anti-zionism

[egb_hibs]

some questions for all that argue this is not the same as anti-semitism - apologies if these ramble from the generic to those based on personal experience, but they all reflect a wider picture that i find concerning:

- why has it got such a name at all? why don't you just disagree with israeli actions as you presumably do with the actions of other states? the israeli state, from it's formation, has been the product of secular jews as much as judaism, so focussing on parts of their national myth seems to me to be no more relevant here than, say, with serbian mythos around kosovo. add that to the inflammatory connotations of the term and it's usage seems very odd - especially outside the extreme right where it's use originated.

- why does 'anti-zionism' feature so highly in the priorities of the establishment and projected so strongly through the arts? you rarely get poets bawling the the north korean leadership, or castro, or the serbs, or the uzbeks, or the iranians, the chinese etc are nazis that should be shot; nor do these targets who are at least as deserving if not more so attract anything like the same attention.

- why is that an edinburgh university magazine i read the other week had an article about a student delegation visiting a palestinian university to gather facts to 'inform campus debate'. the article said that maybe it would be worth contacting an israeli uni for the same reasons, but apart from the fact it's a predictable second place - why would you just know that israel would be the subject of 'campus debate' in a way that would prompt a trip, versus the reemerging problems in the balkans, or the sudanese crisis, or the treatment of women in saudi arabia, russian actions in chechnya or whatever? why is these issues that young people pick up - is this an example of my previous point- the relentless projection of the israeli's as a problem by the forces of the establishment the arts and the academy?

- why can one assert in polite society that the israeli state has no right to exist, when even in more quack circles a similar assertion would be laughed out of town if the same logic was applied to the protestants of NI, the kosovan albanians, the vast majority of the population of the US, Oz, new zealand, any number of african tribes and so on....


i'm genuinely puzzled by all this. the israelis have done some bad bad things. but compared to many others, including most of their neighbours, they're choir boys. and yet they are relentlessly attacked using terminology taken from american neo-nazism, by people who adhere to political traditions with a somewhat patchy track record vis a vis the jews, and the rest of us are supposed to accept that this is quite neutral stuff, without other motives?

while i'm sure many innocents are swept along, i don't think this is entirely kosher, if you pardon the pun. at a minimum most people on the periphery should be looking at themselves and the reflecting on who and what they are parroting. one wonders however if there are agent provocateurs using this language with altogether more purpose
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


so, over to the anti-zionists - what say you?

[SG7nil]

Sorry EGB, personally don't know enough about the politics of the middle east to be able to contribute to your debate...

however one thing I did notice was your description of Israel as "Choirboys" in comparison to some of their neighbours.. I find that description hard to take (from my admittedly limited knowledge of them) as they are famous for exacting "over the top" retaliation any time they are (or consider themselves to be) under attack.. and in many cases they have been known to "get their retaliation in first".

[Green Sleeves]

You're asking completely the wrong question EGB. The question (the only one that matters on this subject) concerns the realtionship between the Israeli state and anti-semitism. Zionism is bound up with the nature of the state of Israel, and is a political philosophy as much as, say, Communism is.

Being against the existence of the state of Israel, or being against the occupation of Palestine by the state of Israel, or being against the military suppression of the Palestinian people, or being against the nuclear arsenal of the state of Israel, or supporting the Palestinian people in their war of liberation against Israeli occupation... NONE OF THESE THINGS equate with anti-semitism no matter how much you or the Israeli Zionists or their highly vocal worldwide lobby proclaim them to be.

[superbam]

Liked the "choirboys" bit, hilarious. They seem to compete keenly with their neighbours on the annual body count front.

Im not sure about the term anti-zionism, I dont know enough about it. I do know that supporters of Israeli policy have often tried to characterise opposition to it as equal to anti-semitism, much as opposition to yank foreign policy has been branded "anti-americanism" by its supporters. Sure, anti-semites and pathological yank-haters may find a home in these camps, but to portray such bigotry as synonymous with the two positions is cheap and laughable. Actually, it reminds me of how student politics often plays fast and loose with terms such as fascist and nazi, which egb alludes to.

And I really wish our "establishment" did take a harder line with Israeli policy - it doesnt seem to be filtering through to our government, which are surely representative in no small part of this "establishment".

