Zionist Hegemony

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Nov 2 2007 11:21

In response to Terry's post earlier, just because Zionists did'nt load people on to cattle trucks don't mean they didn't contribute to the holacaust.

Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Nov 2 2007 11:28

Yes it appears that the Kibbutzims were Labour Zionist.
"I am an anarcho-communist and a Zionist." Weird.

Bob Savage's picture
Bob Savage
Offline
Joined: 15-01-07
Nov 2 2007 12:02

Noam Chomsky refers to himself as a Zionist, but says that his strain of Zionism is generally considered "anti-zionist" by today's standards.

Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Nov 2 2007 12:16

Woh!I didn't know that.Can you provide a link to prove it?I didn't see it inany of the links above.

Bob Savage's picture
Bob Savage
Offline
Joined: 15-01-07
Nov 2 2007 12:26

Well wikipedia (the most accurate of accurate sources) tells me that:

Quote:
Chomsky has further defined himself as a Zionist, although he notes that his definition of Zionism is considered by most to be anti-Zionism these days, the result of what he perceives to have been a shift (since the 1940s) in the meaning of Zionism (Chomsky Reader).

so looks like you'll need to read the Chomsky Reader to know for certain!

Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Nov 2 2007 14:55

Ok, will do at some point, have got alot to read right now though.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Nov 3 2007 15:44
Joseph K. wrote:
weren't there zionist cops in the warsaw ghetto, or am i getting my history from hollywood again? (of course there were also zionists orchestrating the uprising, so if so talk of a singular zionism falls down)

There wasn't a singular zionist movement, also discussion of zionist indifference or ''participation'' in the holocaust as guards/auxiliaries in the ghettos is a bit suspect since it wasn't really an ideological thing it was a class thing. Wealthier jews could afford to escape from europe while early on while working class jews couldn't, working class and middle class jews were quite likely to be socialists or trade unionists and thus were targeted first. Also conversely as socialists they had networks to fight the nazis, as happened in the warsaw ghetto uprising.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Nov 3 2007 23:06

Black Flag, I still don't quite follow on what it is you're actually saying. Why do you think that the Zionist ruling class "should" conclude a transfer of ownership over the "occupied territories" (in the use of which term you seem to tacitly accept the minimal Zionist programme of pre-1967 annexation and ethnic cleansing) to this or that faction of the Palestinian bourgeois? What do you think would cause them to do so, and what will be the likely results? Why is this a sensible goal for libertarian communists, and how should such pursue it?

Also, a technical note, if you could please quote the individual message you are replying to at each point, it will make it a lot clearer to whom and to what you are responding, and therefore make following this thread a lot easier.

Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Nov 5 2007 11:27

I think it' quite easy to follow what I'm saying and I have not said that the Palestinian bourgeois should get anything, you are putting words in my mouth.What would cause a transfer of land ownership would be a genuine desire for peace from the Isreali population and political people, a revolution in Israel or perhaps a very left-wing government, which of course is very unlikely or maybe an invasion by an Arab state/states.What I think we need to do is to strenghthen the libertarian movements in Isreal and Palestine.

And how should such pursue it?What the fuck does that mean?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 5 2007 12:07

Black Flag, you have not said that the Palestinian bourgeoisie should get anything, but a (not the, though) logical extension of your argument is that they will. In many cases I would assume that the land would go back to its previosu owners, which would probably be Palestinian farmers. Unfortunately I do not know enough about current landownership in the West Bank to say whether it would be concentrated or go to small holding peasants.

If land was transferred it is likely that it would involve some form of exchange. I.e. Israel keeps land that it has settlements on in return for land inside Israel proper (as they say). Now the problems of this is that land ownership is ambiguous and that land would be the most worthless in terms of agricultural productivity, access to water, strategic location etc (part of the role of settlements and the wall is to steal the best land and control water).

In any case land transfer would be an agreement between the Israeli and Palestinian bourgeoise, just like the Oslo process was (in fact, that peace agreement created a new Palestinian bourgeoisie linked to the PLO that mostly came from Tunis). Working class and peasant Palestinians would again get shafted. In any case, it would not rest on a genuine desire for peace; rather it would rest on a genuine desire for entrenching control (just like Oslo and the "Gaza Withdrawal").

As you say a very left-wing government is unlikely, and would probably be zionist anyway. An invasion by Arab states would never happen and if that did happen it would not necessarily be good for the Palestinians. It was not to save the Palestinians that Egypt and Jordan invaded Gaza and the West Bank. Jordan considered the WB part of their territory and were not very nice towards the population there to say the least. In fact King Abdullah I was assasinated by a Palestinain in 1951 because of his very close relations to Israel and his attempts at annexing the West Bank.

Quote:
What I think we need to do is to strenghthen the libertarian movements in Isreal and Palestine.

This is all good, but what libertarian movement in Palestine? I know one Palestinian anarchist. He knows about one other Palestinian anarchist. In Israel it is there, but very very small. In Arabic there is no word for anarchist or anarchism. The closest word is chaos. Then there is the whole No Gods... thing. In my conversations with Palestinains they are all very happy for what the Israeli anarchists against the wall are doing and are quite supportive of some of their struggles in turn, but consider the anti-god thing anathema to Islam. In addition, even more traditional socialist/communist movements are dead. Nationalism or Islamism (together with despair and defeat) are seemingly the only viable political currents. The trots are very good at the abstract calls for working class solidarity between Israeli and Palestinian workers, but it's just rhetoric.

So ToJ question on what the libertarian goals should be and how they should be pursued are very very valid (I am lost at this, though I do believe that what the Anarchists Against the Wall are doing are a good start).

And also as ToJ writes, it would be nice if you could use the quote function (copy, paste and highlight the text you want to reply to then click on quote) so that your posts are easier to follow. It's not that the content of your posts are difficult to follow it's just that they're a bit scatterbrained.

Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Nov 5 2007 15:41

Ok , all very interesting indeed.I can't say that I have any answers at the moment or opinions/views/theories that ain't already been expressed.Certainly the AATW thing is brilliant and lets hope it grows, I just presumed that there would be other libertarian groups over there.Would just add that there is no reason why Muslims cannot be Anarchists.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 5 2007 15:44
Black Flag wrote:
Would just add that there is no reason why Muslims cannot be Anarchists.

Of course a Muslim can't be an anarchist. They are two mutually contradictory ideologies.

Devrim

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 5 2007 17:17
Quote:
Of course a Muslim can't be an anarchist. They are two mutually contradictory ideologies.

Disagree. I'm a Muslim (Sufi) anarchist for starters, and I know of several others. There are anarchist interpretations of the Quran, though not many.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 5 2007 18:40
Khawaga wrote:
Disagree. I'm a Muslim (Sufi) anarchist for starters, and I know of several others. There are anarchist interpretations of the Quran, though not many.

Well there are different interpretations of anarchism. I don't think that many of them are compatible with right wing religious sects though.

Devrim

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 5 2007 19:19

So all religions are right-wing then?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 5 2007 19:25

No, but in our experience in Turkey Sufi sects are one of the bases of the right. Maybe Egypt is different.
Devrim

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Nov 5 2007 19:51
Black Flag wrote:
What I think we need to do is to strenghthen the libertarian movements in Isreal and Palestine.

If you ask me, there's little sense in "strengthen[ing] the libertarian movements in Israel and Palestine" in itself, unless we first ascertain what such movements would actually do regarding the situation here.

Black Flag wrote:
And how should such pursue it?What the fuck does that mean?

Such meaning libertarian communists. I'm sorry if I was unclear, I thought it came out naturally from the context.

Black Flag wrote:
Certainly the AATW thing is brilliant and lets hope it grows,

The most recent success for the AATW (or AAW as they are called now, I think) has been a supreme court decision requiring that Bil'in villagers be allowed to harvest some of their land that is now beyond the wall, which is not required to change place (though one might ask how useful a wall is if one is required to allow repeated passage through it). The very next decision by the supreme court recognized as a fait accompli the majority of annexation of Bil'in area land by the Modi'in 'Ilit settlement/Haredi women's sweatshop. I don't know if this is the kind of thing that I think should grow, but maybe I'm just a pessimist and this should be lauded as much as it is among most Israeli radical leftists.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 5 2007 20:19

ToJ I think it is wrong to say that the success of AATW is the judiciaries verdicts regarding Bil'in, Budrus and Biddu (the cases I know best). These strategies were pursued by the villages, not by AATW. What AATW does is just to go and support the local struggles, and that's where their success lies in building links and the direct solidarity with the villages' struggle. I think this is what is needed as a first step, just Palestinians and Israelis working together. And IMO it is a good thing that Palestinians get exposed to anarchism (though I know that arguments can be made that AATW is not necessarily anarchist) and are in fact sympathetic to it (by virtue of the deed, not theory as far as I know it).

I thought that the supreme court ruled in favour of Bil'in and that they would get their land back. This was a month or two back, so things might have changed. In the case of Budrus they did get most of their land back. In fact they even got some of the land that was annexed in 1948.

In any case, for the villages getting the land back is about survival. Bil'in e.g. is dependent on agriculture, especially after the second intifada. Most of Bil'in's income came from working in Israel before that. So I think it is pretty stupid to belittle the legal struggles that the villages undertake and AATW's support of this. But as the rulings show, this is not something that can be relied on of course.

AIW's picture
AIW
Offline
Joined: 12-10-09
Nov 7 2011 17:00

Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, A Reappraisal, 1983

Lenny Brenner again:

Quote:
Now Hitler comes to power on January 31 1933, in June of 1933 the Zionist Federation sent a secret document to the Nazis which was not published till 1963:

"...Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group..

For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question no sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples, and at the present moment especially the German people.

The realisation of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda – such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many ways – is in essence UN-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build ... Our observations, presented herewith, rest on the conviction that, in solving the Jewish problem according to its own lights, the German Government will have full understanding for a candid and clear Jewish posture that harmonizes with the interests of the state..."

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 7 2011 19:43

The forgotten part of this whole sorry history is British.

The help which the leading British politicians in the early twentieth century gave to Zionism was not only indispensable but came from their own anti-Jewish prejudices.

Theodor Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, once said “the anti-semites will become our most dependable friends”.Indeed, the very same Balfour who gave his name to the notorious 1917 declaration of British support for Zionist aims had in 1905 introduced in Parliament the first Aliens Act, designed to limit immigration of Jewish refugees. Balfour warned Parliament about “the undoubted evils that had fallen upon the country from an immigration which was largely Jewish”.

The Balfour Declaration was opposed by the only Jewish member of the British government at the time, Secretary for India Edwin Montagu, who wrote a memorandum denouncing it as “the Anti-Semitism of the Present Government”. On the other hand, it was supported by Minister of Munitions Winston Churchill, who wrote: “among the Jews ... this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing".

Until Britain intervened, Zionism was very much a minority response to anti-semitism: of the 2 million Jews who fled the pogroms between 1881 and 1914, only some 50,000 went to Palestine, and half of these left within five years.

The British thinking behind the Balfour Declaration was that appealing to the Zionists would undermine the Central Power’s war effort and, more importantly, garner American and Russian Jewry’s support and influence on their respective governments to join or continue to be a member of the alliance with Britain and France. British
politicians believed that world Jewry was a powerful force which could affect the fortunes of war and that most Jews were active supporters of Zionism. The British government went as far as allowing the ZIonists to prepare the draft Declaration.

In his study of the Mandate period which followed, the Israeli historian / journalist Tom Segev shows that the British political elite was to a large extent persuaded of the Zionist case because it reckoned that the power of Jews internationally could cost Britain dear if it did not; in other words, this political elite believed in a world Jewish conspiracy along the lines of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, the notorious Czarist secret police forgery.

Britain then tried to shove the Palestinian Mandate in the direction of the USa but Wilson could not live politically with the contradiction between this and his much-heralded declaration of the Right on Nations to Self-Determination and so the protection of the Haifa oil pipeline, which was the main function of the Palestine Mandate, went to Britain.

British 'stewardship' of the Palestine Mandate after 1922 involved no initiatives to bring Jewish immigrants and Arab villagers together and the administration turned a blind eye as the Zionists built a self-segregated community, a set of segregated institutions and a segregated local economy to serve it. It allowed Jewish agencies to purchase land from absentee Arab aristocrats over the heads of the villagers who lived on it and watched idly by while Jewish paramilitaries like Ben Gurion's Haganah were built up. It put down Arab revolts in 1929 and 1936 and then failed dismally to stick to a consistent policy about the future of the territory when the Mandate expired.

During the Second World War war Britain actively stopped refugee ships carrying Jews from landing in Palestine and when the Zionist terrorists it had allowed to grow turned their guns on the British, they cried 'help' to the UN and turned in their Mandate.

That is why this aspect of British imperialism is never taught in school or College in the UK, to help perpetuate the myth about British imperialism as a modernising force in history.

All the horrors which have happened since stem from Britain's self-centred irresponsibility; it is Britain's legacy.

On the subject of this thread, ZIonism would still be a minority strand within the Jewish diaspora and we would not have to talk about its hegemony, were it not for anti-semites like Churchill, Lloyd George and Balfour.

To me, this also means that Zionism and Israel need to be understood in terms of European imperialism in the Middle East - Zionism was seen by the British, because of the discovery of oil 8 years before the Balfour Declaration, as a means of inserting a European presence into this region. Israel is an imperialist project which is not fundamentally about the Jewish people, the Holocaust or anything else. It was and is about Anglo-American hegemony.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Nov 9 2011 00:13

Man, I can't believe this is stillon-going.

The Holocaust gave rise to Zionism as a grand movement of people. Zionists, in the 1950s, with the help of Arab nationalists, created the scare which forced the Israeli state to move tens of thousands of "oriental" Jews (from Arab lands) to Israel. Zionism, prior, to the holocause was not a proletarian movement. Within Palestine then Israel it was clearly supported by the usual working class organizations.

Thank british Imperialism for being as fucked as ever. And Naziism for giving the remaining
European Jewery the "incentive" to leave. Oh, yeah, thro the Poles and Ukrainioans for their
additional programs of 1946 ..... and then the Russians for their "Doctor Trials". A marginal doctrine (zionism) blown up into a large and fucked up one.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 9 2011 13:46

Synicalist

Quote:
The Holocaust gave rise to Zionism as a grand movement of people

This is ahistorical nonsense:

Zionism's greatest success was in 1917 when it secured the Balfour Declaration. Once the Palestine Mandate was underway and Jewish migration began in earnest, it was already a grand movement of people, and then got grander still.

By 1939, 306,049 Jews had immigrated into Palestine. The total Jewish population was estimated to be 450,000 or roughly a third of the total population of Palestine. At the end of 1946, 1,269,000 Arabs and 608,000 Jews resided within the borders of Mandate Palestine, so it simply is not true that Zionism as a 'grand movement of people arose from the Holocaust, as only a third of the Jewish population in 1946 could be ascribed to the Holocaust.

By 1937 the Zionists had established Hebrew University and had begun construction on the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem. Economically, Jewish businesses flourished in Tel Aviv and Haifa. In short, the Jewish community became completely self-sufficient during the Mandate period.

Zionism screwed the Jews who were under direct threat within German-occupied Europe during the Second World War, yet you argue:.

Quote:
Thank Naziism for giving the remaining European Jewry the "incentive" to leave

Again, this is ahistorical nonsense.

Crucially, after the start of the war, as the Nazis occupied various countries, they refused to let the Jews leave, making emigration virtually impossible.

Beit Zvi has documented the Zionist leadership’s indifference to saving Jews from the Nazi menace except in cases in which the Jews could be brought to Palestine...[e.g.] the readiness of the dictator of the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo, to absorb one hundred thousand refugees and the sabotaging of this idea — as well as others, like proposals to settle the Jews in Alaska and the Philippines — by the Zionist movement.

Other realistic resettlement plans were proposed but actively opposed by the Zionist movement. Also, the great majority of Jews in Europe were not Zionists and did not try to migrate to Palestine before 1939.

Syndicalist, you really shoudn't try to spread the blame beyond Britain: -

During the war, the British did not allow any Jews fleeing Europe to immigrate into Palestine. The Mandate government continued to adhere to the policy set forth with the MacDonald White Paper of 1939. By 1945, the Irgun and the Haganah had set aside their differences to resist British rule in Palestine. The same year the Haganah seized Camp Atlit on the Palestinian coast, where the British held Holocaust survivors who attempted to illegally enter Palestine.

The British disgraced themselves further in February 1942 in the case of the Romanian ship 'Struma' which anchored in Turkey awaiting permission to land 747 Romanian Jews in Palestine. The British not only refused to let the refugees continue to Palestine, they encouraged Turkish authorities to tow the ship into the Black Sea and cast it adrift, an inhuman act given that the passengers had been on board for 74 days, overcrowded with inadequate supplies. The ship was then sunk by a Russian submarine with the loss of 796 people.

Despite British-Jewish tensions, thousands of Jewish volunteers served in the British army in scattered units, and on September 14, 1944, the Jewish Brigade was established. The Jewish Brigade of approximately 5,000 soldiers was the only military unit to serve in World War II in the British Army — and, in fact — in all the Allied forces — as an independent, national Jewish military formation.This supplied the ZIonists with up-to-date military equipment, knowhow and training.

Britain made Zionism what it became and schooled it in everything it needed to take power over Palestine in 1948. In doing so, it got its nickers in one of the biggest twists in history and ended up fighting the Jewish paramilitaries, but there is no escaping the main line of historical development. Zionism as a nationalist idea may have emerged originally from the eastern European pogroms of the late nineteenth century, but Zionism as an imperialist force to be reckoned with has 'Made in Britain' stamped all over it. Hitler played a bit-part in all of this and the Holocaust had little effect in terms of both migration and international support.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Nov 9 2011 17:10

My point about Nazism is that the holocaust gave the remaining European Jews no reason not to turn to zionism, the idea of a Jewish only homeland. For the most part, zionism was not a significant ideology prior to WWII. This isn't to say that there weren't zionists, that the inter-war years did not increase Jewish migration, etc.

Now, if you want to tell me that zionism was the leading idology amongst the Jewish labor, socialist and anarchist movement pre-war, I don't that I could agree with that.

Anyway, most European Jewish out-migration was to most other places than Plaestine.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 9 2011 18:57
syndicalist wrote:
My point about Nazism is that the holocaust gave the remaining European Jews no reason not to turn to zionism, the idea of a Jewish only homeland. For the most part, zionism was not a significant ideology prior to WWII. This isn't to say that there weren't zionists, that the inter-war years did not increase Jewish migration, etc.

Now, if you want to tell me that zionism was the leading idology amongst the Jewish labor, socialist and anarchist movement pre-war, I don't that I could agree with that.

Anyway, most European Jewish out-migration was to most other places than Plaestine.

So, does that double negative mean you think that there were only 158,000 Jews left in Europe after Holocaust, i.e. the difference between the number in Palestine in 1939 and 1946?

Zionism was a nationalist ideology and had been throughout the twentieth century, so it was as significant to its Jewish supporters as Turkish nationalism to its adherents; Turkish nationalism had an even shorter lifespan. In relation to Jews, Zionism divided them so passionately, not only in Palestine but worldwide, that to argue that it was not significant amounts to saying Jews were not significant.

Zionism was the leading ideology among the Jewish labour movement in Palestine - Ben Gurion's movement was precisely that - it stood for workers' equality , workers' rights etc but on the basis of racial exclusivity; it did not want non-Jews employed by Jewish-owned firms. That's Zionism!

Yehuda Ashlag, a prominent inter-war orthodox Jewish anarchist, supported the Kibbutz movement and I know of no Jewish anarchists who were active in Palestine.

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Nov 9 2011 20:13

Ashlag, for all his criticism of a specifically zionist state leadership, was no anarchist. This nonsense about a mystical Orthodox rabbi being anti-capitalist and anti-statist needs to be exposed and dispensed with.

The Jewish anarchists in Palestine were grouped mostly around the irregular Yiddish-language periodical "Problemen."

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Nov 9 2011 22:45
Pengwern wrote:
syndicalist wrote:
My point about Nazism is that the holocaust gave the remaining European Jews no reason not to turn to zionism, the idea of a Jewish only homeland. For the most part, zionism was not a significant ideology prior to WWII. This isn't to say that there weren't zionists, that the inter-war years did not increase Jewish migration, etc.

Now, if you want to tell me that zionism was the leading idology amongst the Jewish labor, socialist and anarchist movement pre-war, I don't that I could agree with that.

Anyway, most European Jewish out-migration was to most other places than Plaestine.

So, does that double negative mean you think that there were only 158,000 Jews left in Europe after Holocaust, i.e. the difference between the number in Palestine in 1939 and 1946?

Zionism was a nationalist ideology and had been throughout the twentieth century, so it was as significant to its Jewish supporters as Turkish nationalism to its adherents; Turkish nationalism had an even shorter lifespan. In relation to Jews, Zionism divided them so passionately, not only in Palestine but worldwide, that to argue that it was not significant amounts to saying Jews were not significant.

Zionism was the leading ideology among the Jewish labour movement in Palestine - Ben Gurion's movement was precisely that - it stood for workers' equality , workers' rights etc but on the basis of racial exclusivity; it did not want non-Jews employed by Jewish-owned firms. That's Zionism!

Yehuda Ashlag, a prominent inter-war orthodox Jewish anarchist, supported the Kibbutz movement and I know of no Jewish anarchists who were active in Palestine.

Perhaps I am not clear or we are talking past each other.

I am talking about the labor, socialist and anarchist movements outside of Palestine.
From your last post, you seem to be almost exclusively talking about within Palestine.

As for your numbers, I don't think I get what you're saying.

All I am saying is that most Jews before the war were not zionist. Probably never thought about a Jewish homeland, except in some biblical way (as said on Passove, "Next year in Jerusalem"). The war created the political avenue for most Jews to take an affirmative view towards a Jewish homeland in a Jewish Palestine. It did not exist in a meaningful way amongst the masses of European or even American Jewery prior to that period.

But, you make a fair enough point about the inter-war years, the young pioneers push towards a jewish homeland in Palestine. But I wouldn't subscribe to them being a majorityof
world Jewery.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 9 2011 23:21
Quote:
The war created the political avenue for most Jews to take an affirmative view towards a Jewish homeland in a Jewish Palestine

ANd yet they did not go there in significant numbers. As you have pointed out, the additional numbers after the Nakbha were refugees from tit-for-tat persecution in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Nov 9 2011 23:33
Pengwern wrote:
Quote:
The war created the political avenue for most Jews to take an affirmative view towards a Jewish homeland in a Jewish Palestine

ANd yet they did not go there in significant numbers. As you have pointed out, the additional numbers after the Nakbha were refugees from tit-for-tat persecution in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world.

Dude, what on earth are you talking about now? European Jewery was decimated after the war. I can't say for certain without looking it up, but significant numbers went to Palestine. Other went to the US, Canada, Brasil, perhaps Arentina. By 1945, American jewery prolly constituted the signle largest block of "european" jewery and they weren't going to Palestine in any measurable numbers.

So I'm not real clear as to your points, actually. Sorry, usually get folks points in a faster manner. here, I am not sure what you're trying to convey.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 10 2011 11:09

Syndicalist, real Zionists go to live in Palestine (Israel, as it is now called) and did then, as better prospects were clearly available in the USA and in some other places. Jews who put their prospects before the nationalist Jewish ideology may well have been more sympathetic towards those who went to Israel as a result of the Holocaust and subsequently became ambivalent towards the state of Israel and some of them came to Zionism whilst in diaspora in the USA, especially during the ongoing era of identity politics.

My basic point is that the British Mandate and not the Holocaust caused the establishment of the state of Israel and everything I have argued since is about closing down the wriggle room & obfuscation that you have been trying to establish around this. Pretending not to follow the argument is just further obfuscation.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Nov 10 2011 14:02

I am neiether as smart (or as dumb) as some might think. I honestly did not get where you were coming from or going. Not eveyone understands stuff on first read.

That said, I would agree with you that the Balfour Dec. opened the door to those within the Jewish community to advance a zionist/nationalist agenda. But, I would still contend, that the holocaust created the widest ideological opening for the aim of zionism: an exclusively Jewish homeland in Palestine/Israel.

I suspect we disagree with what actually caused the rise of the zionist ideology as being the mass opinion of a majority of world Jewery. That is a fair disagreement.