Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on May 17, 2008 at 8:43pm

"An attitude or system of thought asserting the primacy of man over metaphysical or abstract principles."



The Zionist movement has spectrum of ideology and it is a mistake to consider it as one flat ideology. Zionist-social ideology is one of the strong and influential it Israel-Jewish identity (Brain).

There is wealth of documents and articles of influential Zionist thinkers from all the spectrum who express that role of a nation and persona is to service the greater good of all humanity. This is not the only topic, and it is part of the Zionist complexity.

Permalink Reply by John Wilmerding on May 14, 2008 at 10:58pm

Mary, you will find the answer in your heart. Look to all that is noble and true and intrinsically human, and you will see what humanism means. Humanistic Zionism is merely that stuff of Zionism and the Jewish people -- around 5,000 years of tradition -- which is applicable to the need of the Jewish people worldwide for a homeland; a place of succor, safety, and refuge. A place befitting their storied contributions to humanity.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Wilmerding on May 14, 2008 at 4:28pm

In answer to your question 'What is Humanistic Zionism' ...

I started to give my opinion of this when I wrote "I believe in a humanistic form of Zionism, a non-state-driven phenomenon and discipline known as Zionism, a Zionism that does not demand another people be displaced and usurped."

So humanistic Zionism would be a Zionism that is non-state driven. It would be a discipline; that is something that people cleave to individually, not that they are forced to obey or submit to.

I think that 'Zion', as it were, as it is typically used, refers to a home, a place of safety and succor, a place of refuge. In looking at the Zionist movement historically, one must note that the Jews who proposed and adopted it lived in diaspora, with the sense that they needed one day to return to their ancestral homeland ... "Next year in Jerusalem." "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its cunning, may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."

Mary, rather than for me as a non-Jew to attempt to refer you to an exact definition of humanistic Zionism, I would refer you to a book, 'The Challenge of Shalom', distributed by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. In this book, one can read proof of not only a humanistic Zionism, but even a pacifist Zionism.

I would say that Zionism reflects the Jewish people's need for a home, a place of succor and refuge, after many centuries of living marginalized in others' countries. I would further say that humanistic Zionism respects that same need in others ... and therefore precluded the usurpation and displacement of other peoples. Also, humanistic Zionism would not need to rely on coercion, on nation-state machinations, to achieve its worthy goal.

Because I am a peacemaker, I propose a non-state solution to the Palestine-Israeli conflict; something along the lines or directions pointed out in Mazin Qumsiyeh's 'Sharing the Land of Canaan'. Mazin is my colleague; I believe in him implicitly. I believe that if you want a 'Palestinian Gandhi', you need look no further.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by mary rizzo on May 14, 2008 at 5:02pm

Mazin is a friend and I agree with his calling of a single state. Yet, there are a few things that don't make sense to me in your position: you seem to believe that Jews were "not part of" the countries where they lived for centuries, (well or poorly, as many natives or long time citizens or residents of a land will experience moments of persecution and discrimination) so they had to find a safe home, yet, and this is true then as it was following the success of Zionism, that their ties to Israel are and always were metaphysical. If not, why did it take so long for the "return to the homeland" to happen? Why are so many in galut? Should they not feel there is something missing in them, no? The idea of a symbolic and cultural homeland is true to all peoples, and Romans are not moving en masse to Great Britain simply because they dominated the Isles for centuries. There are many geopolitical reasons for why things are, and all people of the Book would have a natural homeland in Israel (or Ur, to be really precise) if we follow where we came from.

But the issue is not that. Zionism seeks to actually implement the move. To do this, it must deny the rights of another. There is nothing humanist about that. For there to be a Jewish State (at least where it is) that means that the minorities are not part of it and may not be. Rejecting Zionism would be a liberation for Jews and Arabs alike. Why cling to a project that excludes when exclusion is the problem?

Israel wants to be located in the West, but it is part of the Middle East, an Arab region, and it must accept that it has to live as one of these nations, not apart from them, above them or in spite of them. Zionism keeps them in a state of warrior thinking because it determines as "natural" rights, rights that are artificial.

