arabs-particularly the peasants- on the other before we come forward to take the reins of government in our lands even provisionally." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 111-112; see also Righteous Victims, p. 143-144)

Just prior to the British conquest of Palestine, Chaim Weizmann, among the "significant socilaist forces" wrote describing the indigenous Palestinians:

"[the indigenous population was akin to] the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 17)

By war's end in 1949, Chaim Weizmann commented on the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs out of their homes, farms, and businesses:

" a miraculous clearing of the land: the miraculous simplification of Israel's task." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 175)

Ze'ev Jabotinsky stated in a letter to one of his Revisionist colleagues in the United States dated November 1939:

"There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 29)

Israel Zangwill who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-face with the demographic reality, stated :

"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)

Now here is another person who claimes to be socialist. He was actually the founder of "socialist" zionism. The socialist Zionist Hahman Syrkin, the ideological founder of Socialist Zionism, proposed in pamphlet entitled "The Jewish Question and the Socialist Jewish State" which was published in 1898 that:

"Palestine thinly populated, in which the Jews constituted today 10 percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 11)

hmmm, the FOUNDER, the LEADER of the whole "socialist" zionist force was suggesting expelling the arabs, and then you dare come and here and tell me the socalists, no, the majority, wanted to work with the arabs?? what bullshit.

In 1938 Berl Katzneslon, the INFLUENTIAL Mapai leader, stated his opinion of the demographic make up of the Zionist colony upon the implementation of the partition proposed by the Peel Commission:

"There is the question of how the army, the police, and the civil service will function and how a state can be run if part of its population is disloyal .....[and the Palestinian Arabs will get equal rights as Jews] ... only a small minority of [the Palestinian] Arabs will remain in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 115)

Chaim Weizmann wrote in a letter dated April 28, 1939 to the American Zionist leader Solomon Goldman about the possibility of acquisition of a large tract of land belonging to the Palestinian Arab Druze in the Galilee and eastern Carmel:
"The realization of this project would mean the emigration of 10,000 [Palestinian] Arabs [to Jabal al-Druze in Syria], the acquisition of 300,000 dunums. . . . It would also create a significant precedent if 10,000 [Palestinian] Arabs were to emigrate peacefully of their own volition, which no doubt would be followed by others." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 167)

This was seconded by Avraham Katznelson, another influential (I stress on that word, INFLUENTIAL) Mapai leader, who also said:

"more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethics, than the emptying of the Jewish state of the [Palestinian] Arabs and their transfer elsewhere .... This requires [the use of] force." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)

now read this beautiful discussion between those "socialist" Mapai secretariat regarding demographic make up of the Zionist colony soon after the 1948 war:

Eliyahu Camreli, MK: "I'm not willing to accept a single [Palestinian] Arab, and not only an Arab but any gentile. I want the State of Israel to be entirety Jewish, the descendents of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. . . ."
Yehiel Duvdenvany, MK: "If there was any way of solving the problem way of transfer [the Israeli propaganda term for ethnic cleansing] of the remaining 170,000 [Palestinian] Arabs we would do so. . . ."

Prior to the start of Operation Hiram in northern Palestine in October 1948, the Foreign Ministry advised the Israeli Army to make sure that the Galilee should be as clear as possible of Palestinian Arabs, and Christian Palestinians should be favored upon deciding whether to expel or not to expel Palestinians from the area, the report stated:

"to try during conquest [to make sure] that no [Palestinian] Arabs inhabitants remain in the Galilee and certainly that no refugees from other places remains there. Truth to tell, concerning the attitude to the Christian [Palestinian Arabs] and the problem of whether to discriminate in their favor and to leave them in their villages, clear instructions were not given [by us?] and we did not express an opinion." (Benny Morris, p. 226)

On July 24 the Mapai Center held a full-scale debate regarding the Palestinian Arab question against the background of the ethnic cleansing of Ramla and Lydda. The majority apparently backed Ben-Gurion's (the "socialist" keep that in mind) policies of population transfer or ethnic cleansing. Shlomo Lavi, one of the influential leaders of the Mapai party, said that:

"the ... transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the moss just, moral and correct that can be done. I have thought of this for many years." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)

This was seconded by Avraham Katznelson, another influential Mapai leader, who also said:

"more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethics, than the emptying of the Jewish state of the [Palestinian] Arabs and their transfer elsewhere .... This requires [the use of] force." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)

[chimx]

no, you don't cope with an atrocity by commiting a new one. Zionism began way before the Holocaust, and by the time of the holocaust, the zionist have already made their mind on expelling the Palestinains. I did recognize that at the begning, SOME, FEW, zionists were not really keen on expelling the Palestinains, but by the time of the holocaust it was already changed. Name me a zionist group or individual that was ready to work with the arabs.

Okay. How about Noam Chomsky. Here is an excerpt of an interview with Ludwig Watzal:

"WATZAL: Does Zionism have anything to do with the fate of the Palestinians?

CHOMSKY: This is a very complex problem. It depends on what you mean by Zionism. I was a Zionist activist in my youth. For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist."

You are consistently falling into the logical fallacy of viewing the current racist situation in Israel as the same throughout history. Zionism only thoroughly became a statist and nationalist ideology following the holocaust. Given the reality of the holocaust and the anti-Semitism throughout all of Europe int he 1940s, I'm not at all surprised.

that is the stupidist thing I ever heard; how the hell does it matter if the paelstinain arabs who owned the land were capitalist, communist, anarchist, socialist or whatever the hell they want to be??? they are still Palestinain arab, regardless of their political ideaologies.

Because being Arabic is irrelevant. Race is a biological fiction, and Arab as an ethnicity is ambiguous at best, given that the only common uniting factor of being Arabic is that you speak Arabic. "Palestinians" is the name that colonizers gave the Arabic tribes that lived along what is today the Gaza strip area centuries ago. Again, it is arbitrary and completely irrelevant.

What is relevant is the economic relationship of the peoples living in Palestine. That is to say, production relations. Who the fuck cares what ethnicity people are??! Absentee landlord scumbags owned the land and exploited persons worked the land. Why do you repeatedly keep making this into a race issue, over and over?

here is your beloved "socialist" Ben-Gurion

That is some libelous malarkey. I never said Ben-Gurion was a socialist. I don't know enough about him to make such a statement. I said he was a part of the Jewish Agency which at the time was dominated by Labor Zionists (socialists) prior to WWII.

[Revolution Until Victory]

chimx, you can't be serious can you???
political zionism was orignialy invented by Herzl. He did so in his book the jewish S T A T E. Since the very very begning, decades before the holocaust, the zionists were aming for a jewish state. What the hell was the Belfour decleration about. Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

"For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist."

you seem to be missing an important point here. If zinism meant an oposition to a jewish state, then heck, I'm a Palestinain zionist If that is what it meant, then I'm a radical zionsits, and all Palestinains would be too. Chomsky said that it was the intent of only the leadership to establish a state before 1942, but that doesn't change anything, since it was the leadership that was chosing the state, not the irrelivant others. if a "zionist" is against the establishment of a jewish state, then he is a great person and got no problem at all with any Palestinain. In fact, he wouldn't be a zionist!! if zionism is the establishment of a jewish state in Palestine, then then those whom "stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist" are not zionists and are friends of the Palestinain people, as far the the word "zionism" is understood to mean.

[chimx]

In fact, he wouldn't be a zionist . . . as far the the word "zionism" is understood to mean.

This is exactly what I have been painstakingly trying to explain throughout this entire thread. Prior to WWII, Zionism was a multi-faceted intellectual movement. The political Zionism of Herzl was not the dominant force. From 1905(ish) through the 30s, Labor/Socialist Zionism was. Zionist activists like Noam Chomsky worked to make socialism a reality in Palestine. This is how the Kibbutzim movement began.

After WWII, the political Zionism of Herzl won out (not surprisingly I might add given the reality of the holocaust). Socialist Zionism still tried to work as a progressive force, but its clout tapered off in the following decades that were marked by numerous Arab-Israeli conflicts.

So yes, "Zionism" as it is today is fucked up. What I have been saying though is that it wasn't always like this. It had strong socialist foundations. Unfortunately due to antisemitism and Jewish nationalism, political Zionism became the dominant force in Israel. But I certainly don't think that warrants us to ignore the complex history of the movement, some of which was certainly progressive.

[Revolution Until Victory]

"Prior to WWII, Zionism was a multi-faceted intellectual movement. The political Zionism of Herzl was not the dominant force. From 1905(ish) through the 30s, Labor/Socialist Zionism was. Zionist activists like Noam Chomsky worked to make socialism a reality in Palestine. This is how the Kibbutzim movement began...So yes, "Zionism" as it is today is fucked up. What I have been saying though is that it wasn't always like this."

What I was trying to say is zionism is the enemy of the Palestinains people, the left, and all human beings since its unjust, imperialist, and colonial if, IF, it meant the establishment of a jewish state. If zionism is as chomsky put it, then it is no more zionist, as far as the Palestinain people are concerned. In other words, those socialist progressive voices can't be considred zionits, the way we understand the word to mean to day. So those "good" socialist things won't be considred a good thing about the movement, since they are not actually considred a part of it if they didn't call for the establishment of a jewish state.

However, I disagree with you on the statement that "The political Zionism of Herzl was not the dominant force. From 1905(ish) through the 30s, Labor/Socialist Zionism was"
the evidence I provided in the earlier posts were clear evidence of how "zionism" (the racist idea of establishing a zionist colony on Palestinain stolen lands) was the absoulte dominant force in the movement. All the leaders were clearly racist, pro-zionist colony, and advocating expulsion of the arabs. In fact, never in its history was progressiveness and socialism dominant in the movement, since those like Chomsky won't even count as "zionists"
the only way a zionist would be truley "socialist" and "progressive" is if he/she doesn't call for the establishment of a zionist colony. There have been such people, but the won't be considered zionists in the first place. So you can't say Zionism had a complex history since all those who would be considred zionists were advocting for a zionist colony. Any one who was socalist, progressive, or not calling for a zionist colony, can't be considred a zionists, so you can't count him as a progressive voice within the movement.