« The KossKiddies do Vegas ... | Main | Oh, lord, and we complain about drivers in Los Angeles »
June 12, 2006
Anti-Zionism is antisemitism
I found this picture on Powerline within an article on the indecent nutter George Galloway. George was media whoring at a "Rally for Justice" event, organized in the wake of a came-up-empty raid in London on two moslem brothers, attended by the tens. The little Judenhass shirt caught my attention. Simply:
Imagine someone saying that he seeks the destruction of Italy because he regards Italian national identity as racist. Further, imagine that this person constantly denies being anti-Italian, because he does not hate all Italians, only Italy and all those who believe Italy should exist.Now substitute "Jewish" for "Italian" and "Israel" for "Italy" and you understand the absurdity of the argument that one can be anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish.
Among the many lies that permeate the modern world, none is greater -- or easier to refute -- than the claim that Zionism is not an integral part of Judaism or the claim that anti-Zionism is unrelated to antisemitism. *
Technorati: Zionism, Anti- Zionism, Anti-semitism, Israel,
Posted by Darleen at June 12, 2006 06:59 AM
Comments
I beg to differ. I am anti-Zionist (and so are most ultra-orthodox Jews for that matter) but I am in no way an anti-semite. Frankly I think it's offensive to equate the two. Zionism is a political ideology with the aim of redeeming Biblical "promises" to lands currently occupied by others. Zionists do not seek to just preserve Israel (a rational goal), but to expand Israel's borders to encompass all of Ezratz Israel. (extremely irrational in my opinion)
Would I equate Zionism with Apartheid or Nazism? No. But atrocities have been committed in it's name. (by people such as Meir Kahnae for instance) Rather I would equate Zionism with the fanatic Catholics in Ireland and their desire to re-unite the island.
Posted by: gahrie at June 12, 2006 04:08 PM
Here is an example of an organization of orthodox Jews who are opposed to Zionism.
http://www.nkusa.org/
Posted by: gahrie at June 12, 2006 05:42 PM
- True enough gahrie, I share your comments as far as they go. The Left ideologs, however, try to hide anti-semitism, the destruction of all jews as an illigitimate rogue state, denying our right to exist as a sovoriegn nation, siding with the Jihadist murdering thugs, and hiding it all behind a so-called anti-Zionism canard, which is way over blown to begin with, and in no way represents the views of most of us. Its racism at its worst, and a damn cowardly lie, so the left can advance its fascist views undeterred.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at June 12, 2006 05:49 PM
gahrie
Is Meir Kahnae celebrated by Israelis? Of course not. Equating Zionism with Meir Kahnae is like equating American Nationalism/Identity with Tim McVeigh.
Zionism has existed since the destruction of the first nation of Israel and the desire of a people to return to their land. While modern Zionism may allude to some Biblical promises, the germination of the movement was borne as a response to the horrible oppression and killing of Jews the world over. It was to be a "safe haven" where Jews would no longer be the whipping boy of the world. Where they could encourage and preserve their heritage and DEFEND themselves against future attempts to wipe them out.
I can understand you're claiming to be anti-Zionist if you think Meir Kahnae is the face of Zionism, but I think such a claim is so narrowly defined as to tar the people who believe in the legitimacy of a Jewish Israel.
And not all people who believe in a Ireland being whole are "fanatical" Catholics. They are people who understand the history of England's genocidal efforts against the Irish (read up on Cromwell). You should not define all who wish for home rule by the Provisional IRA.
Read Prager's column that I link, read up his series on explaining Jews. He has a clear grasp of history, theology, philosophy and culture when it comes to Judaism.
Also read On Hating Jews by Natan Sharansky
Shocked by the visceral anti-Semitism he witnessed at the Dreyfus trial in supposedly enlightened France, Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, became convinced that the primary cause of anti-Semitism was the anomalous condition of the Jews: a people without a polity of its own. In his seminal work, "The Jewish State" (1896), published two years after the trial, Herzl envisioned the creation of such a Jewish polity and predicted that a mass emigration to it of European Jews would spell the end of anti-Semitism.
Although his seemingly utopian political treatise would turn out to be one of the 20th century's most prescient books, on this point history has not been kind to Herzl; no one would seriously argue today that anti-Semitism came to a halt with the founding of the state of Israel. To the contrary, this particular illusion has come full circle: while Herzl and most Zionists after him believed that the emergence of a Jewish state would end anti-Semitism, an increasing number of people today, including some Jews, are convinced that anti-Semitism will end only with the disappearance of the Jewish state. [...]
The values ascendant in today's Middle East are shaped by two forces: Islamic fundamentalism and state authoritarianism. In the eyes of the former, any non-Muslim sovereign power in the region--for that matter, any secular Muslim power--is anathema. Particularly galling is Jewish sovereignty in an area delineated as dar al-Islam, the realm where Islam is destined to enjoy exclusive dominance. Such a violation cannot be compromised with; nothing will suffice but its extirpation.
