Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 1

The quote I added to this article does not represent my own opinion; I added it only so that readers can see how anti-Zionists, particularly Arabs, view Zionism. It is likely that the author of the quoted remark misunderstands Zionism or is deliberately slandering it for ulterior motives, but that is hard to judge.

For example, Hassan Tahsin writes: "Thus, Nazism in Germany, Imperial Japan (until 1945) the Ku Klux Klan in the US, apartheid in South Africa and Zionism in Palestine are considered the worst types of racism in modern history. Zionism, in fact, is 'a racist, religious and occupational movement connected from its inception by international colonialism'." [1] (http://www.arabview.com/article.asp?artID=90)

--Ed Poor

Here is another view from The Department for Jewish Zionist Education (http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/actual/zr/3.html):

Among the most harmful UN anti-Israel resolutions was the notorious General Assembly #3379 resolution equating Zionism with racism, passed in November 1975 by 72 to 35. It stated that Zionism "is a form of racism and racial discrimination... [and] is a threat to world peace and security." [2] (http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/actual/zr/3.html)

The article says:

This issue is made more confusing by differing uses of the terms "racism" and "racial discrimination". Formally, racism is the belief that one race is superior to another; but many people use it as a synonym for racial discrimination. Furthermore, many people use "racial discrimination" broadly, to include discrimination on the basis of both ethnicity and race. Many Zionists have interpreted anti-Zionists who call Zionism racist or racially discriminatory as believing that Jews are a distinct race from non-Jews -- some may do so (particularly those inspired by racial anti-semitism) -- but others may merely be using sloppy terminology, and are really talking about ethnicity.

It seems that "race" and "ethnicity" are being equated, at least informally, here -- possibly as part of an argument:

premise: ethnic discrimination is equivalent to racial discrimination
premise: racial discrimination is racism
Hence, ethnic discrimination is racism
premise: Israel practices ethnic discrimination
Hence, Israel practices racial discrimination
And thus, Israel practices racism

Some advocates further add:

premise: countries which practice racism should be condemned.
Hence, Israel should be condemned

I myself neither agree nor disagree with the above reasoning: I am just trying to figure out how various people see things, so I can describe their points of view in the articles. --Ed Poor 16:14 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

Ed: My point is that, correctly or not, a lot of people do equate "race" and "ethnicity", and some people equate "racism" and "racial discrimination"; and hence at least some people who call Israel or Zionism "racist" are actually talking about discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. I think its important to point this out, since Zionists will say they are mistakenly viewing Jews as a race, or point out that Jews are racially diverse (e.g. the Falashas)--some anti-Zionists may well be making this mistake, and for them this criticism of the Zionists would be correct, but for others they may just be using sloppy language, and really mean the different claim that "Zionism, in practice, inevitably involves ethnic discrimination". I think we should try to describe what people really mean (when this can be discovered), not just take everything they say literally to the point of creating a strawman argument against them. -- SJK, 2002-09-07, 0033 UTC.

Thanks for inserting words like "claim", "argue" & "consider". Such words help the article attribute a point of view to its advocate. --Ed Poor

Thanks Ed for the compliment. At the moment the article contains the following sentence (which I have changed from a statement to a claim, but kept the same point):

In addition, they claim that anti-Zionists fail to distinguish between Israel the state, and Israelis and Jews as individuals, and argue this is a form of anti-Semitic demonization and hatred.

I would like to ask whoever was originally responsible for this comment, what exactly are they talking about? Can we have a specific example of where they claim an anti-Zionist fails to make this distinction? (I agree that maybe some or even many anti-Zionists might fail to make this distinction, but I can't see any necessary logical connection between anti-Zionism and the failure) -- SJK

Also, whoever wrote the following, could they explain what they mean by it: "The consensus that emerged from the following public debate was that since Judaism is not seen by Jews exclusively as a religion (see above), once one rejects one's nationality, one can no longer simultaneously demand membership in it." How can not viewing Judaism as exclusively a religion justify consider a convert to another religion a non-Jew? I would have thought the opposite--if you think Judaism is exclusively a religion, then you would not accept a convert to another religion as still being a Jew; on the other hand, if you do not consider Judaism to be exclusively a religion, then you might be willing to consider a convert from Judaism to another faith as still being Jewish. -- SJK

I wrote that part (months ago), I think I meant it to read "exclusively as a nationality". I'll rephrease it. --~~

Zionists do not claim that anti-Zionism in and of itself is anti-Semitic, since at one time the majority of Jews were anti-Zionist -- but those who view anti-Zionism as inevitably antisemitic believe that in today's situation it is inherently so, even if theory or in different historical circumstances it might not be.