I think perhaps why people seem so concerned about the issue, beyond a sense of solidarity with the plight of palestinians generaly is its ability to fuel fuel terrorrism and instabiility in the middle east and the implications of this for global security

[O'Driscoll]

EGB your argument is thought provoking and fascinating but ultimately boils down to: there are other baddies so Isreal can carry on with its business unimpeded by do gooders and lefties and any questions over the slow genocide being practiced on the people of Gaza should be met with the anti semitism/zionism tag.

What causes such consternation for many of us on the left is that we actually support most of the ideas that founded Isreal and many of the aspects of the building of their state. I find myself between a rock and hard place here as there are Isreali politicians who's values are really sound, yet the values of groups like Hamas scare the sh*t out of me. The problem here is that the Gazans voted for Hamas and are now being collectively punished for the actions of their political leaders. This is wrong! and I for one refused to be associated with Holocaust deniers, rabid ultra rightists and neo nazis for saying it is wrong.

Yes all the other examples you gave above are serious however the fact that you can compare them with Isreal says alot about the conduct of Isreal.

[egb_hibs]

guys - no offence, and thanks for responding, but you've totally skirted the questions put.

despite greensleeves assertion that there is 'only one question' i disagree.

gs - you rattled off all these points about israel, but i still put it to you that in these respects they remain unremarkable compared to lots of other states so why the obsessive focus on them?

and as for zionism - you've not engaged with that point; every country is based on national myths; your own appetite for the scottish version is particularly impressive
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


so again, why pick this out in the israeli case?

as for choirboys - i stand by it. they have been draconian in responding to terrorist attacks and vicious in clearing land. but compared to the various atrocious behaviours of there neighbours - from slaughtering minorities and each other on a scale that dwarfs the israeli's, to persecuting, torturing and executing people for their opinions, or for being women, or for dissenting from strict theocratic laws.... there's no comparison imho

but even if you're more sympathetic to despot theocratic rule than i am, it still does not explain the disproportionate attention given to israel.

there's something about it that's deeply disturbing.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by O'Driscoll
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

EGB your argument is thought provoking and fascinating but ultimately boils down to: there are other baddies so Isreal can carry on with its business unimpeded by do gooders and lefties and any questions over the slow genocide being practiced on the people of Gaza should be met with the anti semitism/zionism tag.

What causes such consternation for many of us on the left is that we actually support most of the ideas that founded Isreal and many of the aspects of the building of their state. I find myself between a rock and hard place here as there are Isreali politicians who's values are really sound, yet the values of groups like Hamas scare the sh*t out of me. The problem here is that the Gazans voted for Hamas and are now being collectively punished for the actions of their political leaders. This is wrong! and I for one refused to be associated with Holocaust deniers, rabid ultra rightists and neo nazis for saying it is wrong.

Yes all the other examples you gave above are serious however the fact that you can compare them with Isreal says alot about the conduct of Isreal.

whew! thanks for engaging with the point, i was beginning to get a bit concerned!

i take issue with some things though - i'm not saying israel should be getting left alone, i'm asking why it gets such disproportionate attention and why people use language from the extreme right to describe it. the serbs, for example, have behaved recently in ways that far exceed any israeli wrongdoing. they have very strong national mythos linking their 'blood' to varous sites in kosovo. they may have a specific vocabulary for this - i don't know. but people rarely engage with the balkan's problems or other geopolitical hotspots at this level, like they do with the jews.

as for paragraph 2 - i've a sneaky feeling that this contains a crucial clue within it. i habour as suspicion that as israel has become less socialist in outlook the left have turned viciously against it. i may be wrong, but it would fit the pattern where minorities are used as pawns and then abandoned the moment they try and assert themselves.

and for your closing points; i'm not sure israel does bear comparison with the other examples i quoted which is sort of my point. but in any case, i'm not sure many states would behave much better than israel under the same constant existential threat.

agree re the plight of the gazans, but hamas being democratically elected is not something i put such weight on. if my neighbours democratically elected a party committed to my destruction i'm not sure i'd feel honour bound to salute the democratic process.

[O'Driscoll]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

whew! thanks for engaging with the point, i was beginning to get a bit concerned!

i take issue with some things though - i'm not saying israel should be getting left alone, i'm asking why it gets such disproportionate attention and why people use language from the extreme right to describe it. the serbs, for example, have behaved recently in ways that far exceed any israeli wrongdoing. they have very strong national mythos linking their 'blood' to varous sites in kosovo. they may have a specific vocabulary for this - i don't know. but people rarely engage with the balkan's problems or other geopolitical hotspots at this level, like they do with the jews.

as for paragraph 2 - i've a sneaky feeling that this contains a crucial clue within it. i habour as suspicion that as israel has become less socialist in outlook the left have turned viciously against it. i may be wrong, but it would fit the pattern where minorities are used as pawns and then abandoned the moment they try and assert themselves.

and for your closing points; i'm not sure israel does bear comparison with the other examples i quoted which is sort of my point. but in any case, i'm not sure many states would behave much better than israel under the same constant existential threat.

agree re the plight of the gazans, but hamas being democratically elected is not something i put such weight on. if my neighbours democratically elected a party committed to my destruction i'm not sure i'd feel honour bound to salute the democratic process.

the Serbs were bombed and their leaders jailed, it is also worth noting that in the case of Bosnia htere was involvement of Al Qaeda types who subsequently have gone on to threaten all secular values.

The Jews is a phrase I never use politically as it was that very grouping of poeple into one homogenous mass that allowed for the Holocaust and the above attrocities in the Balkans. If I were to go down that road I would prefer to look at the positive political and cultural aspect we have gained from having welcomed Jewish people inot our country.

Left or right it doesen't matter, I would agree that it really narks me when I know so many good reasons why Isreal could be a great progressive force in the middle east, but it is the behaviour which subverts the notion of democracy and to some extent gives oxygen to the more extreme opponents of their state.

I agree about the existential threat and Cuba is perhaps an example of this. My concern is that the bahaviour and that bloody wall threaten their existence in the long term whilst giving short term immediate protection.

Finally, people do vote for the parties they want, you take the rough with the smooth. Our neighbours have voted for Sinn Fein and the DUP, and look at them now! working together under no threat from Britain or Ireland. You don't celebrate their vote, you work with it and respect it! The Gazans would never have voted for fundamentalists if they didn't feel cornered.

[gun ainm]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

some questions for all that argue this is not the same as anti-semitism .....

Zionism is a philosophy or political outlook that upholds jewish nationalism - that the jews are a nation unto themselves and have a tradition that means they are the (sole) rightful inheritors of the land of palestine/israel. While zionism has dominated jewish political thought post WWII there are various jewish groups from liberals to the orthodox Heredis that reject zionism as a philosophy compatable with judaism. This arguement is expressed both in religious and political terms. Zionism is quite clearly not synomonous with Judaism.

anti-semitism in the west is characterised by a belief that jews are the christ killers, the manipulators of world finance the people who control the global economy, media and hold great influence over our governments. The view is that jews are parasitical, clever and coniving. When this is discourse is projected on the state of Israel as the representatives of judaism then yes off course its anti-semitic. However I dont believe you have to be an anti-semite to reject the belief that Jews constitute a separate nation in the modern sense of the word or that Israel is the Jewish nation state. Additionally when we look at the reality of zionist policies - the occupation and the apartheidesque sytem then we have criticisms that are based in reality - they do not come from the typical anti-semitic fantasy of the jews as the purveyors of all things "evil".

why is there such a focus on the israeli/palestinian issue in comparison to those other injustices you mention - e.g. chechnya, darfur, north korea etc? youre obviously looking for the sinister there and while disproportionate criticism may come from anti-semites - a concentration on the issue is not indicative of wider anti-semitism. The long history of the conflict, the current focus on the middle east as a region of great import to the worlds political stability, the numerous attempts by the UN to broker peace, the disregard of resolution after resolution and the british collective responsibility for the consequences of our own occupation of palestine are all reasons why there is a focus in my eyes. Its true that there probabaly is a disproportionate focus on israel/palestine but i believe the reasons for this arent necessarily indicative of a wider anti-semitism and can be explained reasonably simply. I'd draw a parallel with the apartheid regime in South Africa which also received a disproportionate degree of focus in the west - that wasnt predicated on an anti-white or anti-afrikaans bias - although there may well have been some who used it as a tool too further their own bias.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by O'Driscoll
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

the Serbs were bombed and their leaders jailed, it is also worth noting that in the case of Bosnia htere was involvement of Al Qaeda types who subsequently have gone on to threaten all secular values.

i'm not sure the KLA are / were any more radical than the groups aligned against israel; the usual rabble of marxist, nationalist and religious quacks plus the obligatory psychos and yer quotient of excitable young men wanting to prance about with guns.

and the serbs were bombed by our govts - the same ones who 'support' israel. they got slated for both by sections of the bien pensants.

certainly, even in the midst of serbian atrocities they excited nothing like the breadth of boggle eyed animosity the jews attract.

The Jews is a phrase I never use politically as it was that very grouping of poeple into one homogenous mass that allowed for the Holocaust and the above attrocities in the Balkans. If I were to go down that road I would prefer to look at the positive political and cultural aspect we have gained from having welcomed Jewish people inot our country.

well, i use it to draw out the point of using language like 'zionist'. why not just say israeli? zionist started as a euphimism for jew on the extreme right, and people need to be confronted with it.

because the whole point about using that word, like jew, is that as you say,it labels a people - it transforms the israeli situation from the usual spat between states and suggests something malign about the jewish people in particular. it sucks, it really does.

Left or right it doesen't matter, I would agree that it really narks me when I know so many good reasons why Isreal could be a great progressive force in the middle east, but it is the behaviour which subverts the notion of democracy and to some extent gives oxygen to the more extreme opponents of their state.

it is a progressive force. one reason that edinburgh uni students can go there to nurture there fashionable palestinian fetishism. i'd like to see the wimmen's group off to riyadh for some inter-cultural dialogue.

I agree
about the existential threat and Cuba is perhaps an example of this. My concern is that the bahaviour and that bloody wall threaten their existence in the long term whilst giving short term immediate protection.

tell you what dude, if there were suicide bombs going of in edinburgh every week, you'd have a hard sell persuading me that a wall which virtually eliminated them overnight was not a good idea.

Finally, people do vote for the parties they want, you take the rough with the smooth. Our neighbours have voted for Sinn Fein and the DUP, and look at them now! working together under no threat from Britain or Ireland. You don't celebrate their vote, you work with it and respect it! The Gazans would never have voted for fundamentalists if they didn't feel cornered.

i'm sorry, but i'm not convinced that SF or DUP are good comparisons with Hamas.

your last sentence is a good point though. it's also a more complicated picture. from what i understand, for much of the 70s, 80s and into the 90s, the islamic groups were the doves, versus the secular palestinian organisations being the hawks. that they have been militantised, while clearly having obvious local drivers, seems to be part of a global pattern. i'm not sure that the gazans chose an islamist party as an option of last resort or because of this overall trend.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by theselkie
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Zionism is a philosophy or political outlook that upholds jewish nationalism - that the jews are a nation unto themselves and have a tradition that means they are the (sole) rightful inheritors of the land of palestine/israel. While zionism has dominated jewish political thought post WWII there are various jewish groups from liberals to the orthodox Heredis that reject zionism as a philosophy compatable with judaism. This arguement is expressed both in religious and political terms. Zionism is quite clearly not synomonous with Judaism.

anti-semitism in the west is characterised by a belief that jews are the christ killers, the manipulators of world finance the people who control the global economy, media and hold great influence over our governments. The view is that jews are parasitical, clever and coniving. When this is discourse is projected on the state of Israel as the representatives of judaism then yes off course its anti-semitic. However I dont believe you have to be an anti-semite to reject the belief that Jews constitute a separate nation in the modern sense of the word or that Israel is the Jewish nation state. Additionally when we look at the reality of zionist policies - the occupation and the apartheidesque sytem then we have criticisms that are based in reality - they do not come from the typical anti-semitic fantasy of the jews as the purveyors of all things "evil".

why is there such a focus on the israeli/palestinian issue in comparison to those other injustices you mention - e.g. chechnya, darfur, north korea etc? youre obviously looking for the sinister there and while disproportionate criticism may come from anti-semites - a concentration on the issue is not indicative of wider anti-semitism. The long history of the conflict, the current focus on the middle east as a region of great import to the worlds political stability, the numerous attempts by the UN to broker peace, the disregard of resolution after resolution and the british collective responsibility for the consequences of our own occupation of palestine are all reasons why there is a focus in my eyes. Its true that there probabaly is a disproportionate focus on israel/palestine but i believe the reasons for this arent necessarily indicative of a wider anti-semitism and can be explained reasonably simply. I'd draw a parallel with the apartheid regime in South Africa which also received a disproportionate degree of focus in the west - that wasnt predicated on an anti-white or anti-afrikaans bias - although there may well have been some who used it as a tool too further their own bias.

great post selks. intelligent, lucid and well argued.

i'll respond later after i've given it some thought.

[O'Driscoll]

well, i use it to draw out the point of using language like 'zionist'. why not just say israeli? zionist started as a euphimism for jew on the extreme right, and people need to be confronted with it.

because the whole point about using that word, like jew, is that as you say,it labels a people - it transforms the israeli situation from the usual spat between states and suggests something malign about the jewish people in particular. it sucks, it really does.

it is a progressive force. one reason that edinburgh uni students can go there to nurture there fashionable palestinian fetishism. i'd like to see the wimmen's group off to riyadh for some inter-cultural dialogue.

tell you what dude, if there were suicide bombs going of in edinburgh every week, you'd have a hard sell persuading me that a wall which virtually eliminated them overnight was not a good idea.
i'm sorry, but i'm not convinced that SF or DUP are good comparisons with Hamas.

your last sentence is a good point though. it's also a more complicated picture. from what i understand, for much of the 70s, 80s and into the 90s, the islamic groups were the doves, versus the secular palestinian organisations being the hawks. that they have been militantised, while clearly having obvious local drivers, seems to be part of a global pattern. i'm not sure that the gazans chose an islamist party as an option of last resort or because of this overall trend.[/quote]

I don't think I used the term Zionist either as it only represents a section of Isreali opinion and could just as easily become marginal to the question depending on the political landscape of the time. I dont doubt that there is alot of truth in your argument that the conflict has a racist arm to it this is replocated by extremists who say that the 'Arabs' have lots of countries to choose from! and you're right it does suck.

furthermore the use of the term the Jews to mean the Isrealis is simplistic, Most Jewish people don't live in Isreal and like all civilised people, they have a wide variety of views. I assert again, it is not a term that should be used in such a political context as it only serves to polarize.
Wimmens group in Riyadh
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
excellent!

Twenty years ago the IRA were very like Hamas, ask the people of Birmingham, Manchester and London and the unionists did bomb Dublin. The suicide bombs in Edinburgh argument applies only inasmuchas people respond in kind when hurt, it doesen't make it healthy or promote peace in the long term.

[Gareth]

The way I see it, your very premise starts from the wrong point. The question can be inverted and ask why when the state of Israel is involved in ethnic cleansing and collective punishment, along with the ignoring of masses of UN resolutions, they continue to receive so much official support in the west. You cite a number of supposed comparators, can you imagine if either Labour or Tory MPs were involved in ‘friends of Serbia’ associations while Milosovic was ethnically cleansing Kosovo and earlier Bosnia, there would be outcry. Israel is criticised so vehemently just because they are treated as a part of the community of nations that supposedly tries to uphold international human rights standards etc.
Israel is often lauded as the middle easts only democratic state ignoring the millions who are denied rights but nevertheless, that also means that they should be held to certain standards of behaviour. The fact that Israel is also the recipient of such a large amount of military aid from the west, along with ignoring their nuclear capability, also makes the comparisons difficult.
You’ve made the unsubstantiated assumption in the past that the Jews were somehow ‘used’ by socialists only to be later discarded. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the role not only of the Jews in left wing politics in say British society but also the states response. The 1906 Aliens Act was aimed directly at Jews fleeing pogroms who were characterised as third columnists, dangerous ‘others’ that had to be stopped from entering UK society. They were not used by the left but in many ways were the left.
Fundamentally your question also implicitly assumes that all Jews are Zionists. You need to conflate the two in order to make your argument and the conflation is based on an entirely wrong premise. There are anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli Jews.