In the eyes of the secular Arab regimes, the Jews of Israel are similarly an affront, but not so much on theological grounds as on account of the society they have built: free, productive, democratic, a living rebuke to the corrupt, autocratic regimes surrounding it. In short, the Jewish state is the ultimate freedom fighter--an embodiment of the subversive liberties that threaten Islamic civilization and autocratic Arab rule alike. It is for this reason that in the state-controlled Arab media as in the mosques, Jews have been turned into a symbol of all that is menacing in the democratic, materialist West as a whole, and are confidently reputed to be the insidious force manipulating the United States into a confrontation with Islam. [...]
As for Western Europe, there the reputation of Israel and of the Jews has undergone ups and downs over the decades. Before 1967, the shadow of the Holocaust and the perception of Israel as a small state struggling for its existence in the face of Arab aggression combined to ensure, if not the favor of the European political classes, at least a certain dispensation from harsh criticism. But all this changed in June 1967, when the truncated Jewish state achieved a seemingly miraculous victory against its massed Arab enemies in the Six Day War, and the erstwhile victim was overnight transformed into an aggressor. A possibly apocryphal story about Jean-Paul Sartre encapsulates the shift in the European mood. Before the war, as Israel lay diplomatically isolated and Arab leaders were already trumpeting its certain demise, the famous French philosopher signed a statement in support of the Jewish state. After the war, he is said to have reproached the man who had solicited his signature: "But you assured me they would lose."
Decades before "occupation" became a household word, the mood in European chancelleries and on the left turned decidedly hostile. There were, to be sure, venal interests at stake, from the perceived need to curry favor with the oil-producing nations of the Arab world to, in later years, the perceived need to pander to the growing Muslim populations in Western Europe itself. But other currents were also at work, as anti-Western, anti-"imperialist," pacifist and pro-liberationist sentiments, fanned and often subsidized by the U.S.S.R., took over the advanced political culture both of Europe and of international diplomacy. Behind the new hostility to Israel lay the new ideological orthodoxy, according to whose categories the Jewish state had emerged on the world scene as a certified "colonial" and "imperialist" power, a "hegemon" and an "oppressor."This is why I won't split hairs on the Zionism question. While I accept there is a very tiny movement of Orthodox Jews who believe only the Messiah can establish Israel, so their anti-Zionism is solely theological in origin, the vast majority of Zionism=racism/nazism/fascism sentiment is nothing more than a figleaf of down deep Judanhass.
Being critical of actual Israeli policies is not antisemitism. Holding Israel to a different standard is.
Posted by: Darleen at June 12, 2006 07:56 PM
Zionism has existed since the destruction of the first nation of Israel and the desire of a people to return to their land.
This is demonstrably not true. While it is true that a longing for a return to Israel is an integral part of the Jewish faith, prior to the second half of the 19th century this was always expressed as a desire for deliverance by the Lord. It is only in the 19th century that we begin to see the beginnings of a worldly source for return. And these movements were almost totally secular in nature.
While modern Zionism may allude to some Biblical promises, the germination of the movement was borne as a response to the horrible oppression and killing of Jews the world over.
ALL Zionism is modern. Originally it was a mid 19th century response to the pogroms of Eastern Europe. It came to a fruitation as a response to Hitler's holocaust. Zionism seeks a return of Eretz Israel to the Jews. Eretz Israel includes Israel, Palestine, Jordan, much of Syria and Lebanon and the Sinai Pennisula.
And not all people who believe in a Ireland being whole are "fanatical" Catholics. They are people who understand the history of England's genocidal efforts against the Irish (read up on Cromwell).
There is plenty of sin in Ireland to go around. It is precisely that fact (plus of course the religious nature of the conflict) which lends it to a comparison with the conflict between Israel and Palestine in my opinion. Plus of course the absolute certainty of rectitude that both sides claim in both conflicts.
Read Prager's column that I link
Prager is an intelligent man, but hardly the be all and end of all of Jewish religious thought. I disagree with his contentions in that column, and I am hardly alone in doing so.
Zionism is a philosphy that believes that Jews are entitled to the Biblical lands of Eretz Israel, and seeks to return those lands to Jewish control. I reject this explicitly. I do not believe this makes me an anti-semite.
I oppose many of the actions of Israel. This does not make me an anti-semite.
Do not dilute the meaning of the term of anti-semetism by extending it to include opposition to Zionism and Israel's actions. That would be a disservice to all of history's victims of anti-semetism.
Posted by: gahrie at June 12, 2006 09:42 PM
prior to the second half of the 19th century this was always expressed as a desire for deliverance by the Lord.
are you saying the Passover toast "next year, Jerusalem" is a late 19th century addition?
I don't believe you are an antisemite. But you cannot deny that the vast majority of "anti-Zionist" rhetoric is really antisemitism, figleafed to look legitimate.
Just as the origin of the word "anti-semite" was an attempt to make Jew-hatred look dispassionately "science" based.
Posted by: Darleen at June 12, 2006 10:30 PM
Zionist-influenced policies (derived from the works of Theodor Herzl in the 1890s) are generally unjust and unfair to the Palestinians. For that reason alone they should be opposed.
The early Zionists wanted to kick as many of the Palestinian Arabs out of what is now known as Israel, but were prevented by the British during the Mandate period. But with independence the Israeli authorities put Zionist attitudes into practice.
In the 1940s, many Palestinians were driven from their traditional lands and their homes bulldozed or demolished. Some Palestinian villages simply disappeared.
To this day Israel does not permit any right of return to anyone displaced from Palestine during the post-independence period. They are backed up in this unjust attitude by US politicians who do everything they can to kowtow to the Israel lobby.
The Israelis still treat Palestinians as second-class citizens, especially in terms of housing, jobs, social services and the like. Over the years they have consistently supported occupation of the West Bank areas and continued settlement-building. Efforts to stop illegal settlements are only half-heartedly supported by the Israeli government.
Zionist attitudes are the cause of much of Israel’s problems with the Palestinians. You can oppose Zionism and still support Israel, but only if Israel’s politicians will drop militant Zionism as a driving force in Israeli politics.
The Israelis treat the Palestinians like dirt and then wonder why the Palestinians resort to violence so often.
Yes to Israel, but only a non-zionist Israel, if such a thing is possible...
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at June 13, 2006 07:49 AM
Carl
You have the history ass-backwards. Jews have a continuous and permanent presence in the ME for thousands of years. "Palestine" is the ROMAN designation for JEWS after they crushed the Jewish uprising and wanted to attempt to erradicate Jewish identity. When exiled Jews started moving back to Zion, they PURCHASED land from absentee Arab landowners.
The Brits, who are quite a bit more anti-semitic than most Americans assume, not only tried to throttle Jewish immigration, but facilitated unprecedented ARAB immigration. During WWII the Mufti of Jerusalem (a relative of Egyptian Arafat) spent a lot of time with Hitler in an effort to wipe out Jews in the ME, indeed, documents prove that the Germany was much more active in trying to bring death camps and efficient murder machines to the ME to take care of the Arabs "Jew problem."
Zionism is to Israel as Americanism is to the United States. It is belief in a national, cultural identity. To say Israeli politicians should drop "militant" Zionism is to say that American politicians should stop being so American.
But then, a lot of the contemporary Left believes JUST THAT. They hate both American and Israeli national unity and pride.
Arabs as "Palestinians" is a legitimate as Scientologists are religious people.
Arabs can have a separate state as soon as they earn it. They've rejected it since '48 and attempted time and again to drive the Jews into the sea. They STILL want that.
No. Never again.
And I'm fucking tired of Arabs/Islamists stealing other peoples' history/culture and claiming it is THEIRS and they INVENTED it.
Stop apologizing for the indecent, Carl.
Posted by: Darleen at June 13, 2006 08:09 AM
And I'm fucking tired of Arabs/Islamists stealing other peoples' history/culture and claiming it is THEIRS and they INVENTED it.
Darleen, you wrote, "Being critical of actual Israeli policies is not antisemitism." Then why do you denounce in such virulent terms those of us who criticize Israeli policies?
Some perspective is sorely needed by all those who blindly follow the Likud-thinking of the Right these days.
One of Theodor Herzl's contemporaries, Asher Ginzberg (aka Ahad Ha'am), made the following observation in a famous 1891 essay, "Truth from Eretz Israel" :
From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake... The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future... However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place."
Posted by: Brad at June 13, 2006 07:58 PM
The Israeli/Palestinian struggle is the standard multicultural clash. Whenever two cultures fight over the same piece of land it only gets resolved when one side or the other can no longer fight, or a third agent steps in an enforces peace. Both sides claim "Right". Both sides have whatever right they can enforce on the other. Its the classic Strong horse/Weak Horse dispute, and the left, by dent of its "victimhood" mind set, see's everything in trems of class struggle, always going to the defense of the weak horse, in the same way as they see themselves as a disadvantaged, put upon group.
- Isreals only "crime" is in being strong enough to effectively defend itself. That automatically casts them as the "bad guy", regardless of the facts, or atrocities visited on them. Doesn't matter to the Liberal mind. They're the strong horse so they have to be wrong.
- Once the conflict is resolved the Left is no longer interested, because the situation, at that point with stability installed, cannot be mined for class warfare purposes. Never mind that in most instances, should the Socialistic gaggle win the struggle, it generally morphs into a dictatorship, led by a small cabal of "elite" whose soul point in life is to suppress the "masses", the "cause" has been served.
The grand social experiment has resulted in 100 million dead over the past 100 years. But that's just an "inconvieniant" detail. Always, the only important theme is the "cause". Taking either side in a clash of cultures is a effete, intellectual circle jerk. Bringing about a viable settled peace is the hard work of statesmanship. A decidedly lost art.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at June 14, 2006 09:07 AM