How ‘Zionist’ became a slur on the US left
How ‘Zionist’ became a slur on the US left
For many Jews, Zionism signifies a connection to Israel. But a large number of student protesters see the violence in Gaza as a logical conclusion of the late 19th century ideology
Archived version: https://archive.ph/d7IaR
Became? Always was… even at the end of WW2. Albert Einstein, who was Ashkenazi Jewish himself, even opposed it. Taking away a native populace’s land and giving it over to outsiders has always been, and always will be, controversial.
Stealing people's land from underneath them and giving it to another people (especially based on religion or ethnicity) is both a crime against humanity and a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (created 6 months after establishing the state of Israel), but the west just accepted Zionism because the majority of jews were white Europeans, the colonialists who dominated the league of nations didn't consider brown people to be people, and none of them wanted to allocate any of their own land due to their own antisemitism.
Zionism has always been a crime. We were just lied to and told things were "complicated" by the same colonialist oligarchs who call the Islamic extremism their own historic crimes created and amplified "complicated".
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but there's a reason why European Jews were in such ample supply. It's hard to negatively judge early Jewish Zionism when many of the Jews in question were liberated from genocide and given their ancestral home back. The actions of the right wing government in Israel don't speak towards the large number of Israelis that oppose the actions of the government or their particular view of Zionism. The term Zionism has been co-opted by various groups to the point where it no longer carries meaning but instead becomes caricature for a certain type of villain.
Not too complicated. Zionism basically boils down to "Israel is Jew home country (for mythical reasons)" therefore "Jews should strive to achieve it". It may have other connotations but I don't think a lot of people are confused about this.
and given their ancestral home back
?
The presence of Jews in that area of the Middle East goes back over 3000 years until the expulsions. People don't dispute that modern-day Palestinians lived there prior to the 1940s - but people conveniently set arbitrary time limits of settlement to allow for one genocide and decry the other.
Politics in the middle east is not a simple case of "Israel bad." Both groups of people deserve a home and both are going to lose part of their national identity regardless of the outcome. A two state solution is the most prudent solution and arguing otherwise ignores reality.
I don't know if you really believe that the whole world except jews remain in their birthplace without getting displaced. Palestine was the homeland of Jews 3000 years ago and guess what it's not 3000 years ago anymore. If you read how israel is described and formed in it's earliest stages you will see how zionists believe it is their homeland because their magical book said so. That's not how it works mate. It's an old habit of the British Kingdom giving away places they dont own to other parties.
Do you also think anyone can go and occupy nothern africa because humans originated from there? Where do you draw the line?
I guess the point wasn't clear enough: Israelis and Palestinians both claim the land due to ancestry. Reasonable people understand the issue is complicated; displacement was a friendly replacement for massacred, forcibly removed, and slavery. You can clearly see that the intent of the creation of Israel was to redress a wrong perpetuated over millennia, regardless of the reality that it caused another migration of peoples.
Like you said, Zionism is just the belief in a divine ancestral claim (core, even, for Judaism) to the region. You can be flippant about it being based in religion and dismiss it from your position of privilege behind a keyboard, but there are radical religious people that believe the land is their birthright just as strongly as some Palestinians and are fighting over that. The religious extremists on both sides of the conflict frankly don't care about your opinions. A two state solution offers the best course for peace in the area, but the extremists from both sides need to be isolated and dealt with. Most Israelis and Palestinians are good people such in the middle of a shitty situation.
The settlers that currently take land from Palestinians on the west bank, those specific people, not some group centuries ago that those people might share some part of their identity with, were not there before the specific currently living people that they are taking that land from. People living now matter more than some vague historical claims. If the area had been invaded by Islam and the land taken from Isreal within living memory, then sure, it would be just that it be returned to those it was taken from, but taking the land from people who have been there generations to give to people that have not been there for that time and had established lives elsewhere, results in people being uprooted and forced from their homes needlessly. Any history along the lines of what religion was where first is irrelevant to that fact.
