Rethinking Zionism

[IndianaGreen]

Rethinking Zionism

By Norman Markowitz

A comrade who is a sophisticated Marxist-Leninist asked me recently to try to deal with the question of "Zionism" theoretically. His point, which is a good one, was that criticisms and condemnations of Israeli policy and general attacks on "Zionist" ideology are routinely condemned as anti-Semitic by supporters of those policies. At the same time, there are both neo-Nazi and other anti-Semitic groups in Europe and the U.S and rightist groups in Middle Eastern countries, including the Palestinian group Hamas, who for different reasons have cloaked anti-Semitic ideology and policies in anti-Zionist rhetoric.

For Marxists, the first question that must be analyzed is that of nationalism. We should as Marxists understand and apply our own framework as historical and dialectical materialists and our own outlook as internationalists to the question of nationalism Marxism is internationalist, but socialist movements develop in a national context under specific historical conditions.

Marxism-Leninism adds to Marxism what is essentially a political science of society and an updating of global history. First, a theory of a revolutionary vanguard party. Second, a theory of a revolutionary workers state as a necessity for the establishment of socialism. And third a theory of new imperialism, developing at the end of the lives of Marx and Engels, rooted in a new form of capital (monopoly or finance capital born of the merger of bank and industrial capital) and its need to export itself globally in order to overcome the falling rate of profit created. This led directly to a massive increase capitalist exploitation of labor and natural resources as capital literally exported itself to both produce and find markets greatly expanded productive capacity

As a result of this new more extensive and intensive monopoly capitalist imperialism, there were from the late 19th century on profound dislocations throughout the world that both increased the number of and threatened directly peoples occupied by the colonial powers.

Also long oppressed minorities, such as the largely ghettoized Jewish minorities of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires, who were now literally the first to be pushed out (in contrast with the experience of minorities in the imperialist centers, who were more likely to become the last hired and first fired). The case of the African American minority, where what had been a chattel slave population was transformed rapidly into an internal colony whose majority was trapped in the semi-feudal sharecropping economy, was a special and extreme case of the super-exploitation in the new imperialism.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2720/1/148/

[DemInDistress]

1. who are the ZIONISTS within our government? Cheney

Rumsey..Wolfowitz..Chertoff..please help me here..

[IndianaGreen]

2. Those are neocons

They are not Zionists.

[DemInDistress]

5. yes your right..cheney and rumsey are likudnik neocons but

wolfy and chertoff are zionists and condi is a christian zionist and the list of american zionists is a who's who some prominent names there..

[IndianaGreen]

6. You wouldn't know Zionism if it bit you in the ass

but it is nice to live in a world of slogans.

:donut:

[DemInDistress]

7. probably not but I'm often accused of being anti semitic or AGAINST

Israel..which is ZION..NO?

[Colorado Blue]

21. Zion is actually a term for Jerusalem. Israel is the Jewish

homeland, both historically and today.

Criticisms of Israeli government policy, in the sense that people complain about British government policy, for example, aren't antisemitic.

However, when people lambast Israel with biased and broadbrushed attacks, support her disappearance or overlook the fact that there are 6 million HUMAN BEINGS living in Israel, and who have been threatened by terror and war continually, that crosses the line I believe.

First, the simple fact that a large percentage of the world's Jewish population of 13 million Jews live in Israel, makes comments like "Israel is a criminal racist apartheid evil mistake", de facto antisemitism - while of course they also overlook the wartorn history of the region and the VERY large fact that the entire Middle East is pretty much bereft of Jews due to persecution and expulsion after 1948, and 2nd class citizenship as dhimmi prior to that.

Also one needs to bear in mind that Israel is in fact a tiny, tiny state - smaller than New Jersey, embedded in a huge region representing 22 Arab League state and hundreds of millions of people; and the disputed territories are a very small percentage of that. Yet, Israel gets way more attention than major war zones, such as Sudan. That's reflective of bias.

Here are some articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
http://www.jimena.org/

[Behind the Aegis]

8. .

:eyes:

[ShockediSay]

3. Perle, Lieberman, Sandy Berger

I'd guess.

