I never really understand what people mean when they say they (or someone else) is not a zionist. What does it mean? Originally, a zionist was someone who supported zionism and "zionism" was a movement to found a homeland for the jewish people. Israel exists already and, in this sense, nobody can be a "zionist". We are in the era of post zionism.

Unfortunately, many people currently use the word "zionist" in the sense that they don't think that Israel should exist. This is especially true when the terms "anti-zionist" or "anti-zionism" are used. When someone says "I am against zionism" or "Zionism is evil" or when the UN says "Zionism is a form of racism", they are using it in the sense that they don't think Israel should really exist. Similarly, people who say they are "zionists" often mean that they support Israel's right to exist.

More recently, the word zionist has been used to refer to someone who supports Israel. Even this use is ambiguous. In the way I think that you used it, it means that you don't support Israel's actions unquestionably. In your first sentence you equate being a zionist with supporting Israel's "bullying" of other countries. Other people use the word zionist to mean that they support Israel yet such people can still be critical of Israel's policies .

Anyways, this isn't an expose on the word "zionist" so I won't go over the numerous other subtleties of the word yet the word should be carefully used. In fact I would suggest that, because the word is ill-defined, that the word "zionist" not be used at all at Jewcy.

Similarly for the word "occupation". You can be against the "occupation" of the west bank (1967) or against the "occupation" of palestine (since 1948). I've seen numerous groups referred to as "peace activists" who have chanted the mantra of "end the occupation" who really mean "get rid of israel".

tom

p.s. I'm not a Francoist.

p.p.s And I mean this in every sense.

also Meat is delicious

and also Editor Joey is a zionist and is for the occupation. Watch your back.

Occupation? What occupation? You mean the liberation and redemption of Judea and Samaria?

בשר זה רצח,

Joey

Because Joey threatens my life most days of the week. I try to return the favor, but damn if he isn't just more threatening than me.

Israel exists, regardless. Put me down with Christopher Hitchens (did I just say that?) and then see AIPW 2. And for the record, I DIDN'T know that. But anyhow. "Hi, Zionists!" (can't have them feeling left out)

The way things are going, I don't know that I'd put it past Bush to try to maneuver Olmert into accepting a deal with Hamas. ANY deal.

Things in Iraq are grim; sectarian violence is now a full-time occupation and the recent flair-up is more than just good TV staged in an attempt to scare the Democrats into pushing for immediate withdrawal -- the body counts are too high and the MOs more ruthless. The Iraq Study Group has already tendered a recommendation that the US engage Iran and Syria directly and Cheney was just in SA, which, if I read it right, may save the sunnis from screwing the pooch altogether.

I'm still in favor of throwing money at the insurgents from helicopters as has been suggested elsewhere -- I'd have to support a draft back when supporting a draft was still as dumb an idea as it is now, and that leaves Gary "War Nerd" Brecher's idea (http://tinyurl.com/yjerzp), which involves nuking the Sunni triangle.

Or, we could bug out to a greater or lesser extent, depending, let the Iraqis take care of the job of killing Iraqis, and attempt to make a good faith effort to resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Which is probably what we'll end up doing, to a greater or lesser extent, except for the part of good faith, because the effort will likely involve trying to pressure Olmert into cutting a deal with Hamas. ANY deal.

Which probably sounds like my medication is wearing off (it is), but I'm not thinking appeasement, I'm thinking George obsessing over having the 43rd Presidency summarized as "miserable failure" in high school history texts.

And it's probably just coincidence that Olmert just announced that the current cease-fire would be extended with the hope that a new diplomatic initiative might allow them to come to an agreement (http://tinyurl.com/yhom44) as just happens to turn up in the area. Remember when she turned up a while back and Sharon finally got off that one hunk of land? She's got a weird influence like that.

Hopefully the Palestinians take the cue.

Of course, the area may wind up blanketed in monkeys when they begin flying out of everyone's ass out that way.

But it appears as if we're about to enter another cold war that involves a lot of guys sitting around and yelling at each other while keeping a nuke or two idling just in case. Not much of a solution, really. But historically, diplomacy has been cheaper, uses less resources, and has a much lower casualty rate than armed conflict.

It's hard to think that we're not all going to wind up getting jackhammered.

In the meantime, it appears that the UAE has censored my favorite blog. Inconsistent with their Religious, Cultural, Political and Moral Values? That's a keeper.

And now I've driveled my way through four posts and that awful-looking avatar is all over the community section. I'll quit now before I ruin the whole site. 

Biblical assertions aside, the last I checked, Israel won. Therefore, citizens of Israel who are unhappy living there are free to leave -- say, to a nearby oil-rich country that shares their particular brand of crazy.

"Palestinians" are indeed under the rule of people who do not have their best interests at heart, but those people are not Israeli.

Peace in the Middle East? Concessions from Israel will not achieve it. There is only one solution: deprive militant islamists of their funding. When oil ceases to be currency the enemies of Israel will not have the means to poison young Middle Eastern (...and Afghani, and Pakistani, and Indonesian...) minds.

No, I'm not coming on to you, I mean "Keep it Simple Stupid".

 Taking nuanced and detailed stances on an issue as complicated, emotional and historical as the Mid-East conflict helps no one. Nothing North American Jews do will make Israel "win" or "lose" (if you can boil it down to those lowest common denominators). What can, and should, every democracy-loving person out there do?

 Assert the right of Israel to exist. That's it. I have a line that I use, and that's (usually) the end of the discussion;

"Israel has the right to exist as a free and democratic state alongside a peaceful and democratic Palestinian state both within secure borders"

That's it.

Can anyone argue with that? Sorry, can anyone truly interested in there ever being a solution argue with that?

I just found a blog of intelligent thoughts on Jewish post-Zionism for those on this forum: www.post-zionism.com

They have a great statement of principles which begs discussion here.

On the meaning of "Zionist", the fellow above rights that, well, Israel does exist, and that's that. But it's not quite so simple, for two reasons.

First, countries only exist -- in international law, and in real life too -- to the extent that they are accepted into the community of states. Israel, frankly, is accepted in only a limited way. Like half the U.N. members (okay, about 50, but who's counting?) really don't accept its existence. More troublingly, tons of people we all interact with on a daily basis don't accept its existence.

That's why the whole "you don't allow criticism of Israeli policy" bullshit, apart from the underlying racist assumption that we somehow control who gets to say what, is so fucking stupid. (Pardon my language.) These people are patently uninterested in Israeli policy. Every Israeli fuck-up is to them not a policy problem to be repaired, but proof that Israel is illegitimate in the very first place. When they point to bad decisions by the Israeli government, it is precisely not in the good faith spirit of, hey, let's deal with this. It's: hey, see? Israel. Shouldn't exist in the first place. Fundamentally flawed.

So that's one problem with anti-Zionism -- it really is about Israel's right to exist as the expression of Jewish self-determination under international law. The other problem, though, is that it's about much more than that, because it's not really about Israel at all. It's about the Jewish people.

Anti-Zionists like to say that they are only against "Zionism", which they pretend means opposing certain Israeli policies, but is invariably rooted in rejection of Israel's existence as a nation-state. But it's almost never, ever true. Sure, there are some people who are anti-Zionist because they really think states should be done away with. They advocate erasing the French-German border. They think Turkey and Greece should merge immediately and are out marching in the streets to support it. And more power to them. But I've met those non-racist anti-Zionists.

Instead of only met the racist ones. Their anti-Zionism is rooted in the basic rejection of the existence of the Jewish people. If you think about it, Zionism really has three basic tenets that should be totally unarguable:

1. The Jews are a historic people. We exist, and not just as a collection of religious ideas (a la 19th-century "fellow citizens of the Mosaic faith" Euro-assimilationism).

2. That people's history is rooted in the Middle East. That's where we came from, and we have always been tied to it. It's the basis for our prayer cycle, from harvest festival of Sukkot to the whole hand-withering thing to Shmoneh Esrei. There just shouldn't be any debate about this. (And yeah, the genetic thing is relevant to the extent that our bodies contain the histories of our migrations -- certainly not for any other uses of genetics, very obviously.)

3. That people has the same right to self-determination that any other people has, a la Charter of the United Nations, article 1. That's just how international law works.

As far as I'm concerned, these 3 tenets are just not up for grabs. Anti-Zionists are free to argue that this should not result in a Jewish state. And, sure: you can argue that international law's nation-state system is passe. Or that the instrument of self-determination should not have been a state -- international law only requires that when self-determination cannot be exercised within the existing state structure.

But most anti-Zionists I've ever met contest those three tenets, rather thna what conclusion should be drawn from them. They like to talk about the Jewish "religion" exclusively, to avoid the idea that a Jewish people could exist. They like to separate out Ashkenazim, who they see as simply Europeans, from Mizrahim, who they like to see as self-hating Arabs, even if neither Mizrahim nor their neighbours never defined ourselves that way. They emphasize Yiddish as a Jewish language not because they actually like it or have any affinity with it, but because they think it's somehow cool in that anti-Zionist way by punching up some kind of authentic European-ness that belies our Middle Eastern history.

So those are my two probs with anti-Zionism. It *is* about Israel's right to exist, the questioning of which matters profoundly at both an interpersonal and political level. And it's also about our right to exist as a people, which goes much deeper than that.

Now explain why your rant is completely devoid of any mention of the Palestinians or their role in this equation.

It's also complete devoid of any mention of the Lebanese, Syrians, Bundists, Americans, F-16s, Falashas, and my great-uncle Isaac. The snappy rebuttal is appreciated but, you have to understand, Max, most things are not about all things.

This was about the nature of anti-Zionism. You are interested in another topic, which is about how to make Zionism work. But what the hell: on that different topic... let's see:

Some would say that each national community should exercise its self-determination in the form of an independent state. That's what the Europeans have tended to do, granting the national communities of other states specific collective rights. Go ask the Swedes in Finland about it, to take a particularly obscure example for the hell of it. Although the Finnish flag, for instance, is a good example of the national majority's role in that it stands for Finnish ethnicity -- here the blue Nordic cross on the white background, etc. -- the Swedish minority is considered a national minority and enjoys specific collective rights beyond the individual rights of all citizens like, say, Persian immigrants.

Some would say that each national community should be persuaded to agree to exercise its self-determination in the form of a federal state. That's what the four-nation British or we in Canada have done, granting different national communities specific collective rights. Go ask the Quebecois about it: although part of Canada, Quebec exercises a wide range of cultural and other powers within the federation, through medium of its own state. More, that provincial state has an autonomy similar to many governments. It acts on behalf of Quebec residents individually, but also on behalf of the so-called Quebecois nation collectively -- as symbolized by the flag, for instance, which combines the Catholic cross and French royal fleur-de-lys.

Others would say that collective rights should not exist, states should concern themselves only with individual rights, and post-Zionism is the wave of the future, in which case we can create a Levantine Superstate combining Israel, Palestine and, I guess, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Now, right now, the national communities of those countries enjoy collective rights. If we can persuade them to waive those rights and move to a post-national model, or if we can change international law to take those rights away -- then, sure, it can work.

I'm convinced that the first (let's call it "democratic Zionism") or, maybe one day after the first has been in place for some time, the second (let's call it "federalist democratic Zionism") of these is a better idea. I'm always willing to be convinced that the third ("non-racist anti-Zionism") is a good idea and can respond to the problems I see in it.

But I am never willing to be convinced by the racist version of anti-Zionism which, as I described it above, does us the indignity of denying the three basic tenets of who we are -- by asserting that we are not a people with a history, that our history is rooted in no place, that we do not have the rights that international law guarantees.

That racist anti-Zionism is what the "rant" -- thanks, Max -- is about. Do you have ideas of your own, or do you just heckle from the cheap seats?

(I wrote: "Now, right now, the national communities of those countries enjoy collective rights." It's patently obvious that those countries are governed with varying degrees of democracy. So they don't get to exercise the rights that international law says they have. This is about what rights they are entitled to, not what rights they are actually granted -- in other words, about what should be, not what is. What is today, in the Middle East, is a mess; hence this discussion.)

I try to have ideas of my own. But in this instance, I'd acknowledge that I'm a neophyte -- "Jewtard" struck me as appropriate, earlier. None the less, I appreciate your perspective and readability.

I wouldn't contest points one, two or three, but it remains that just the phrase "Israel's right to exist" carries a wealth of different connotations depending on the speaker.

Myself, I acknowledge Israel to the extent that it exists whether I agree it should or not but you're correct, I'm much more concerned with how to make it work than I am parsing the history of it's various occupants.

I didn't inherit a specific dread of antisemitism as the result of my family's surviving the holocaust, though -- having any connection personally has largely been useful as an anecdote against racism when, because I don't fit the Jewish ethnotype in any particular outside of the nose, someone decided that I was a right staunch peckerwood or at the very least, too Christian to be much concerned with Nation of Islams characterization of Jews.

I did, however, develop an abiding paranoia about exclusion, however and more importantly, almost no exposure to the subject of Zionism that didn't consider "Israel's right to exist" to supersede anyone else's. So if nothing else, I HAVE to mock the idea, somewhat.

I mean, somebody named Jeffrey Goldsmith just wrote a review of Carter's book and claims:

...Carter seems to mean for this book to convince American evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel. Evangelical Christians have become bedrock supporters of Israel lately, and Carter marshals many arguments, most of them specious, to scare them out of their position...

So this Zoidberg guy thinks having Evangelicals as friends is a good thing, that Carter has influence over anything more than what he had for lunch, and is capable of scaring anyone without firing multiple warning shots.

It's a convoluted situation, and pro/anti-Zionist subsume many different meanings. If you'd have come back "Fuck the arabs!" I'd have known to go "Ick!" and make note of the word choice in your posts. I much prefer to respect it as I do and, again, appreciate the insight.

Lets take a break from Israel and talk about Iran's "right to exist" for a minute.

Where are the pathetic liberals questioning Iran's right to exist? They are terrorist sponsors and have perhaps the worst human rights record in the world. They indoctrinate their children with a level of hate for the West and Israel that the Hitler Youth would envy. Now they are advocating genocide while they build nuclear weapons. It is plain to see where this is going. By nearly every reasonable measure, Iran no longer has a right to exist.

I pray that Israel will gain the strength to assassinate Ahmadinajad and then destroy Iran's oil infrastructure. IRAN: YOUR RIGHT TO EXIST HAS EXPIRED

"Assassinate Ahmadinajad and then destroy Iran's oil infrastructure"?  Judging from its lousy performance in last summer's Lebanon conflict, Israel's army can't even manage to rescue two measly hostages anymore.  The era of the Six-Day War and Entebbe has long passed as the Tzahal and Shin Bet are stretched to capacity and demoralized.  And although U.S. armed forces are stationed in neighbouring Iraq and could theoretically launch an invasion, they're so ill-equipped, and the American public's stomach for more war is so minimal, that it's not going to happen.

Face facts.  Iran will, unfortunately, get nuclear weapons soon, and there's nothing the world can do about it (I wish it were otherwise, of course).  Israel can only hope that Ahmadinajad  isn't as crazy as he sounds with his "wipe Israel off the map" talk.  Although terrorist leaders like him have no problem sending underlings off to their deaths for Allah, I suspect that Iran's president and mullahs (who are the ones really calling the shots) don't themselves want to die.  Because if (G-d forbid) Iran deploys nukes at Israel, they will get the same many times over and that'll be it for Iran as well.  Somehow I don't think the mullahs would want that;  you don't see them strapping bombs to themselves:  that's for the "expendable" children.

Yes I'm Jewish, and no, I'm not self-hating. I have more knowledge of self than most of the assholes that are going to attack this post will ever have.

I'm going to say it straight up- the Palestinians got fucked in the process of Israel's creation, and while they haven't done themselves any favors in how they have acted since, they are still getting fucked by Israel. Denying this or trying to dehumanise Arabs in order to justify beliefs or actions weakens the argument for Israel, and solidifies the stereotype that most supporters of Israel are selfish racists that only care about other Jews.

I would have preferred an entirely different situation after the holocaust. One in which people that had nothing to do with the suffering of the Jewish community in Europe didn't have to bear the brunt of the Nazi's and their allies actions (not to mention the actions of people in Poland, Russia and other nations that killed and attacked Jews who attempted to go back to their communites.) The blame for what came after WWII should be placed on much of the Zionist leadership, the two faced British Colonists, the U.N, and other members of the international community. If you have no idea what I am talking about then start reading your history books.

But, it is now 60 years later and Israel is not going away. Ideally there would be a one state solution in which there is a democratic, secular government and both people living in peace. It's probably too late for that unfortunately. Since this is probably the case, there needs to be a two state solution in which the Palestinians are given back their rights, their dignity, their resources, and their land. What and how much land is obviously a huge source of debate.

I won't even touch on the religious claims that are made on either side. I don't buy any of it. I do believe that the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe are the descendants of members of the original Jewish diaspora (with some intermarriage, and unfortunately a lot of raping during pogroms thrown in.) Claims that the Jews of Europe are just converts who want to control large portions of the world for their own devious needs is insanity on many levels. Jews have never historically been considerd "white" or "European" within Europe. They still aren't in most places. That privilege is really just in North America (or at least in some parts) and even here is basically a phenomenon of the past 50 years or so. Jews are caucasian in the same scientific sense that Middle Easterners and South Asians are, but they ain't white. My point is, Jews have never been, and probably never will be, considered a true part of the European community. Even regardless of the holocaust, I can understand why my family, and many others, wanted out of there. I can also understand why and how the Zionist movement started, regardless of whether I support it or not. People within the Jewish community and outside of it who deny the realities that lead up to the Zionist movement are not dealing with the truth and are doing eveyone a disservice.

I do know that there were small numbers of Jews that always lived in Palestine, and that many early Zionists went there before the holocaust with much less resistance. Many of these people envisioned peaceful cohabitation, certainly not what we have now. I also know that other arab nations have fucked over Palestinian refugees countless times when they could have helped them. Both sides have done their share of evil things. The murder of civilans is wrong, period.

As long as religious fanatics on both sides (and now here in the US with the Christian Evangelical movement- now those are truly our enemies) hijack the peace process, there will be little progress. As well, as long as the debate is seen as black and white, there will be little progress. Same thing within the Jewish community- Jewish critics of Israel cannot be simply labeled "self hating Jews" and Israeli supporters cannot be seen simply as "fanatics" or "racist imperialists" (although there are some of both.)

Also, the Jewish people are headed down a sad and dangerous road when Israeli supporters have to look to right wing neo-cons, evangelical leaders (who literally only want to use us until their God kills us off), and other conservative movements that have traditionally shunned Jews and traditional Jewish values like justice and equality, for political and financial support.
Half of these assholes would have been Nazis 65 years ago, if they aren't ones now.

The Jewish people are also in trouble when certain far-left factions (I consider myself to be far-left as well, just not delusional) within the Jewish community who are vehemently anti-zionist, or in some cases Anti-Israeli, have to join forces with blantantly anti-Jewish (NOT anti-Zionist/Israeli)groups in order to feel that they are on the right side of the debate. You're playing yourselves, wake up. Jew-haters are alive and well on the left.

As someone who grew up in a radical, left wing Jewish household in NYC, and who has been involved in progessive politics for years, I can tell you first hand that there truly is an anti-Jewish sentiment cloaked in anti-Zionism that is growing at a dangerous pace within the left. I see it all the time. There are some people who are knowingly promoting this and some who buy into the rhetoric unknowingly. Either way it's really dangerous. As long as it's politically correct not to acknowldge this, there will be decreasing support among Jews for the left side of the debate.

So, basically I believe its time to throw out the rhetoric, the name-calling etc, and time for the Jewish community to really try to address this issue as objectively as possible and to be willing to live up to our mistakes and to be willing to make major concessions in order to see some sort of peace, or something resembling it at least.

I realise this is unrealitic considering how many people on both sides (as well as in the US, Europe, the rest of the Middle East, etc) have no interest in anything resembling peace, but I say fuck them. Let them jump off a cliff while trying to shoot each other. They can take Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Ahmadinejad, Netenyahu, Hamas, the settlers, and the rest of the shitbags along for the ride.

I'll get off my soapbox now, thanks...

Maybe if Israel dealt with these drop-of-a-hat riots the way Syria, Jordan and other Mid-East nations have, the Palestinians would finally get the message.

Shraga Ben-Zion

read this article for another perspective on the conflict:
http://newvoices.org/cgi-bin/articlepage.cgi?id=690

OUR DAILT PRAYERS,,,
''TAKE ME BACK TO ZION''

EVERY JEW IS A ZIONIST WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT

I AM A JEW
I AM A ZIONIST
I AM A BIGOT AND RACIST FOR JUDAISM
I AM FOR SEPARATISM AS TORAH COMMANDS THE NATION OF ISRAEL

ISRAEL FOR JEWS, BY JEWS, AND OF JEWS

ALL ARABS OUT !!!

NOW I SEE IT ALL THE MORE CLEARER
RABBI MEIR KAHANE WAS DEFINITLY RIGHT.

YOU MAY HATE ME
BUT I AM LOVIN' IT.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LEARN WHAT I AM LOVIN ABOUT IT

ASK ...

THANK YOU,
DACON999

Wow. Dacon999 is a racist.

I've found American Jews tend to fall into 2 camps.

1st Camp: "We Jews were oppressed for a long time. Oppression against Jews is wrong. I'm going to stand against those oppressing Jews wherever, and by whoever, it is committed."

2nd Camp: "We Jews were oppressed for a long time. Oppression is wrong. I'm going to stand against oppression wherever it is committed, by whoever, and against whoever."

Anti-semitism is not the problem. Racism and ethnocentrism ITSELF is the problem. Jews were committed to the civil rights movement because they universalized their past oppression. I am for gay rights for the same reason.

Peace and understanding are certainly the goal. But to be honest, it's awful hard when there's no partner.

I see above some intellectual laziness. The claim that all Evangelical Christians "literally only want to use us until their God kills us off" and thus are enemies of all Jews is what I am referring to. That there are Evangelical and other Protestant Christians who have bought in to mistaken theology, such as that found in "The Late, Great Planet Earth" or "Left Behind" is a fact. It does not at all follow, however, that a majority of any Christian group has gone all the way down the Dispensationalist rabbit-hole to the ultra-misreading in question. I can't say it for sure, and I've taken the time to read at least some of these errors, and listen to those who believe them. People who don't know any Evangelical Christians, never listen to them, haven't read any of their sources, yet who "know", just "know" what they believe, are not basing their "knowledge" on any fact at all. They are, rather, basing their "knowledge" on heresay, at best, and lies at worst.

To put it another way: this "Evangelicals want all the Jews killed in Israel" is not yet a blood libel, on the level of the Protocols. But it is getting closer all the time. If you are truly opposed to bigotry, then you have a duty to fight it within yourself, too. If, on the other hand, you don't see any reason why those dirty Evangelicals deserve the slightest respect, becuase after all they just want to see Jewish blood spilled, "everyone knows that", you heard it from a very good friend...then stop claiming to be opposed to bigotry, please. Because you are not.

i think that
Anonymous Dec 18, 2006
5:23 am  really hit it on the head as far as the current status of Jews and Israel in the eyes of the far left wing... And I think we should all agree on dropping the Evangelical Christians as allies...they have sullied the name of Israel and the Jews, their money does not look good in the hands of Israel, their intentions are in the wrong place as the rest of the world hates them as much as they ahte the Jews. The last thing ISrael needs is to be associated with a yet another public enemy of the world. 

I have some friends at stumbleupon that are zionist but not radical zionists, like the neocons who believe that any action to defend Israel, even flying planes into the WTC (allowed by Bush), is ok. Check out http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com I have been posting at bernardgoldberg.com and they are not balanced like this site. They are hateful, they don't care if Bush allowed 3000 people to die, they don't care if we went into Iraq for oil, etc. It is one thing for zionists to want peace, and another to see radical zionists continually pushing for war.

May be belated

I've written a nice critique of Zionism, which lies at the core of the Israel lobbies' policies. It's called Pack Your Zionist Bags, and defines Zionism as "Israel Uber Alles".

Join the debate at:

http://oybay.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/1126/