Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Christine Quelch on July 10, 2008 at 2:21pm

Mick, here is small part of Wiki’s entry on Benny Morris:
Benny Morris (born 1948) is an Israeli historian... ...He has stated that the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the collapse of the 2000 Camp David peace talks were products of Palestinian-Arab decisions.

Morris is clearly a bigoted Zionist, and does not know what he is talking about. He is peddling Israeli propaganda. Maybe Morris is senile, and this would explain why he has not been able to see what was going on at the Camp David peace talks, where it was abundantly evident to anyone who took the time to observe the comments being made, that the Palestinians had no control over anything.

If Benny Morris’s analysis was correct there would not be a Palestinian problem, or any Palestinian refugees, so I think we can safely assume old Benny has no idea of what he is on about.

Furthermore Mick, mepeace is a site for initiating better relations between Israelis and Palestinians, and your contributions do nothing to foster this relationship. Mepeace is not a place to promote the supremacy of Zionism. Look around the internet for more appropriate places to sing the praises of Zionism.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Elaine Friedland on July 10, 2008 at 12:17am

One of the groups listed as a peace group Hashomer Hatzair is part of the political Zionist movement, although on the left of the political Zionist spectrum.
I am not trying to nick pick your writings, but cause to further explain your view because there is a lot of among the readers

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mick on July 10, 2008 at 3:56am

I think you have a very feral view of political zionism, John, and an unchangeable one of history. It really doesn't matter to you how often it is pointed out that the land the Jews got didn't belong to Arabs, that it was largely Ottoman land, the rest purchased by Jews at exhorbitant prices, and that the land Arabs owned (just under 4% of the land) they kept. Nor does it matter to you that both Arabs and Jews got a shot at self-determination in 1922, the Arabs on 80% of Palestine, the Jews on 20%.

I get that you are opposed to nation-states, but why so focussed on this particular nation-state? The Arab nation-state of Jordan was also formed out of Palestine at the same time as the Jewish homeland was. Iraq, Syria and Christian Lebanon were all born out of the same Ottoman lands ... so why is your problem with a Jewish homeland and with the self-determination movement associated with it?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Wilmerding on July 10, 2008 at 5:09pm

Mick, your response is very unhelpful. It does not matter how often you dish out lies as propaganda -- I will not and cannot believe them. Yes it matters to me how often people "point out" what you say. "The land the Jews got didn't belong to Arabs" is a prima facie falsehood. So "the Jews got" the land ... who exactly did they get it *from*? Israeli historian Benny Morris himself carefully documented the vacation, destruction, or expropriation of over 500 Arab villages and towns from the Arabs by the Jews as part of the Naqba. This makes your gross overgeneralization "the land the Jews got didn't belong to the Arabs" a blatant lie. Even today, where Arabs have relatively recently been forced to leave land they have been owning for many generations, Israeli Jews are taking over that land on the grounds that it has been abandoned or lays unused. That too is a generalization, but one that is largely true, unlike the one you are trying to foist upon us.

I focus upon this particular nation-state in this forum because that is what this forum is about -- Palestinian / Israeli peacemaking. I do focus upon the acts and depredations of other nation-states -- including my own -- in other fora. So don't try to tar-and-feather me as a Jew-hater, thank you very much.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Yigal D. Kahana on July 5, 2008 at 5:27am

John,
To respond to:
"The question remains whether any one people have been 'chosen' to manifest Zion on Earth while others do not. That is a really pithy question, is it not?"

Not to be pedantic, but the word "Zion" itself is uniquely a manifestation of Hebrew culture.
The only way it ever got to be an ideal of safety, etc... is as a result of the efforts of people within the Hebraic tradition. History isn't always democratic.
There is a certain dignity associated with being the "first' at something.
And a certain authenticity about interpreting one's own tradition.
No?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Wilmerding on July 9, 2008 at 5:54pm

When I have posted to this question, my answers are picked apart, and the responders seem to focus on me, or my views, as 'the issue'. At least that's how I feel.

Let me ask two questions in response.

1. The question has three negativities -- "anti-Zionists", "bigoted", and "Jew haters". Is it really any surprise that it has led to a great deal of squabbling?

2. Are all Jews Zionists? The question seems to have this as its underlying premise. Turning Paul's logic back upon his premise, if you can answer the question "are all Jews Zionists" in the affirmative, then the only question that remains is 'if you are anti-Zionist, and therefore a Jew-hater, are you also bigoted?'

Believe me, I don't want to belabor this point, because I see Paul's question as flawed in its essence, precisely because it focuses so much on negativity.

What would be the positive corrolary of Paul's question?

'Are all Zionists biased as Jew-lovers?'

Interesting thought. Personally, I love the Jewish people, though I don't know any way I could qualify as one myself. I love the Jewish love of knowledge, the Jewish aspiration toward humanism, the Jewish system of rabbinical thought, the 5,000 years of history and traditions. I love Jewish diversity, and the Jewish love of diversity. I love it that Jews almost never march lock-step with anyone, that historically Jews -- in principle -- have abjured such evils as nationalism, patriotism, and ethnocentrism.

In my own country, I love it that Jews have been right up there with the pioneers of the civil rights movement, standing up for the powerless and voiceless among us.

I love it when Jews struggle for what's right, and I love it when Jews refuse to fight.

But I don't think all Jews are Zionists. Paul's definition of Zionism begs the question whether all Jews are Zionists. I just don't think so. There is too much evidence to the contrary.

Of course, Jewish rabbinical traditions have struggled for a long time over the question 'who is a Jew'? Ultimately Paul's question begs this one as well. And it may be the most important question of all.

It seems to me that Paul actually wants us to think that "all anti-Zionists are bigoted Jew-haters". This is why he posed this penultimately negative question. Judging by the voluminous and argumentative response, I would say that he has not posed a valid or helpful question, but that the response might possibly be a measure of something.

Fortunately a negativity cannot be measured. That would be like discussing one cubic foot of a vacuum. How can one discuss nothing?

At the end of the day, this question utterly succeeds in taking the mepeace community's focus away from peacemaking. I feel it is a logical trap intended to validate bigotry. And Paul has been trying to affirm bigotry all along. He says he is a bigot, and everyone is a bigot. I have devoted quite a bit of time to confronting this. I wonder why very few others do ...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on July 9, 2008 at 7:22pm

Hi John,

I definitely do not think that all anti-Zionists are Jew-haters.

The reason that I posted the question is that anti-Zionism is considered to be socially acceptable and Jew-hate is is not. I think that many active anti-Zionists are in fact (closet) Jew-haters. (I exclude most people who now self-identify as Palestinians from that generalisation). A few anti-Zionists are in fact also Jews (see below) who are also Jew-haters.

One need not be Jewish to be a Zionist and to support the national self-determination aspiration of the Jewish People.

• Some people (including Jews) are simply not Zionists for many socially acceptable reasons. Interest is the result of motivation. Why should non-Jews care?
• Some people (including Jews) are anti-Zionists for consistent religious, philosophical, or other practical and political reasons. (I think that many people who now self-identify as Palestinians are in this group).
• Some people (including Jews) are Zionists for consistent religious, philosophical, or other practical and political reasons.

I think that my definition of Zionism implicitly or explicitly covers all that. And so:

• Not all Jews are Zionists
• Not all Zionists are Jews

Regarding who is a Jew, my simple definititions are:

• For me, I am a Jew if I believe that I am one. That is simply between me and (any) g-d.
• For the Jewish community, I am a Jew if the Jewish community accepts me as a Jew.
• For other contexts, I am a Jew if those who decide on those other contexts consider me as a Jew.

On face value given what John wrote above and before, I think that what John describes as Humanistic Zionism, I see as simply as the whole Tradition of the Jewish People (the faith, customs, and culture). Zionism is simply one aspect of the the whole tradition of the Jewish People.

Given that, John may well be an anti-Zionist (by my definition of Zionism, I still don't know what John's defintion is). It is OK, of course, to be an anti-Zionist. That depends though on the motivation and ethical consistency. That is why mentioned that SHARANSKY's 3D Test apt.

I hope that I've answered John's your substantial questions and that the concepts are clear.

Be well...
Paul RETI

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Deborah J. Boyd on July 9, 2008 at 8:39pm

My personal opinion is 2 fold. First there is the debate on if modern Israel is an establishment that is new or a restoration of a country that was altered & occupied.
I am far from an expert but I would be willing to bet that most Palestinians do not see the modern Israel as a restoration but as an invasion. They are helped along to this version by radical Islamists and anyone else who gains power from promoting such an agenda.
As for Zionist I think we need to make a distinction between the Jews who want theocracy and those who want democracy. To me the Jews who want theocracy are the Zionists and when people want their religion to be combined with government to the exclusion of other religions I think this is no democratic. Do we have poeople who fall in this category in the USA? Yes. Almost all religious organizations have evangelists and the extent to which they practice their recruiting defines them as enthusiastic or cult.
Peace on Earth will only happen if each member of the human race is able to allow for diversity. The laws by which people live should be objectively established and objectivly enforced.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mick on July 10, 2008 at 4:08am

I think you make some excellent points, Deborah, and I would just add that Zionism is a secular political movement that sought self-determination for Jews and the re-establishement of that homeland, based in historical, cultural motivations, not religious. Zionists would have despised the issue of a theocracy if it had ever come up, and most of the ultra-religious establishment was opposed to the democratic, largely socialist, Zionist view of a Jewish state.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on July 10, 2008 at 8:08am

I agree with what Mick wrote, however what Mick refers to as Zionism above, I refer to as Modern Zionism.

Modern Zionism was a secular movement started by some Jewish People and which gained momentum in the 19th Century. Whilst the name Zionism was coined in the 19th Century, the Zionist aspiration has always been inherent in the daily lives of Jews. It has been central in Jewish history, thought and culture for well over 3000 years, and especially since the destruction of The Temple by the Romans about 2000 years ago.

The creation of the State of Israel resulted in the emergence of some non-secular (religious) forms of Modern Zionism. Until the creation of the State of Israel, Modern Zionism was an essentially secular movement initiated and supported by very secular Jewish People.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Christine Quelch on July 10, 2008 at 2:26pm

Deborah has come up with the correct description of Zionists: those who want a theocracy. As is implied, you cannot be a Zionist and a supporter of democracy, unless you change the meaning of the word Zionism as is defined by the Oxford dictionary:
Zionism n. Movement founded 1897 that has sought and achieved the re-establishment of a Jewish nation in Palestine. (Oxford Dictionary) My other dictionary gives a similar meaning, except that it adds the word ‘political’ to the front of movement, which goes to show where it really is with Zionism.

It will be a while before the meaning of the word Zionism changes. The Oxford dictionary requires a new meaning to be in use for 40 years before they change the entry. Those who supervise changes keep copious records of when and where the new meanings are used.

I will tell you what the change to the meaning of the word Zionism probably will entail, in 40 or so years. It is the word nation that will be changed, because there never was a Jewish nation in Palestine. There was no such thing as any ‘nations’ in Palestine at that time. There was a number of tribes, and there was initially a Roman Empire and later an Ottoman Empire, but no nations. All else is either fanciful or manipulative thinking.

Paul, if you want to talk about Zionism, you are going to have to create a Zionist topic that will have our Arab community wanting to contribute genuine opinions, because that is what mepeace is about: social interaction that will bring everyone closer. There is no other purpose for mepeace, and you are abusing the friendship extended by Eyal when you bring up discussions that interest only the Jewish community. Worse still, some of your discussions anger the Muslims who are present.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Wilmerding on July 10, 2008 at 5:22pm

I second this observation of Christine's, but I also think that, judging from Paul's past behavior in this forum, she has pinpointed Paul's exact intentions. Judging from the result, Paul is successful in doing what he seems to intend to do -- divert the mepeace community's attention from the crucial task of peacemaking. There is no higher task than peacemaking -- this site community needs to be about that task.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13