Google Zionism and be prepared for an eye opener.

The Charter of the World Zionist Congress (an Organ of the World Zionist organiztion) was to find a homeland, take it over, and eliminate the indigenous population therein.

[Lithos]

9. What was the old joke?

Two jews, three opinions? (My apologies), but why I bring this up is that there is no way to create a simple, terse, dictionary-friendly definition of Zionism given the very nature of Judaism itself. There were, and still are, so many differing definitions of what Zionism is, was, or should be that I'm afraid it comes out on a personal level. I believe I read somewhere that there are approximately 25-30 main categorical definitions for Zionism, some of which are diametrically opposed and some are completely obsolete. Some of these are quite healthy and supportive of a peace movement, others are not. It is also a term where people try and force-fit quite a few political assumptions in order to try and raise the emotional bar.

Add to that your statement about the World Zionist Congress which carries with it much historical baggage including context and assumptions which are missing.

The point is, to lump everything together and try and define simply is not helpful. Google is a wonderful tool, but in truth it is nothing more than a sound-bite generator, and one which is easily biased at that. I would suggest reading Walter Lacquer's book, _A History of Zionism_, which is considered probably the best introductory text to the matter. Stephen Sizer's book on Christian Zionists is also highly revealing as well of some of the Christian variations which come into play in the US.


L-

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Do you know if there's a list of main categorical definitions available?

I did google once last year and didn't find anything very useful. I did a quick count of the different sorts of Zionism that rated a mention in class last year, and I think it'd be around seven or eight of them...

I've read the intro and conclusion to 'A History of Zionism'. What I read was excellent and I intend to do the book credit and read the in-between bits now that I'm not using it to write dull and dry essays...

I find it kind of sad that most of the time any discussion on Zionism and its different forms will end up with cyber-bloodshed and insults flowing when it's actually one of the most interesting things (at least I find it to be so) in the whole Israel/Palestine thing...

Violet...

[Lithos]

12. Online?

No. Not that I know of. The Wikipedia entry is woefully inadequate. Some of the ones which come to mind include:

political zionism - The founding of the nation state of Israel by political fiat. The state is the important thing (for respect). Herzl's meaning.
nationalistic zionism (Zionism is equate do the State of Israel). Ben-Gurion.
historical zionism - Israel as historical continuation.
synthetic zionism - A mixture of cultural development, practical development to help with the political development. Believed in cooperation with existing Arab population. Chaim Weizman.
anarchistic zionism - Early form based on the anarchy movements of the late 19th century. Trumpeldor. Obsolete.
labor zionism (related, but different from socialistic. The Kibbutz movement),
socialist zionism - modern form, Peretz
philosophical zionism (Zionism as abstract ideology)
practical zionism - Early form, focus on settlement and establishment of farms, etc. Obsolete.
cultural zionism (Focus is on a cultural renaissance among Judaism - Buber was of this type for a long time.)
religious zionism (general religious reasoning for Israel). Torah v'avodah
post-messianic zionism (The messiah founds Israel. This is what Neturei Karta believes)
pre-messianic zionism (Temple mount faithful - build it and the messiah will come)
christian zionism (Millenial Dispensationalistic)
pan-zionism (Zionism as a uniter of judaism, the state is not so important)
salvation-zionism - Israel as the means to physically save Judaism.
militaristic zionism - Founding of Israel by arms. Jabotinsky (Obsolete).
post-zionism - Zionism is considered obsolete. A relatively new phenomenon.

I'm sure I'm missing a few and giving short shrift to the definitions. People can share one or more of these definitions. As stated

[Violet_Crumble]

31. That's a pretty good list...

I think it's a pity that more people aren't big on synthetic zionism. I might be grabbing the wrong end of the stick with this one, but I was watching bits and pieces of a documentary about Moshe Dayan the other night, and he seemed to me to have been into both militaristic and synthetic Zionism, even though that comes across as a weird mix. His son spoke of how he made genuine attempts to mix with and understand the Palestinians, though Uri Avnery did point out that he never really did understand them in anything other than a shallow sort of way...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

19. One source of confusion

to a greater or lesser extent - the American Jewish Community (excluding the tails of the Poisson Bell Curve; but including the major communal organizations and even AIPAC and ZOA) tends to nominally line up behind both the incumbent US President and the incumbent Israeli government.

It is called "survival" or a paranoid fear of an American "L'Affaire Dreyfus."

[Colorado Blue]

24. Also, I think it's important to point out that the term "Zionism"

has been misused and misinterpreted by antisemites.

What WE say Zionism is, and what is defined by the people who wrote, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and other bigots, are very different things.

People shouldn't use the terminology that is used by bigots, and when googling, should be very careful not to fall into the trap set by them, designed to propagate hatred for Jews and for Israel.

This is a problem with the 'net. There's great information out there, but also a lot of hate sites masquerading as legitimate sites. And people without a foundation in the topic might not necessarily know the difference.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

22. Pretty inaccurate, I'd say. There are, as Lithos points out,

many shades and types of Zionism - religious, labor, etc - but MOST - the mainstream Zionists - now that Israel is an established fact - merely support her as the Jewish homeland and support the continuing self-determination of the Jewish people within that homeland - much as the French (and most people in the world) support the continuing life of France.

The main dispute within the Zionist community has to do with where Israel's borders should be. The majority are reconciled to borders near the Green Line, which is NOT an established border but merely an armistice line by the way - but including Gush Etzion and Jerusalem, beefing up the thin waist of Israel for security purposes and maintaining a unified and secure capitol in Jerusalem. Some Religious Zionists are committed to the idea that Israel should also include Judea and Samaria - otherwise known as the West Bank - the ancient Jewish lands, home to Jews continuously even during the diaspora - until Jordan evicted them in 1948.

Most are opposed to trying to hang on to the West Bank for one simple reason: they are majority Arab, and the people there don't want to be part of Israel; in fact they've just elected a government whose clear goal is to destroy Israel.

Therefore there will be a separation, which will break the hearts of many who are deeply attached to the land.

But, the Arabs are attached to it also, and they too have rights, and rights to self-determination, though it should be noted that Jordan, the eastern 78% percent of the Palestine Mandate - all of which was to have been the Jewish homeland according to the League of Nations - is 70% Palestinian Arab ethnically. It is complicated.

Perhaps someday an Arab government will evolve, which will allow Jewish people to live peacefully on the West Bank, and thus religious Zionists will be able to live safely on their ancestral lands, without having to be within the State of Israel proper.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Yr claim about the Palestine Mandate is incorrect...

though it should be noted that Jordan, the eastern 78% percent of the Palestine Mandate - all of which was to have been the Jewish homeland according to the League of Nations...

The British Mandate of Palestine was one where Transjordan and Palestine were always treated as two separate entities under the one mandate, so any claims that any percentage of what was to be a Jewish homeland (as far as I know, the League of Nations didn't say at any point that the entire Mandate was to be the Jewish homeland) was given away is imo very misleading...

Here's some information on the Mandate for anyone interested. Note, the bolding is mine so to stress the point that Transjordan and Palestine were two distinct territories within the one mandate:

"All the mandates over Arab countries, including Palestine, were treated as class 'A' Mandates, applicable to territories whose independence had been provisionally recognized in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The various mandate instruments were drafted by the Mandatory Powers concerned but subject to the approval of the League of Nations.

The mandate for Iraq, while in the process of being drafted, was amended to provide for the signature of a treaty between Britain and Iraq, which was concluded in 1922. This was supplemented by further agreements, all approved by the League as meeting with the requirements of article 22 of the Covenant. Iraq obtained formal independence on 3 October 1932.

The Mandate for Syria and Lebanon did not provide for any special treatment as in the case of Iraq. Both territories were governed under the full control of France until the Mandate was terminated. Lebanon achieved full independence on 22 November 1943 and Syria on 1 January 1944.

Palestine and Transjordan (as it was then called) were included in the same Mandate but treated as distinct territories. Article 25 of the Palestine Mandate empowered Great Britain to withhold, with the League's approval, the implementation of any provision of the Mandate in Transjordan. On the request of the British Government the Council of the League, on 16 September 1922, passed a resolution effectively approving a separate administration for Transjordan. This separate administration continued until the territory attained independence as the Kingdom of Jordan on 22 March 1946.

Only in the case of Palestine did the Mandate, with its inherent contradictions, lead not to the independence provisionally recognized in the Covenant, but towards conflict that was to continue six decades later."

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument

[Colorado Blue]

25. A final thought, regarding the 'net: be careful. Antisemitism

is an ancient problem, and it's manifesting now on the 'net. Sites like "Jew Watch" pretend to be scholarly sources of factual information, but in fact are not. Many of these are listed on the Directory of Hate Sites. There are others which are more subtle, but no less damaging.

It's difficult to tell with some of them, because they're carefully cloaked as scholarly sites, and that makes them dangerous. They'll take a phrase and alter it slightly, take it out of context, and all of a sudden it means something completely different than was originally intended.

The purpose of these sites isn't to educate. It is to create bigotry and reinforce stereotypes. It's difficult for people to tell when they're being had because very few actually have a grounding in history, let alone Jewish history, and few can really see our culture from the outside and realize the degree to which antiJewish bias is really woven into our collective cultural subconscious, so to speak. That goes back to the days when Jews were first blamed for killing Christ, and it morphed through the years, appearing even in the greatest of Western literature. Now it's being reinforced from the East.

And, the Nazis never really died. They're there, just waiting for their moment.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Interesting.

Google is your friend....

Much attention has been paid to how the early Zionists secured land in Palestine, but relatively little study has focused on the equally essential effort by Zionists to delegitimize and replace the Palestinian majority.(10) Without Jewish control, the Zionists concluded they would be no better off than in Europe, where Zionism arose specifically as a way to escape antisemitism, pogroms, the ghetto and minority status.

As former defense minister Ariel Sharon, a leading spokesman of Zionism's right wing, has commented: "Our forefathers did not come here in order to build a democracy but to build a Jewish state."(11) A similar view was recently expressed by Labor leader and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin: "I don't believe that for 2,000 years Jews dreamed and prayed about the return to Zion to create a binational state." (12) Though the terms are softer, the meaning is the same.

Thus from the very beginning of Zionism's dream of creating a Jewish state, there were two complementary and equally imperative objectives: gain land and replace the majority population, either by denying them their rights, out-populating them or displacing them by one method or another. Despite soothing promises by Herzl and other Zionists that Jews and Palestinians would live happily side by side, there was, indeed, no other way to create Zionism's envisioned Jewish state in Palestine.

It is interesting how close your comment of "(t)he Charter of the World Zionist Congress (an Organ of the World Zionist organiztion) was to find a homeland, take it over, and eliminate the indigenous population therein." is very similar.

BTW...the source quoted (in the green box) is from JewWatch.

I am not allowed to link to such an odious site, but I know there are those who will "demand" proof.

(Reposted with moderator approval, sans direct link to vanity site.)

[Coastie for Truth]

18. To say Neocons and Likudniks "define" Zionism

is intellectually (or UNintellectually) the same thing as saying that the United States Democratic Experiment is Bush Republicanism as defined by the Heritage Foundation and the Fundies.

I grew up in an AFL-CIO union family, and our flavor of Zionism was Labor Zionism and Socialist Zionism -- and I had two uncles "blacklisted" during the 1950's (see the movie "Good Night and Good Luck").

And during my Viet Nam era active duty, while I was commissioned, I was denied a Crypto Clearence because of "Questionable Family Background".

[PVK]

4. Rove's brain: Michael Ledeen.

n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

11. The best sentence.

"At the same time, there are both neo-Nazi and other anti-Semitic groups in Europe and the U.S and rightist groups in Middle Eastern countries, including the Palestinian group Hamas, who for different reasons have cloaked anti-Semitic ideology and policies in anti-Zionist rhetoric."

Of course the author left out another group: the far left. They, too, have "cloaked anti-Semitic ideology and policies in anti-Zionist rhetoric." I believe some know they are doing it, others, not so much, as they are just trying to be a part of the "in-crowd."

[Lithos]

13. Going to call you on this

Of course the author left out another group: the far left. They, too, have "cloaked anti-Semitic ideology and policies in anti-Zionist rhetoric." I believe some know they are doing it, others, not so much, as they are just trying to be a part of the "in-crowd."

You are incorrectly stereotyping the far left, though I do agree that there is a strong effort underway by anti-Semitic groups to try and legitimatize themselves using the Palestinian conflict and now the huge amount of distrust of the Bush administration as cover. Given the complicated situation, they are offering rather simple answers. The sad truth is that for all their chest beating, such groups generally care about as much for the Palestinians or Iraqi's as they do for Jews which is not at all.

L-

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Then, I call you right back...

You know, as well as I do, that there are far-left sources that are not allowed here because of their "anti-Semitic over/undertones." When I say "far left," I mean extremists who call themselves 'liberals' or 'lefties.' Do you deny that there are 'liberals' or 'lefties' who are anti-Semitic? If you agree that they do exist, don't they usually try to pass their tripe off as simply 'anti-Zionist?'

Where we do agree is that those types don't care for Palestinians. They only care for hating Jews.

What do you define as far left?

[Lithos]

15. Far left

Is closer to the far right than it is to the left in general, as like space, politics warps back amongst itself. Though what you call far-left here is generally not as far left as they think they are.

As for sources, curiously, most of what is not allowed here for these types of biased thinking such as anti-Semitism sites are usually paleo-Libertarian and generally Far Right in bent. Yes, a few sites are not allowed here in I/P which are leftist in nature, but mostly because they lack gravitas (ie, are vanity), than biased reasons.

Of the Libertarian (where most of the anti-Semitic sites seem to be associated), the main reason they've garnered any coin among the left is that they are jealous/in competition with the Neo-Cons for control of the Right and leftists are sometimes over-eager to believe "an enemy of my enemy is my ally" without realizing this other group is also an enemy.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. My definition

I agree the far left is closer to the far right than most would admit. They share the same mentality...you are with us, or against us. One 'wrong' vote and they are willing to throw the "baby out with the bathwater (or vote Republican)." They are also the ones to always see conspiracy and complicity without exploring it.

As you say, most of the sites not allowed here are usually "not allowed here for these types of biased thinking such as anti-Semitism sites are usually paleo-Libertarian and generally Far Right in bent. However, they are are often 'examples' of the "clock is always correct twice a day." And, while you say that the few leftist sites not allowed in I/P are simply "because they lack gravitas (ie, are vanity)," I contend that "(t)hey, too, have "cloaked anti-Semitic ideology and policies in anti-Zionist rhetoric."

The analogy of "an enemy of my enemy is my ally" could not be more true, especially in I/P. The willingness to find the deaths of Israelis "unfortunate, but understandable," speaks volumes here. However, it is not just here (in I/P) that this happens. Throughout DU, some are so rabid in their hate for Israel, so much so, that some, mostly Jews, are afraid to even speak (type). You know, as I do, you (as a moderator) could go into GD and post "Israel discovers the cure for cancer," and there would be a litany of anti-Israeli posts....so much so, that the 'article' would be tossed into I/P, though having nothing to do with the conflict. Review the thread asking for the creation of the "Jewish Group" to see if I am being accurate or speaking in hyperbole. Note the number of deleted posts, and the 'disgust' registered by Skinner.

Why did I even mention the above? Because some, even here, "cloak(ed) anti-Semitic ideology and policies in anti-Zionist rhetoric."

[400Years]

20. What about Jews who are anti-zionist? Are they anti-semitic?

[Colorado Blue]

23. Depends. Some religious Jews and some small sects are

antiZionist on principle, because the Messiah hasn't come yet. According to some scriptures, the Temple shouldn't be rebuilt until the Messiah arrives.

Some interpret the foundation of the State of Israel as "rebuilding the Temple" and since the Messiah hasn't come, they are antizionist.

Others, I believe, think that Eretz Israel puts the Jewish people, as managers of a modern nation state, in an uncomfortable position with regard to our spirituality. The problems presented by realpolitik, the wars, the often brutal decisions involved in counter-terrorism operations, and the dilution of spirituality that simply managing buslines and paperwork and city zoning laws, let alone the conflict with the Arabs, trouble people. Ethical challenges abound, when one decides to live as an equal, functioning part of the world. They aren't so acute when one retreats.

I don't think the above examples constitute antisemitism at all. They're expressive of serious philosophical and theological concerns. None of these were overlooked by the founders of Israel, or by the people who created the Zionist movement. But overall, due to the terrible threats posed to the survival of the Jewish people, they decided to bite the bullet and try to live as a people, whole, in a state.

Someday, perhaps the nation-state model itself will be outmoded. But it does represent the the pattern for most of the people of the world, people who flock together because of cultural, linguistic, religious and other matters of shared heritage, so the desire for the Jewish people to have a state isn't unnatural or strange, and at least such a state provides at least some opportunity for self defense and for the defense of Diaspora Jews, and a refuge for persecuted people.

However, there are antizionist Jews who are truly bigoted. I don't want to ruin my day by discussing them right now:)

[Coastie for Truth]

26. Utopianist strain within the Reform Movement

which rejects both an anthromorphic God and an anthromorphic, corporeal Messiah, postulating a Messianic Age (like MLK's "I have a Dream" speech) where Utopia is the "New Jerusalem."

[Lithos]

29. That's just a form of Zionism

antiZionist on principle, because the Messiah hasn't come yet. According to some scriptures, the Temple shouldn't be rebuilt until the Messiah arrives.

Some interpret the foundation of the State of Israel as "rebuilding the Temple" and since the Messiah hasn't come, they are antizionist.

That is incompatible with several other forms of Zionism. To say they are against Zionism is sort of funny in that they fully support the notion, just disagree as to the pre-requisites.
L-

[Wordie]

27. Curious about something, Lithos...

I'm just curious about what you mean about the libertarians being "enemies" of the left. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I wonder if you could expand a bit on that, as you didn't state any reasons.

(I guess I'm one of those people who has a difficulty toeing any ideological line. I want to see, discuss and reflect on all the arguments in a debate, so I can weigh them and decide for myself.)

[Lithos]

28. I used the term paleo-Libertarian

Which has a rather specific meaning. These are the people who opposed the New Deal, most forms of social activism and while are against war it is because they oppose any and all foreign involvement including participation in the UN and intervention in places like Darfur. People such as Ayn Rand and Lew Rockwell are paleo-Libertarians.

L-

[Spinoza]

32. Theodore Herzl, the founder of the modern Zionist movement,

wrote in his pamphlett "The Jewish State" (Der Jundenstatt), published in 1896, which is considered the founding document of modern Zionism:



"....We are a PEOPLE, ONE people. We have everywhere tried honestly to integrate with the national communities surrounding us and to retain only our faith. We are NOT permitted to do so. In vain do we exert ourselves to increase the glory of our fatherlands by achievements in art and science, and their wealth by our contributions to their commerce....Vain to seek obscurity. They say: the coward, he is creeping into hiding, driven by his evil conscience. Vain to go among them and offer them one's hand. They say: why does he take such liberties with his Jewish pushfulness? Vain to keep faith with them as a comrade in arms or a fellow citizen. They say: he is Proteus, he can assume any shape or form. Vain to help them strip off the chains of ignorance and slavery. They say: no doubt he found it profitable. Vain to try to counteract the poison. .....Assimilation has proven impossible. If only they would leave us in peace. BUT THEY WILL NOT.......There is only one solution. The ancient and suffering Jewish people must again have their own state.....All peoples and faiths will be welcome to live with us, but, finally, we will be SAFE from them......

[occuserpens]

34. Why bother

to describe I/P in "historical materialist" terms? Yes, it is it is certainly possible. No, it makes no practical sense whatsoever.