I'd be careful with the "living memory" argument. Lots of pretty recent colonialism and atrocity occurred outside of "living memory"
It was quite deliberate on my part. You can partly undo things done to or by living people, not even close to all the way obviously, but you can return things taken, from those that have stolen them, and reasonably minimize collateral effects from that, because any uninvolved descendants of the guilty party either don't yet exist, or can reasonably be assumed to have available whatever resources the perpetrating group had beforehand. When the original victims and perpetrators are dead, though, things become more ethically murky, because you can end up in a situation where it isn't clear who specifically to return stolen properties to, those properties may no longer exist or no longer be useful in the way they once were, the people in possession of them now may both not be involved in the original atrocity and be dependent on them/have nowhere else to go, and the two groups may have had time for mixing to occur or new identities unique to the region to form. That isn't to say that there's nothing to be done about addressing historical atrocities of course, one can still try to offset the impact on the victims descendants, but that doesn't really undo any of the impact on the victims themselves or punish anyone involved, because you can't at that point, justice is time sensitive, it just helps a whole new set of people with negative circumstances that they were born into as a result of the atrocity.
My point was gating significant or actionable injustices to only those occurring recently means all sorts of past injustices are de facto tabled by that position. For example, should slavery from the civil war era, or the colonialism of North America still be discussed and addressed? No one alive witnessed that
I wasn't so much talking about what should be addressed, but rather what can be addressed. You can, of course, try to break the cycle of poverty that the descendants of slaves face even today, by things like education scholarships or monetary reparations. But, we'd want to do this regardless of the source of that poverty being slavery, Id imagine, nobody deserves to be born into poverty after all. The relevance of slavery to the discussion there is primarily just as an explanation for why that poverty is so concentrated in African American communities, because if in some alternative universe in which civil war era slavery had never happened but somehow that poverty still existed, we'd still need to do something about it. What you can't do though is bring relief to the slaves themselves (at least those of that era, modern slaves of course can be, but that's still within living memory), or punish the people that enslaved them. Not because of any kind of moral argument, but just because those people are dead. Sure, I guess one could argue that this effectively locks in injustice that has occurred long enough ago, but well, that's just part of the nastiness of things like colonialism, the impact it has on a people is something that simply cannot be truly undone.
Alright, if you want to get more modern, how do you think Gaza got to be 99% Sunni Muslim? What happened to their minorities? Was it a nice thing?
It's rhetorical, but the fact of the matter is that Hamas is evil, and needs to not exist, just like nazis need to not exist.
Hamas is a different matter though, the post was talking about Zionism and the actions of Isreal more broadly. Hamas is a terrorist organization, sure, and a pretty intolerant one, but it exists largely as a response to those actions. The Palestinians were having their land taken before Hamas and are even in areas not controlled by Hamas, so Hamas isn't the main problem so much as an excuse for Isreal to do what they have been doing for a long time to a faster or slower degree. Now, if Palestinian statehood and sovereignty were achieved, then sure, Hamas is not the kind of organization that one would want ruling the place, any more than the Taliban for example have been good for Afghanistan. But, one would have to deal with the situation that is pressing people in Gaza to join that kind organization first to truly solve that, because just blowing them up indiscriminately will just drive desperate and angry people into the same kind of group again. And at the moment, the thing pressuring people to join up with Hamas, is the conditions that Isreal has placed them under. Treat any group badly enough, and some of them will do horrible things in the name of resisting you.
Israeli ethno state should also not exist like nazis need to not exist.
Alright, if you want to get more modern, how do you think Gaza got to be 99% Sunni Muslim? What happened to their minorities? Was it a nice thing?
Share your receipts
And it doesn’t matter how many kids we have to kill to achieve that!
See, that’s how stupid and evil you sound.
Your comment in "How ‘Zionist’ became a slur on the US left" posted in !globalnews@lemmy.zip was removed.
Reason: Rule 4.
Please read the community rules.
How was it not inclusive? I mean, sure, it could interpreted as uncivil or bait, but rule 4? Something I've learned is the more vague you are, the more you cover your own ass. Hell, you could probably wrap rule 4 and 5 under rule 3, that'd work perfectly.
Your comment could have been removed under multiple rules, but rule 4 was used, as there is no need to disparage a religion. I'm no scholar, but courts decided that Muhammad actions didn't constitute a pedophilia.
You are welcome to express your opinion, no matter how popular or unpopular it might be. Just be nice.
Well fair, I didnt need to mention that they worship a pedophile.
Failed to load image? Do you have a mirror?
You might want to pick up a book you illeterate. Muslims do not worship prophets.
And why are you pressed about a comment getting removed from your throwaway account. Pussy.