This paragraph seems obscure and redundant to me.

Regarding the semantic dispute about "racism": sure, the speakers might be using sloppy terminology. But they still do an emotional hijacking, and they do it consciously. I think that should be mentioned.

Opponents of Zionism argue that although Israel allows people of many different races to become Israeli citizens, it still nonetheless discriminates against non-Jews (in immigration and nationality laws, and access to government benefits), and that by defining itself as a "Jewish" state, it inevitably excludes other non-Jews, even if only on a psychological level.

This phrase needs review.

Immigration and nationality laws have a distinct status from internal laws and qualities of being racist or non-racist cannot usually be attributed to them. Thus, I've heard noone so far saying Germany was discriminating against non-Germans. Obviously if very few (if any) people world-wide claim Germany implements a racist policy, it is hypocritical to claim that Israel does, by doing the same.
Access to government benefits? Which exactly? Arabs receive the same social benefits as Jews; there's no de-jure discrimination. Of course, discrimination may exist de-facto - but this article is about discussing the conceptual problem.
"Only a psychological level": do Swiss Muslims experience a problem with having a cross as their flag? Do British Catholics protest the Queen's declared status as the leader of the one true church?

Many anti-Zionists are undoubtedly antisemitic, in the classical sense of the term; but many others are not, and find antisemitism abhorrent.

We have discussed this at length haven't we?

A decision in July 2002 that some housing areas were restricted for Jews became debated.

It never got submitted to the Knesset because it was a dead horse. Why beat it? --Uri

I have removed this very odd paragraph

An opposing view would note that inherent to this definition is the view that a state of Israel has existed since the Jewish Diaspora. The reformation of a Jewish state directly changed who owned the land, and who lived in the region, in some ways paralleling the original Roman army. This created a Palestinian diaspora. Some would indeed claim that the state of Israel is a colonial movement. The view that colonization happens in areas where the land is totally alien to the oppressors is also not substantiated. Before 1812, politically, and emotionally, the country of Canada did not exist. Ties across the border with the USA were much stronger than across the ocean with England. A single nation comprising the British colonies of Canada and the country of the United States was almost inevetable. It was the process of attempting to colonize Canada in 1812 which lead to the establishment of a Canadian identity, and a separate country. Similary, Britain colonized wales and scotland, areas that were hardly totally alien.

For the following reasons, mostly to do with the second half.

1. The country of Canada, in the form of the colony of Nova Scotia, existed long before 1812.

2. The inevitability of union between Canada and the US during the period from 1776 to 1812 was pretty low owing to the bad feeling created during the Revolutionary war between the Empire Loyalists and the rebels.

3. Wales was conquered but not colonized unlike Ireland which was conquered and colonised in the north although not in the south.

4. Scotland was neither conquered nor colonised. It entered into a treaty of with England covering currency union, free trade, taxation union and political union which is more thoroughgoing in practice but not dissimilar in principle to the one which the UK has more recently entered into with the European Community.

It seems to me that these flaws in the supporting part of the paragraph are too deep to fix, so the paragraph should be removed until better supporting evidence for its main point can be written. -- Derek Ross 10:55 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

(removed my comment, it was supposed to go under Anti-Semitism, not here). -- Delirium

just transcribed a bit from a Chomsky speech (couldnt find it on the web) from columbia university, with Edward Said. a bit much, but hopefully enlightening. -Sv

"I still believe what i thought when I was teenage Zionist youth activist, more than... almost 60 years ago. At that time, as a Zionist youth activist I was strongly oppsoed to a jewish state: Which was called a Zionist position at the time. Now its an anti-Zionist position, (its the) same position; the meaning of the word has changed."

