|
And give you due respect (that you engage in honest discussion)
The establishment of a *Zionist* state was a mistake, just as the establishment of an *apartheid* state was a mistake. I know, such comparisons are always odious, but IMO we can't do without comparisons and certainly not just because they sometimes hurt. In posts to this DU forum various supporters of Zionism (there seems to be some consensus here) have said that "anti-Zionist = anti-semite", and also "anti-Zionist = anti-Israel". There seems to be a consensus amongst those who support the Zionist ideology, that promoting these two overlapping conflations provides a sound defence against those (like me) who would directly criticize Zionism as being a (if not *the*) cause of certain difficulties requiring solution. You read right, I said "cause of ...". Both of these conflations directly misrepresent the facts regarding common usage of these terms, and both explicitly misconstrue the meaning that I and others intend when we use terms like 'Zionist' in this context. Furthermore, these conflations contain an implicit ad hominem attack on those who write anti-Zionist arguments, suggesting that we are anti-semites who agitate for the extinction of the Jewish people in the ME, and possibly worldwide. This conflation, used as a deliberate debating tactic, is deplorable. It isn't aimed at addressing any common issue, or solving any common problem.
So let's put it on the table: in my opinion "Zionist" is no more a necessary attribute of Israel, or any other country, than "apartheid" is of SA, or any other country. (When embraced by a gov't of a country) Zionism and apartheid are policies driven by ideology, and both policy and ideology can change over time, over the evolution of a same country. Just as population and any other factor might change over time.
IMO the name of a country is immaterial. What matters are the values that a country embraces, and the means by which a country goes about ensuring that its values are promoted. I no more promote or advocate for a racist Palestinian state which discriminates against Jews, or any other group(s), than I advocate for a racist state of Israel. Eliminate the racism/tribalism and a solution common to all parties is possible. When one party demands a racist ideology and political policy as an essential condition, a sine qua non to be satisfied, because that particular party believes that it benefits from this ideology and policy, it effectively demands that racist ideology and policy be forced on all parties. Because satisfying that demand forces an unsatisfactory and hurtful state of affairs on all the other parties, it follows that any state of affairs realized by satisfying that demand must necessarily be *militarily forced*, if it's to exist or continue to exist at all.
So, 1 state or 2 state or 50 state "solution" isn't the issue, IMO - the issue is the nature of those states, that they NOT be founded on racist principles as a sine qua non.
I've written enough for now. If you insist that I do so, I'll explain why to my mind the difference between "secular Zionist" and "religious Zionist" isn't immediately relevant to solving the problem caused by Zionism itself. But in short, to my mind a person's inner justifications for promoting racist politics and policies is irrelevant to the actual damage incurred by those politics and policies. On the other hand, it can't be denied that Judaism provides a theological foundation for the the idea, and that Judaism existed at historical root of the idea.
|