Just as my roots are in Central Europe, Ireland and Italy, (and only by one generation or at the most two) I can't just waltz in there and demand to be part of the nation! (Although I came back to Italy, and live as an Italian citizen, not expecting there to be some N. American colony here!) the Jews around the world have roots in other places, yet all Palestinians only have ONE root, Palestine, and it is being denied to them because of Zionism's needs. Is this humanist?

Now Neri has some errors in his analogy: Zionism can't be compared to the Hamas becauase Zionism is an ideology and Hamas is a political movement with a leadership and structure.

Nor do I ask for Israelis born there to leave. I ask them to demand equality for the Palestinian brothers in sisters who share the land. I ask them to demand a moratorium on Jewish immigration to Israel when there is such an enormous refugee problem that must be addressed.

I believe that any israeli who accepts the true and utter equality of every single Palestian and his or her right to return to their homeland is a true humanist. If they don't believe in those principles, they are not humanist, they do not feel all humans should have the same rights applied, but that Jewish Israeli rights take precedence.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on May 16, 2008 at 9:43am

John wrote: "humanistic Zionism would be a Zionism that is non-state driven".

Zionism was and is the national self-determination movement of the Jewish People. This aspiration has always been inherent in the daily lives of Jews, for thousands of years.

John:

1) Why do you want to change Zionism?

2) Do you oppose any other national self-determination movements?

3) Is it humane to propose a new non-state-driven state called ??? (Hollyland perhaps) that is likely devolve into another Lebanon?

Please note that Transjordan was intended to be the national home of the non-Jewish Arab people of the British mandate of Palestine, and that all Jews were ethnically cleansed from there as they were in 1948 from Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

--PmR

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jafra W. on May 16, 2008 at 11:16am

Paul, Zionism as political movement like any political movement looking for power to achieve it objectives. the speciality of Zionism that it has collected it power mainly through "Threat" against Jews.
Zionism has been leading by its powerful lobby and the threat.
The whole reality in Palestine and the circumstances Palestinian came through was established upon this fact. Jews in Arab world and in Palestinian, who has nothing to do with Zionism that time, did not feel directly the motivation of Zionism. Palestinian, may be simple land-worker but worth dignity very much, who lived peaceful in their lands based on their indigenous roots.

So you came to Palestine with other motivations than the people used to lived in. It would never came to peace that time .. Zionism leading mentality was no that one to transform the reality or co-create it with the people used to live their. You was the powerful, who has best plans, weapons, lobby .. for your selfish-objectives like any classical political movement.
The historical facts to 19th-20th and Holocaust gave the fanatic Zionist leaders and not the humanistic the power and lobby. Traumatised survival have easily followed militant fanatics to ensure their secure living.. human logic.

Their is some parallelisms to NAKBA. Palestinian to that time did not developed any national movement. We have/had totally another nature and circumstances than Jews. We came into conditions we was not prepared to. We had no Gandhi .. you have to imagine how we were and which reaction was expected! It came to PLO and "Fidaeyeen"

Look what leading Zionists are doing to keep their course: They look for new threats and make them as huge as possible to gain or to keep the lobby and power. For example the propaganda against Islam.

Any political movement would always fight for its survival and idea in all possibilities. It is the blindness of classical politics. it is the "I" essence. We all know "dirty politics" and "dirty economy". It is "I" based, it is selfish, it is narrow minded, driven by seek of decision power for the "I" to occupy and give orders, for private benefits. The "I" do not care about the "WE" ..

That has been the equation of classical political nature of 20th century.
But this nature is lasting in the new world. Zionists consciousness has been changed as well. they are getting confused when they for example see they can actually talk with Palestinian as equal partner. You can not go on the way you did the last 120 years. the future will be designed with new values and way of thinking. A couple of us here know them. If every one search deep inside him and review his own way of thinking, he might discover it ,, it is a matter of courageous to be honest and shift own way of thinking .. all of us need this step.

Zionism as all other power/threat-based movement will dissolve in the next years. Those are not the language of future.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on May 16, 2008 at 1:36pm

Hi Jafra,

Above you cover many topics and raise (too) many issues.

For now let's just forget about Zionism, and focus on the "I and we" concepts. Whilst i can imagine what you are talking about, could you please give me a web reference that summarises or intruduces what you mean by the I vs. we views of the world.

That way we can approach the problems using a consistent terminology and consistent concepts.

Later we can return to discussing what Zionism is and is not, and whether Zionism is humane (which some here clearly doubt, possibly because it challenges or threatens or contradicts their "I".).

Thanks...
--PmR

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jafra W. on May 16, 2008 at 2:08pm

Paul, I do not have any references .. the only thing I have is my hart. Every one has one. May be others has and can help.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on May 16, 2008 at 2:13pm

Now I undersrtand. Your use of I vs. We is just decent and common sense.

Some cultures, such as the Japanese, emphasize the "we" and de-emphasize the "I" from an early age. The Jewish religion and traditions (the source of modern Zionism) is also community (we) based, though not in the same rigid way.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on May 14, 2008 at 3:15pm

Although focusing on Australian politics, this article I think has a much broader relevance. Unlike much material written on the subject, the article is insightful and not inciteful.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on May 14, 2008 at 4:41pm

Dear John,

Zionism is NOT (universally) wrong. Neither is it (universally) right! Here is my brief definitition of Zionism:

Zionism is the national self-determination movement of the Jewish People. This aspiration has always been inherent in the daily lives of Jews.

The idea of Zion has been central in Jewish history, thought and culture for well over 3000 years. During all that time, Jews have identified and have been consistently identified by others as a People of unique and common heritage and culture. Jews had and have an ongoing presence in and are linked indissolubly to the Holy Land which for Jews was and is Eretz Yisrael, the traditional Land of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital.

The definition I offer here is just an attempt to write a brief and accurate definition. That definition is independent of my views about any consequences of Zionism.

Why did I write my own conceptual definition? Because all others I've found are either way too long or dwell too much on the "consequences" from (too many) different political and faith perspectives. I also really needed one for myself to clarify and crystallize my own thinking about the subject.

Some comments:

1. I see modern Zionism as simply an essentially secular and humanistic (though not necessarily perfectly humane) response to the long-ongoing and demonstrable Jew hate in Europe and in the Islamic world.
2. I see myself as an agnostic who is genetically and neurotically Jewish.
3. I see Israel as a very imperfect manifestation of modern Zionism.
4. In my view those who chant "Zionism is racism" are either under-informed or are simply racist!
5. In my view, only Jew-hating anti-Zionists, call today (in the name of JUSTICE, of course) for the dismantlement of or changes to the Jewish state BECAUSE they DO NOT in parallel also call for a new and fundamentally different and really humane leadership in (would-be) Arab and Islamic states.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by mary rizzo on May 14, 2008 at 5:08pm

Paul wrote:
Some comments:

- I see modern Zionism as simply an essentially secular and humanistic response to the long-ongoing and demonstrable Jew hate in Europe and in the Islamic world.

Mary: There is always and always will be hatred of the other, and the Muslim knows this far more than the Jew does, as his people have been subject to genocides by the powers that be. Yet, an Arab nationalism is geographically indicated by something realist and they should not be paying for the hatred that Jews were victims of in Europe.

- I see myself as an agnostic who is genetically and neurotically Jewish.

Mary: what is genetically Jewish?? Are there Jewish genes? When Hiter and his cronies said this, we were very upset. Why is it now "true"?

- I see Israel as a very imperfect manifestation of modern Zionism.
In my view those who chant "Zionism is racism" are either under-informed or are simply racist!

Mary: "chant"?? Why not write, or state? Are we that annoying because we believe that it is a racist ideology, even when we demonstrate it? We are actually well-informed and anything BUT racist.

- In my view, only Jew-hating anti-Zionists, call today (in the name of JUSTICE, of course) for the dismantlement of the Jewish state BECAUSE they DO NOT in parallel call for a new and fundamentally different leadership in (would-be) Arab states

Mary: Well, that is your bias in depicting all anti-Zionists as Jew hating. Wanting to dismantle an Apartheid state was noble in S Africa, why is it not now? And why link the two issues? We are talking about ways to work through the struggle in Palestine/Israel... why divert the issue to something else?

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7