"And the reasons were pretty straight forward: A democratic Jewish state is an absolute contradiction in terms: You can try to pretend "circles are squares" if you like, but... its more work. It's a contradiciton in terms. Furthermore, a Jewish state, it was clear, was going to exacerbate conflicts and tensions. And thirdly, it was going to destroy the attractive elements in the existing societies, which were quite real: They're not going to survive... a state... and ethnic conflict."

"And there was an alternative: the alternative, which was then, Zionist position, was some kind of bi-nationalist federation; recognizing there were two national groups involved: Moving towards closer integration, as circimstances permit, on the basis of cooperation between people across national lines which are not the only national lines in the world. So, on the basis of common class interests, or cultural interests, or other interests. Well, 1948 that became academic."

"In 1967 it became realistic. at that point, israel controlled the whole region. It could have instituted a regime of that sort, with no opposition - in fact - it would have been welcome."

"I actually suggested it alot at that time, that led to extreme denunciatons - particularly fom isralei doves. Including, im sorry to say, old friends. and the reason was, it was a period of enormous triumphalism; in israel and the united states, nobody wanted to hear anything. So that was gone. But after 1973, that opportunity was lost. There was a window of opportunity from '67 up to the '73 war- it was lost. Now, its concievable, that its realistic again."

"It should be obvious to any sane person that there is not two-state settlement other than the South African Trans-sky settlement. And it's kind of interensting that - I don't know exactly what it means... that this traditional Zionist idea that I just desrcibed - you know, on the fringe: I dont want to say it's the mainstream, its being revived a little bit in Israel, with what... significance when they debate." Sv

Stevertgo, stop your dishonest tactic of hiding major edits, and falsely marking them as minor edits. Your obsession with the Jews and with Chomsky is problematic enough, but your deceptive tactics cause us to question your honesty. RK

Actually, RK, Chomsky's contention is not that off the mark historically. Before statehood, there was an active movement among Jewish intellectuals in Palestine called Ichud, which considered themselves Zionists but believed that a specifically "Jewish" state was not possible or even desirable, and supported the creation of a binational state for Arabs and Jews. Among the supporters of this idea were Martin Buber and J.L. Magnes (first president of The Hebrew University), who were left leaning, but also some people on the extreme right, in the Stern Gang, including Natan Yellin-Mor, a member of the Triumvirate that took over after Stern's death and later represented Lehi in the First Knesset (and possibly a KGB agent). Today, Uri Avneri, a prominent peace activist (the founder of Brit Shalom) and a supporter of a binational state, traces his beliefs to the Stern Gang, of which he was once a member. Another group that supported the idea in a extreme form was Ratosh's Canaanite movement, but apart from a literary journal, they never had more than eighteen full-fledged members (and in my opinion, the idea of reinstituing Baal-worship to bridge the Jewish-Islamic divide was kinda weird). All of these groups considered themselves Zionist. Danny 14:40 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I knew of Buber, but not of the others. This is useful. My thought, at the moment, is that this viewpoint doesn't represent Zionism in any measurable way. There have been huge numbers of Zionists, in a great many Zionist groups. Any random sampling, as far as I know, would indicate that all of them held that Zionism was for the creation of a Jewish state, and not the oppoisition to one. You can find the same handful of people who create non-representative definitions of words anywhere we look. Pat Buchanan, for instance, claims to be a Republican, yet he has written polemical essays against democracy and for Nazi Germany, and in a recent book claimed that America was on the wrong side in World War II. He also has his Republican followers. So we are left with two possibilities. (A) Define the Republican party as a party that includes pro-Nazi points of view, or (B) Say that the Republican party has no such views; in this latter definition we merely admit that a statistically insignificant number of people who identity as Republicans have views that are in no way representative of the movement's leadership or of its overwhelming majority. Otherwise, I fear that someone can take advantage of the statistical abberration, and could define Republican as pro-Nazi and Zionism as anti-Israel, etc. (The list goes on). Of course, I don't want to hide any facts, but I am concerned at the moment over how best to present said facts so that perspective is maintained. Any ideas you have, or suggestions on how to write this, would be much appreciated. RK

I'll try to explain. My problem with anti-Zionism is not the arguments it raises against there being a Jewish state. I believe those arguments are legitimate (heck, I agree with some of them) and can point to various groups in contemporary Jewish history that held similar viewpoints--Agudat Israel and large sections the Reform Movement are two American organizations that disavowed Zionism for a very long time. My problem is that anti-Zionism presupposes a homogeneity of Zionist objectives. That is not the case. Sure, the Territorialists (a Jewish homeland anywhere but Palestine) split with the Zionist Congress, but so did the Revisionists. If the latter are unquestionably Zionist, a case can be made for the former too. Buber and Magnes were active in the Zionist movement. Yellin-Mor was active in the Revisionist movement. They had views that were raised and debated. Buber and Magnes were embraced by mainstream Zionists (Y-M was not, but that is a different story). In fact, it was because Magnes's viewpoints were considered mainstream that he was appointed head of a major Zionist enterprise--the first Hebrew-language university. I find it odd that some anti-Zionists promote the idea of a binational state as a means of attacking Zionism, when they don't realize that the idea itself was developed by Zionists and promoted by Zionists, even though it eventually came to nothing--I also find it odd that many Zionists don't know this (or that Jabotinsky also promoted elements of binationalism in his Revisionist platform). In any event, an article on Zionism should reflect the multiple opinions and heated debates in the Zionist movement. As for anti-Zionism, one cannot be an anti-Zionist if one is adopting what was essentially a Zionist position. By the way, I happened to have met quite a few very old Zionists--activists in HaBonim-Dror and founders of kibbutzim--who hated Ben-Gurion too. They argued that he was too rash. If Arlosoroff hadn't been assassinated, he would have headed the Jewish Agency, not B.G., and Arlosoroff would never have allowed the creation of a Jewish state before an agreement was reached with the Arabs (Palestinians and neighboring states). Danny 15:35 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

taken from the article The definition of anti-Zionism, however, has a history of political contention among Jews, and depends entirely upon the definition of Zionism. As Noam Chomsky points out:

"...as a Zionist youth activist, I was strongly opposed to a Jewish state, which was called a Zionist position at the time. Now it's an anti-Zionist position... the meaning of the word has changed.

I think this part does need some clarifications since an uninformed reader can get totally confused by it. It should go back in the article with Danny's explanation, maybe under a subheading "different definitions of zionism in history" --Elian

from talk:intifada

GrahamN writes "I hope you are able to make the distinction between anti-Semitism, which is obviously completely abhorrent and unacceptable, and anti-Zionism, which is a perfectly legitimate moral and political stance. The Intifada is a struggle against Zionism, not against Jews."

What precisely do you mean by the term Anti-Zionism? I (and others) have only come across this word as a term to describe the struggle to end the State of Israel. (Which would certainly involve killing hundreds of thousands of Jews.) This is anti-Semitic. But please note that there is a big difference between anti-Zionism and specific criticisms of the Israeli government. The latter, by all reasonable definitions of the term, cannot be considered anti-Semitic. For instance, one can oppose the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the right of Palestinians to have a nation, without being an anti-Zionist. Zionism merely means that the Jewish people have a right to a state of their own. Just as Arabs have a right to have an Arab nation (there are in fact nearly two dozen ethnic Arab nations!) and just as Japanese people have a right to have a Japanese nation, Jews have a right to one as well. This is what some Jewish writers have termed "normalcy"; the right of Jews to live as other peoples do all across the world. But saying that Arabs have a right to have a state of their own (nearly two dozen, in fact) yet holding that Jews should always be forbidden from having even one, is what many would call anti-Semitic. Note that historically anti-Zionism has always been used as a veneer for for anti-Semitism. This is most obvious in Poland, Czechoslovakia, the former Soviet Union, and in some Arab nations. See the entry on Anti-Semitism for more details. RK