[egb_hibs]

gareth, another good response. to you and selkie, i'd respond with:

selks, as you note, anti-semitism has many inglorious historical aspects. one you overlook is i feel crucial - namely that they were the original outsider, partly as a product of the religious background you mention, but partly because in an era before mass migration they were the only real 'other' embedded in european societies. that and their lack of a homeland (back then) is the wellspring of all the animosity around jewish 'internationalism'. hence the resentment of nationalist movements at a foreign presence undermining the volk, and slanders from both right and left around international banking etc

it's somewhat ironic then, that once they do get a homeland, they now take flak for their nationalism from internationalists.

i maintain my argument that i am concerned that this context cannot be seperated from where we are today. i agree some use it as a gagging tool, which leftists must find frustrating (though swallow your own medicine chaps does come to mind concerning this technique
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). anyway i'm not seeking to do that, but i do fail to understand why this whole nomenklature is used. what is wrong with just talking about israel? selkie explains zionism as a philsophy - fine, but you don't engage with my point that every country has a national mythos, so why do commentators pick on the jewish one, which just happens to be interwoven with all the strands of our anti-semitic past?

gareth - i standby the assertion that the left uses minorities as instruments against the status quo. the jews, the irish catholics, the muslims etc are all fine as instruments while they remain weak and are prepared to subordinate their cultural identity to the grey soup of socialist everyman. once a minority has found it's feet enough to assert itself it can rapidly find itself turned on.

i will probably not be as familiar with the left wing scene as you two chaps, but i have read more than one prominent left wing jew feeling that they're being turned on.

regarding the critique of support for israel - again this seems indicative of disproportionality and double standards. israel is a bulwark of western secular liberalism and off course must be supported. she does get criticised for here excesses, but no responsible western govt is going to abandon her to annihilation.

russia - right on our european doorstep, commits much worse atrocities in chechnya, has a more oppresive society and so on and so forth, and attracts nowhere near the popular opprobrium. but equally, she is not cut off diplomatically because that would be politically irresponsible.

you guys mount a convincing argument that individually you have not an anti-semitic bone in you.

i nevertheless feel that the core points about the special treatment the israeli's are singled out for, has not been rebutted. nor has there been a satisfactory explanation for the fact the radical on the street is au fait with jewish national mythology and is happy to use this, despite it's dodgy social historical context, and yet would not do the same wrt serbia, or anywhere else.

i see no good reason for declaring oneself an anti-zionist. i don't see self declared anti-kosovars, anti-scottish plantationists etc walking about, and i don't see why this is different.

arguments should be with the actions of the nation state of israel, and should be proportionate. we're so far away from that i'm not convinced that this is wholly coincidence. it still feels rotten to me.

[gun ainm]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

selks, as you note, anti-semitism has many inglorious historical aspects. one you overlook is i feel crucial - namely that they were the original outsider, partly as a product of the religious background you mention, but partly because in an era before mass migration they were the only real 'other' embedded in european societies. that and their lack of a homeland (back then) is the wellspring of all the animosity around jewish 'internationalism'. hence the resentment of nationalist movements at a foreign presence undermining the volk, and slanders from both right and left around international banking etc

I didnt intentionally overook that aspect, i was only providing characterisations of anti-semitism. your assertion that the jews have been a significant minority throughout europe for their history is correct but they cannot be considered the sole other as you term it - what about the Romani for example - enslaved in romania till the mid C19th and sterilised in communist czechoslovakia post WWII. however thats a bit tangental and isnt central to the point - yes they were outsiders living their communities. The objection to jewish nationalism isnt that they have right to self determination or self expression but that the zionist philosophy chooses to exercise that right to the detriment of others in particular the arab israelis and the occupied palestinian people. Essentially the zionists whom are collectively different from israelis or jews have moved from being the persecuted minority to the persecuting majority.


i

maintain my argument that i am concerned that this context cannot be seperated from where we are today. i agree some use it as a gagging tool, which leftists must find frustrating (though swallow your own medicine chaps does come to mind concerning this technique
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). anyway i'm not seeking to do that, but i do fail to understand why this whole nomenklature is used. what is wrong with just talking about israel?

thank you for that recognition which i think is new - the difference between israel and zionism is I think articulated above - not all israeli's are zionists.

selkie explains zionism as a philsophy - fine, but you don't engage with my point that every country has a national mythos, so why do commentators pick on the jewish one, which just happens to be interwoven with all the strands of our anti-semitic past?

again I think its answered above - the nationalism of zionism is based on racism & sectarianism - its defined in terms of the jewish identity and excludes non jews from enjoying the benefits of the nation state, yes there are other such nationalist movements but I dont think they are so ingrained in the apparatus of the state.

sorry - i wanted to respond further but of to catch a ferry....adios

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs