Is Anti-Zionism the same as Anti-Semitism?
To spin off the other racism thread, the question at hand came to me as an interesting one. If you define Anti-Zionism as being against the proliferation of the Israeli state at the expense of other (necessarily Arabic) states, are you also Anti-Semitic?
I suspect by the mass media's definition, you ARE Anti-Semitic, because anyone who is against the expansion of the Israeli state, must also have a dislike for people of the Jewish faith. Makes their rebuttals much easier to formulate, and also enhances sound-bite quality, and therefore ratings.
However, using my self-confirmed, "more logical" definition of Anti-Semitism - harboring ill will or hatred towards a person simply because they are Jewish - a person can be Anti-Zionist, but not be Anti-Semitic. I frankly am beginning to detest the Israeli government and the unbridled support they have here in Washington, and yet I harbor no ill will towards any Jewish person I meet, unless their actions toward me warrant that ill will.
When someone treats me with dignity or kindness, I instantly have some respect for that person and try to reciprocate. Doesn't matter what altar they worship upon. The odd thing is, were that person Jewish and they magically knew I was Anti-Zionist without me saying it, they might not ever show me any kindness or dignity in everyday life. Why not? I wouldn't hesitate to treat that person well just because I don't like Sharon....
In the end it's just a semantic game - which can be twisted and contorted by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons - but it just drives me up a wall when anyone who speaks up against Israeli policy is shunned or otherwise viewed with suspicion... on account of the fact that they *could be* Anti-Semitic. Not saying that happens in here necessarily, but in general why the leap in logic?
Another example: if a person is against French Foreign policies (not saying I am), should they then be viewed with suspicion as someone who hates the French and French culture?
What about the Japanese? I think their attitudes towards foreigners borders on xenophobia, but I don't hate the Japanese people I met there, even if they were a little reluctant to bring me into their world. I don't hate them or their culture. Actually, aside from not relating to some of it, I find it fascinating. Architecture, religion, food and all.
I guess what it boils down to is, when it comes to race and religion, people seem to have a hard time seeing shades of grey anymore. Everything is about "the cause" - stand for it and you're OK, stand against it and you're not only against the cause but the people behind it. Just like Affirmative action and the others. Either you're with their cause or you're against THEM. Screwed up if you ask me.
I suspect by the mass media's definition, you ARE Anti-Semitic, because anyone who is against the expansion of the Israeli state, must also have a dislike for people of the Jewish faith. Makes their rebuttals much easier to formulate, and also enhances sound-bite quality, and therefore ratings.
However, using my self-confirmed, "more logical" definition of Anti-Semitism - harboring ill will or hatred towards a person simply because they are Jewish - a person can be Anti-Zionist, but not be Anti-Semitic. I frankly am beginning to detest the Israeli government and the unbridled support they have here in Washington, and yet I harbor no ill will towards any Jewish person I meet, unless their actions toward me warrant that ill will.
When someone treats me with dignity or kindness, I instantly have some respect for that person and try to reciprocate. Doesn't matter what altar they worship upon. The odd thing is, were that person Jewish and they magically knew I was Anti-Zionist without me saying it, they might not ever show me any kindness or dignity in everyday life. Why not? I wouldn't hesitate to treat that person well just because I don't like Sharon....
In the end it's just a semantic game - which can be twisted and contorted by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons - but it just drives me up a wall when anyone who speaks up against Israeli policy is shunned or otherwise viewed with suspicion... on account of the fact that they *could be* Anti-Semitic. Not saying that happens in here necessarily, but in general why the leap in logic?
Another example: if a person is against French Foreign policies (not saying I am), should they then be viewed with suspicion as someone who hates the French and French culture?
What about the Japanese? I think their attitudes towards foreigners borders on xenophobia, but I don't hate the Japanese people I met there, even if they were a little reluctant to bring me into their world. I don't hate them or their culture. Actually, aside from not relating to some of it, I find it fascinating. Architecture, religion, food and all.
I guess what it boils down to is, when it comes to race and religion, people seem to have a hard time seeing shades of grey anymore. Everything is about "the cause" - stand for it and you're OK, stand against it and you're not only against the cause but the people behind it. Just like Affirmative action and the others. Either you're with their cause or you're against THEM. Screwed up if you ask me.
Comments
Being anti-demecrot or anti-republican is a way of being intolerant. Sure you have your preferences for a party or another, but being anti is a sort of intolerance.
I will say therefore that being anti-zionist (and zionism do not exactly equal to expansion, but rather than the quest for the mythical israel), is very near being anti-semit.
In another note, have grips to formulate against the state of Israel is not anti-semit, but being anti-israel is an intolerant state of mind, and if not exactly anti-semit, as least xenophobic.
Originally posted by Moogs
Either you're with their cause or you're against THEM. Screwed up if you ask me.
To paraphrase Bush, either you're with us or the terrorists.
Anti-Zionism is NOT anti-semitism. The former is political regarding the state created in 1948, the latter has to do with the religion and usually the race, although a number of other Middle Eastern groups could be considered Semites.
There are sects in Judaism that do not "recognize" the State of Israel, for to do so would indicate certain prophecies in the Old Testament have been fulfilled (which, to them, have not).
Also, as a side note, Israel was the name given to all twelve tribes. When they split (think it's in the Book of Chronicles), the "lost" ten became Israel, and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (and the Levite priests) became Judah. Judah being the root for the word "Jew". So having the Jews found "Israel", to some, appears a bit forward.
It can get confusing going through history, but toss a word out there to further a cause - a word with "anti" as the prefix - and it's amazing what you can do. If you don't like prefixes, use the suffix "phobic".
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The problem is to be anti-something.
Being anti-demecrot or anti-republican is a way of being intolerant. Sure you have your preferences for a party or another, but being anti is a sort of intolerance.
I will say therefore that being anti-zionist (and zionism do not exactly equal to expansion, but rather than the quest for the mythical israel), is very near being anti-semit.
In another note, have grips to formulate against the state of Israel is not anti-semit, but being anti-israel is an intolerant state of mind, and if not exactly anti-semit, as least xenophobic.
Excellent post DOC
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I will say therefore that being anti-zionist (and zionism do not exactly equal to expansion, but rather than the quest for the mythical israel), is very near being anti-semit.
This is correct I think, but is Zionism just the quest for any Israeli state? Or is it more zealous than that? I guess I need to refresh my memory on the dictionary definition of Zionism....
Not sure I agree with your "anit-something = intolerance of something" statement. At least not with the baggage that is associated with "intolerance" these days. Once upon a time, to tolerate or not tolerate something simply referred to ones willpower to endure the presence of that thing in their life. If they couldn't they simply disengaged or walked away or whatever.
Today intolerance is sort of synonymous with bigotry and close-mindedness, and the behaviors that accompany these concepts. So in other words, just because I am Anti-Zionist, doesn't mean I refuse to recognize a Zionist's right to his or her opinion and political views. I don't LIKE (or even respect) their views at all, but I understand they have a right to express and pursue them as I do my own.
With regards to Bush, absolutely the "with us or with the terrorists" is an example of not acknowleding an important grey area in current political thought. No surprise that a knucklehead like Bush would espouse such a view, given his political goals and the simple-minded approach of many of his followers.
Also, I agree Powerdoc that Zionism could be seen as the quest for the "Biblical" Israel vs. the quest to simply expand as much as possible into Palestinian and surrounding territories.
Originally posted by bunge
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I will say therefore that being anti-zionist (and zionism do not exactly equal to expansion, but rather than the quest for the mythical israel), is very near being anti-semit.
This is correct I think, but is Zionism just the quest for any Israeli state? Or is it more zealous than that? I guess I need to refresh my memory on the dictionary definition of Zionism....
I'll just deal with how it's was initially envisioned, as well as how it's usually understood in Israel and most of the Diaspora.
Zionism is the idea that Jews are a people just like you, and if other people have the right to a sovereign nation state in some part of their historical homeland, so have the Jews. Today it means to support the existence and of Israel, its right to exist and to keep existing.
Although it started out as mostly secular and left-from-centre (and was mostly influenced by the ideals French Revolution which began the whole nation-state thing, as well as Greek independence, the Italian Risorgimento, etc.), as a movement, it encompassed right-wing and left-wing ideological parties, marxists, capitalists, traditionalists, secularists, centrists, religious, social-democrats, hawks, doves, anarchists, nationalists, and internationalists.
Historically there have been many non-antisemitic opponents of Zionism, first and foremost among Jews, besides the traditional ultra-religious who prefer to wait passively for the messiah to hand them some stuff on a plate, there were those in favour of assimilation into the Western nation-states, and the Bund, which favoured some form of autonomy within the states of central and eastern Europe where the Yiddishland once used to be.
Those two movements lost steam after 1945 for two related reasons, the most assimilated Jewish community was the pre-1933 German one, and the Yiddishland ceased to be.
Jews of some hundred years ago were quite un-enthusiatic about the idea of the nation-state (and when they were enthusiastic, it was about someone else's nation state for which they'd die fighting by the thousands), and found the cosmopolite, apatride, existence, more appealing than the childish games of flags and nationalisms.
As George Steiner put it, Jews toying with a state-with-flags-and-uniforms is akin to an old wise man in the kindergarten's sandbox playing some kid's games.
Unfortunately, in this reality, without the powers afforded by the immature tool of a state and the stupid deadly toys states usually have, Jews were powerless to oppose the hardship that befell them in the last century, and the nineteen centuries before it.
So now, while not all Jews see having a nation-state as a brilliant instrument, most are in agreement that it's an indispensable one.
If some anti-Zionist perspective is part of a larger perspective opposing the very existence of any separate state, then in principle there's no problem with it opposing the existence of the Israeli state as well.
But if it denies only the Jewish nation-state but not other nation-states (or multi-national states, revolutionary states, treaty-states, dynastic states, and what-not) the right to exist, it is anti-semitism.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp?0si=-
I know the painful truth. The body count will continue, because our political leaders are petty little people. So full of themselves, they are clueless about conflict resolution; they slay Palestinians and expect them to exercise restraint (emphasis mine).
These wise men believe that the occupation can continue; these glorious generals have for there years now been ?letting the IDF win,? as the slogan goes; they may be seasoned soldiers, but they are absolutely ignorant in conflict resolution. They believe that by using terror to counter terror they can give us security. They believe that they can devastate the infrastructure of Palestinian leadership and government and at the same time stop militias from wreaking chaos.
They have for two years now been pronouncing Arafat ?irrelevant?, but what does that make of former defense minister Binyamin (Fuad) Ben-Eliezer, of former prime minister Ehud Barak and of the incumbent, Ariel Sharon? Are they any more relevant than he? How long will it take us to wake up from this ongoing folly?
Ding Ding Ding DINGGG!
We have a winner....
That's my take.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Zionism is the idea that Jews are a people just like you, and if other people have the right to a sovereign nation state in some part of their historical homeland, so have the Jews. Today it means to support the existence and of Israel, its right to exist and to keep existing.
Yes, that right exists, as it does for other peoples. But the fact that the right exists does not mean that it must or should be exercised, as you recognize - elsewhere in your post - that many Jews thought prior to the dominance of Zionism in Jewish thought. Peoples may also choose to live together in multi-ethnic unitary or federal states.
In fact, the existence of the right to which you refer does not even mean that it is a moral choice in most circumstances. The Jewish choice was dictated, in large part, by overriding security concerns and is fully understandable in that context. (Even then, I would argue, it is the wrong choice today, but that was an argument we had in another thread.) In the case of most other national movements over the past century, however, ethnic separation, in and of itself, has somehow maintened and even gained currency over time as an acceptable ideology. This is a source of great sadness for me and, I would argue, tragedy for the world.
If one objects to Zionism because it's for Jews then yes.
Originally posted by Chinney
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Zionism is the idea that Jews are a people just like you, and if other people have the right to a sovereign nation state in some part of their historical homeland, so have the Jews. Today it means to support the existence and of Israel, its right to exist and to keep existing.
Yes, that right exists, as it does for other peoples. But the fact that the right exists does not mean that it must or should be exercised,?
That's for the concerned people to decide, if it should be exercised or not.
?as you recognize - elsewhere in your post - that many Jews thought prior to the dominance of Zionism in Jewish thought. Peoples may also choose to live together in multi-ethnic unitary or federal states.
And they can choose not to. It's theirs to choose. With all the sadness of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the concerned nations did not go through anything as terrible people of former Yugloslavia went through since 1990, which is what your proposed solution (which you have expressed in other threads) would lead to.
In fact, the existence of the right to which you refer does not even mean that it is a moral choice in most circumstances.
If one recongises the validity of the right to self-determination for all, it is therefore ethical for people to choose to exercise it, so while the choice can be motivated by circumstances (like say, the intent of surviving), it can also be ethically legitimate, in other word: moral.
The Jewish choice was dictated, in large part, by overriding security concerns and is fully understandable in that context.
It was a choice, ergo it was not dictated, although concerns for survival as a people as well as individuals (rather than mere security) played a part in the process leading to that choice. They could have chosen othger options, like giving another chance to the goodwill and compassion of the so-called international community. The choice made was a good one.
(Even then, I would argue, it is the wrong choice today, but that was an argument we had in another thread.)
Feel free to work toward the dissolution of the sovereign state of which you presently are a citizen, it'd be much more constructive than advising it to others. As you might discover, the services and protections afforded by a sovereign country to its citizens are not all that useless.
In the case of most other national movements over the past century, however, ethnic separation,?
Nation-state does not equate ethnic spearation, as most nation-states have national minorities, who fare rather well if the regime of the country in question is a form of representative democracy.
?in and of itself, has somehow maintened and even gained currency over time as an acceptable ideology. This is a source of great sadness for me and, I would argue, tragedy for the world.
The world is a huge tragedy, even more so for those who are powerless. So the Jews have chosen not to be powerless as long as they can help it.
So it'd be better to get used to the idea.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
That's a very didactic message, Immanuel. It's part of the reason so many people are put off by Zionism.
Well, I could use some catchy slogans, flatter my interlocutor, or otherwise distort the content of my message so it is more pleasant.
But then again, I do not aim to please.
I try to be as effectively informative as I can while keeping it reasonably concise.
If some people are put off, so be it.
Also, I do not intend to offend anyone, but if someone is, so be it.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
That's for the concerned people to decide, if it should be exercised or not.
I did not suggest otherwise.
With all the sadness of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the concerned nations did not go through anything as terrible people of former Yugloslavia went through since 1990, which is what your proposed solution (which you have expressed in other threads) would lead to.
No, what happened in Yugoslavia - and in other places - is what occurs when people start to accept views about ethnic nationalism that are the opposite of mine.
If one recongises the validity of the right to self-determination for all, it is therefore ethical for people to choose to exercise it, so while the choice can be motivated by circumstances (like say, the intent of surviving), it can also be ethically legitimate, in other word: moral.
Can be moral?:yes. Is it necessarily moral?:no. Is it usually moral?: no, not if it is motivated by ethnic nationalism.
Feel free to work toward the dissolution of the sovereign state of which you presently are a citizen, it'd be much more constructive than advising it to others. As you might discover, the services and protections afforded by a sovereign country to its citizens are not all that useless.
I am not following your point here. I am not seeking the dissolution of states - rather their greater unification. Now and in the future, the only real security will be joint security.
Nation-state does not equate ethnic spearation, as most nation-states have national minorities, who fare rather well if the regime of the country in question is a form of representative democracy.
Good point and, indeed, a foundation of the larger argument that I am making. Nice to know that we agree on something Immanuel.
Originally posted by Moogs
Powerdoc:
Not sure I agree with your "anit-something = intolerance of something" statement. At least not with the baggage that is associated with "intolerance" these days. Once upon a time, to tolerate or not tolerate something simply referred to ones willpower to endure the presence of that thing in their life. If they couldn't they simply disengaged or walked away or whatever.
Today intolerance is sort of synonymous with bigotry and close-mindedness, and the behaviors that accompany these concepts. So in other words, just because I am Anti-Zionist, doesn't mean I refuse to recognize a Zionist's right to his or her opinion and political views. I don't LIKE (or even respect) their views at all, but I understand they have a right to express and pursue them as I do my own.
With regards to Bush, absolutely the "with us or with the terrorists" is an example of not acknowleding an important grey area in current political thought. No surprise that a knucklehead like Bush would espouse such a view, given his political goals and the simple-minded approach of many of his followers.
Also, I agree Powerdoc that Zionism could be seen as the quest for the "Biblical" Israel vs. the quest to simply expand as much as possible into Palestinian and surrounding territories.
My post was not expressed at you. My point is that in a strict semiotic point of vue, anti-zionism is not anti-semite, because it speak of differents thing.
But in a psychological point of vue they tend to become the same. When we do not like an image, we tend to dislike everything that are in it (thus anti-zionism means do not like zionism, and therefore do not like jew as well because they are part of the image). Only the logic and our power of abstraction, allow us to see the details of an image and to have a more balanced opinions. But logic required a work under ourself at the contrary of the psychological process i discribed (merely put everything in the same bucket).
Originally posted by Chinney
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
That's for the concerned people to decide, if it should be exercised or not.
I did not suggest otherwise.
So we're fine.
With all the sadness of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the concerned nations did not go through anything as terrible people of former Yugloslavia went through since 1990, which is what your proposed solution (which you have expressed in other threads) would lead to.
No, what happened in Yugoslavia - and in other places - is what occurs when people start to accept views about ethnic nationalism that are the opposite of mine.
That is a somewhat simplistic description of the rather complex Balkan situation. To sum it up succintly: the Yugolslavia arrangement was not working so all concerned could accept to live with it, but rather than separate agreeably, as was done in former Czechoslovakia, they fought over it.
To sum it up succintly: a single Isra-Stinian state would soon disintegrate in an all out civil war, because neither Jews from Israel nor Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank could accept to live with it.
If one recognises the validity of the right to self-determination for all, it is therefore ethical for people to choose to exercise it, so while the choice can be motivated by circumstances (like say, the intent of surviving), it can also be ethically legitimate, in other word: moral.
Can be moral?:yes. Is it necessarily moral?:no. Is it usually moral?: no, not if it is motivated by ethnic nationalism.
National self-determination is an expression of ethnic nationalism. The ethnics having the right ot rule themselves if they so choose. You can choose, of course, not to recognise this as their right.
How about starting with Ireland, France, Netherlands, or Netherlands. Let's just all annex them to the Isle of Wight.
Feel free to work toward the dissolution of the sovereign state of which you presently are a citizen, it'd be much more constructive than advising it to others. As you might discover, the services and protections afforded by a sovereign country to its citizens are not all that useless.
I am not following your point here. I am not seeking the dissolution of states - rather their greater unification.
That is a form of dissolution of states, within some bigger states in this case.
Now and in the future, the only real security will be joint security.
Beware, that might win you the accusation of ?imperialism? in some circles or of ?new world order dominationeering? in others (although they might overlap, and often do); not that I have any essential objection to the idea, mind you. But why don't you start with your more established, affluent, relatively secure, older countries. If you manage not to collapse into some all out civil war, ethnic warfare, or some other calamity, the smaller, more threatened ethnics might give the idea some serious consideration.
Just so you know, some hundred years ago, many of my direct ancestors had ideas quite close to yours about the coming twentieth century.
Nation-state does not equate ethnic spearation, as most nation-states have national minorities, who fare rather well if the regime of the country in question is a form of representative democracy.
Good point and, indeed, a foundation of the larger argument that I am making.
With all its many faults (most of which are due to the current situation of armed violent conflict), Israel is such a country, to the point that most individuals of its ethnic Arab minority adamantly refuse any suggestion of their being included in the soon-to-be state of Palestine (as several suggested border lines propose the annexation to Palestine of Arab-inhabited villages and cities currently part of the Israeli state).
Nice to know that we agree on something Immanuel.
And while I disagree with most of your views (actually, they anger me) they are legitimate nonetheless, since they are not calling for the sole abolition of Israel, but of the others as well.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Well, I could use some catchy slogans, flatter my interlocutor, or otherwise distort the content of my message so it is more pleasant.
But then again, I do not aim to please.
I try to be as effectively informative as I can while keeping it reasonably concise.
If some people are put off, so be it.
Also, I do not intend to offend anyone, but if someone is, so be it.
No, you aim to be abrasive and self-righteous.
Huh. Maybe that's why I'm one of the few American's who is Pro-Palestinian. Well, not really Pro-Palestinian. Maybe more anti-Israeli. (Read, not anti-Jew).
Peace is a nice thing.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
No, you aim to be abrasive and self-righteous.
And you pretend to tell me what my aim is?
Huh. Maybe that's why I'm one of the few American's who is Pro-Palestinian. Well, not really Pro-Palestinian. Maybe more anti-Israeli. (Read, not anti-Jew).
If your being ?put off? by my style which you find ?didactic?, ?abrasive?, etc. is why you are ?Pro-Palestinian (?) well, not really Pro-Palestinian (?) Maybe more anti-Israeli?, it'd mean you're quite a frivolous person.
Peace is a nice thing.
So is existence, and while most Israelis would prefer to exist in peace, they'd take existence in the absence of peace over peace in the absence of existence.
How self-righteous and abrasive of them.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
And you pretend to tell me what my aim is?
If your being ?put off? by my style which you find ?didactic?, ?abrasive?, etc. is why you are ?Pro-Palestinian (?) well, not really Pro-Palestinian (?) Maybe more anti-Israeli?, it'd mean you're quite a frivolous person.
So is existence, and while most Israelis would prefer to exist in peace, they'd take existence in the absence of peace over peace in the absence of existence.
How self-righteous and abrasive of them.
Oh don't be so pompous. You're not that important.
As to the question of existence, the Israelis constantly take decisions that seem almost calculated to reduce the amount of peace in which they can exist.
I wonder, in this context, how you would justify the tenders for new settlements, and the continuing confiscation of land? A coward would blame Palestinian roadmap failures; will you?
Is it only a foreigner that can see these actions are both immoral and render it impossible for a Palestinian leader to demonstrate he is delivering progress to an angry people?