Just playing devil's advocate: So the Kurds are a people, should northern Iraq and southern Turkey be carved up for them? How about the Roma? They are a people, should we carve up (insert name of eastern European nation here) for the Roma as well? How about the Maya, the Inca, or the Australian aborigines? They don’t have nations of their own. How fair would it be to the existing nations to give up part, or all, of their land to give some land to a nationless people? Just because a distinct group of people exists doesn’t by definition entitle them to take land from another people. All this does is compound injustice upon injustice and leads to a cycle of retribution. Sound familiar? Again, this is just a game in devil’s advocate and even though the formation of the state of Israel is controversial, if anything I am arguing for the maintenance of the Israel (pre-1967 borders) since it is an existing nation in the present. Let’s not have any overly romantic notions about the formation of Israel – I don’t have any about the formation of the United States and the fact that we displaced millions of Native Americans. --maveric149

That is a reasonable question. In response, I would note that many European nations, as they exist today, are new. Practically all of the Arab nations are new states that never before existed. Even the 20th century incarnation of Germany as a unified nation is a (relatively) new concept! Now, before the fact it perhaps would not be bigoted to oppose the creation of a unified German or American nation, out of the many states and territories it could evolve. But decades after the fact, today, it would certainly be wrong to deny that the Germans or Americans have a right to have nation. I would hold that the same is true of Israel, or Egypt, etc. It is the after the fact denial of the right of that state to exist that is the problem; it is more problematic with the case of Israel, since those who are most anti-Zionist are also those who propagate anti-Semitic candards, like the supposed Zionist Conspiracy to rule the world, the claim that Jews use baby blood to bake matzoh or pastry, the denial that the Holocaust ever took place. RK

RK removed my paragraph explaining that the prominent anti-Zionist Noam Chomsky has stated that he believes anti-Zionism to be "true Zionism"; arguing that the meaning of the word has been distorted and changed since the 40s. I readded the text because RKs statement that "Why should every article be about Noam Chomsky...get a grip" seemed somewhat...well Im sure you understand; I haven't written about Chomsky anywhere but here, Zionism (a brief one sentence comment), and at Noam Chomsky and I find RKs actions to be inappropriate. Pizza Puzzle

Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, who agree that (according to this definition) they are "anti-Zionist", argue that they are actually the "true" Zionists; and reciprocally, the "Zionists" are actually "anti-Zionist". In essence, the common meaning of the term is argued to have changed, since c.1940s.

Pizza Puzzle, we will not allow Chomsky advocates to keep making Noam Chomsky as the focal point of every article. Its not just you; there have been many Chomsky acolytes who are doing this. The one thing they all have in common is finding some topic that Chomsky writes about (even though it isn't his area of expertise) and then injecting Chomsky into it in a prominent fashion. Your prominent placing of his views at the front of this article totally distorts the focus. This article is not about Chomsky's anti-Zionism. Rather, this article is about anti-Zionism is general. His views can be a part of the article, but they are not focal point of it. Is this clearer? RK 15:21 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Im sorry, is Zionism a formal academic discipline? I consider Chomsky to be an expert in this "field". I agree with him that the labeling of his views as "anti-Zionist" are nothing but the distortion of the truth which a minority of the population engages in due to their influence with the mass media. It is certainly relevant to point out that anti-Zionists do not see themselves as opposing Zionism; but rather, feel that they are supporting Zionism. Pizza Puzzle

Your bizarre claims won't carry any weight here. Anti-Zionists do not claim that they are supporting Zionism! Rather, one person (Chomsky) says that support for a bi-national Jewish and Arab state was one of the early forms of Zionism, and that was a form he supported. All Arabs rejected this possibility, and it thus became a moot point. Obviously, you not only are willing to lie about most Anti-Zionists, but you don't even understand Chomsky's point of view! The fact that you shamelessly write such deliberate nonsense and falsehoods exposes you as a troll. RK

All Arabs rejected the possibility of a bi-national state? I think somebody must believe that all Arabs think alike, hmm? Pizza Puzzle

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive_1"

Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 1

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools