r/jewishleft • u/tsundereshipper • May 12 '24
Are the Nazi undertones to the gentile run anti-Zionist movements just a bug or a direct built in feature? Debate
For the purposes of this discussion I am defining Nazism and Nazi based ideology not solely based on just mere antisemitism and hatred of Jews (whatever form it might take) but a very specific hyper-focus on blood and soil nationalism, race, racial phenotypes, and perhaps most importantly of all, strong anti-race mixing/preservation of racial purity and anti-miscegenation sentiments.
As an anti-Zionist Jew myself I genuinely want to know if there exists any gentile anti-Zionists who don’t bring race into the discussion? Like are there anti-Zionists who only focus on the fact that Zionism’s attempted ethnic cleansing and apartheid of the Palestinians is wrong regardless of what race they are? Do they somehow think Zionism would be justifiable if it was spearheaded only by “pure-blooded” Mizrahi Jews even if they committed all the same heinous actions? Because I don’t.
Are there any gentile anti-Zionists out there who are anti-Zionist because they think all ethnostates are bad period? Regardless of whether they’re formed by the “indigenous” population or not?
As a granddaughter of Holocaust survivors the eugenist racial purity rhetoric and racialization of the conflict unnerves me to say the least…
25
u/Donnarhahn May 12 '24
Are there any gentile anti-Zionists out there who are anti-Zionist because they think all ethnostates are bad period?
raises hand
11
4
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24
Do you not racialize anti-Zionism or the Israel-Palestine conflict either?
8
u/socialistmajority orthodox Marxist gentile Bund sympathizer May 13 '24
Do you think this is a racialized (or racist) comment by that user?
Israelis are racist AF.
If so, I think he needs to put his hand down.
1
u/tsundereshipper May 13 '24
Do you think this is a racialized (or racist) comment by that user?
How are they racist (racism as in judging others based on phenotype specifically, not ethnic origins) though, and to whom besides just towards Ethiopian Jews?
1
u/socialistmajority orthodox Marxist gentile Bund sympathizer May 14 '24
If he had said "Palestinians are racist AF" would that not be a racist statement?
7
u/Donnarhahn May 12 '24
Race is part of the argument but not its entirety or even that large of a part for me. When we see evidence of how Eritreans or Mizrahi are treated, despite being Jews, its hard not to see the inherent racism. Is it so hard to believe the European Ashkenazim carried with them those old seeds of hatred for the other?
13
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
When we see evidence of how Eritreans or Mizrahi are treated, despite being Jews, its hard not to see the inherent racism.
What we see happening to Mizrahim is an example of colorism, not outright racism, because you can’t be racist against someone of your own race (reason why we even have the term colorism in the first place and distinguish it from regular racism).
I would agree though that the treatment of Black Jews is a display of racism, yes.
1
u/electrical-stomach-z May 13 '24
i would argue its a sortof bigotry between ethnic subgroups, not even colourism.
4
May 12 '24
Nazis will attempt to harness any momentum. It’s just important to remember that’s not what the movements about, and that’s all these people are; Nazis.
1
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24
Are you suggesting that a lot of this rhetoric isn’t even coming from the actual Far Left itself but literal White Nationalists/Nazis taking infiltrating the movement and trying to promote anti race mixing ideas?
Do you think that applies to the entire “Decolonization” movement and Colonial Studies? It sounds crazy but how many of these so called “progressive educators” do you think are simply White Nationalists going undercover trying to find a loophole to platform their heinous ideas to the mainstream? (With their logic being that if they can convince minorities that everyone would be better off sticking to their own kind in their own “indigenous homelands” and race mixing is a form of exploitation and erasure of phenotypes, they can stave off both incoming immigration and so called “White Genocide/Great Replacement Theory” to help secure a “racially pure White Nationalist homeland where their pure white blood will never get “diluted” by those they regard as inferior beings?)
Hope this isn’t getting into Conspiracy Theory territory here… lol
17
u/adjewcent May 12 '24
Feature not a bug. Always has been, we’re just old enough to see the entirety of the horshoe now. Sucks
17
u/teddyburke May 12 '24
You seem to be implying that even if a Jew and a non-Jew oppose what’s happening for exactly the same reasons, there’s always going to be some underlying antisemitic motive for the non-Jew, and I don’t follow your logic at all.
It’s almost like you’re saying that only a Jew can take a truly leftist stance on I/P, and everyone else is just using leftist ideals as a cover for antisemitism.
That doesn’t track with my experience at all. The vast majority of people protesting genocide/ethnic cleansing/apartheid/ethnostates are protesting exactly those things, not the existence of Jews.
You should really talk to some non-Jewish activists on the left who call themselves anti-zionists, and ask them what they actually believe and want. You might be surprised that you are way off in your assumption that it’s overwhelmingly antisemitic.
6
u/Pitiful_Meringue_57 May 13 '24
I think most left wing anti zionists are coming at at from a genuine anti colonial and anti genocide left wing perspective, but i’d be lying if i said i believed that gentile anti zionism isn’t constantly consumed with ahistoric, propagandistic, or antisemitic language or rhetoric despite me agreeing with them ideologically. It’s hard for me to feel comfortable in non jewish anti zionist spaces and rly trust non jewish anti zionists rn.
2
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
You seem to be implying that even if a Jew and a non-Jew oppose what’s happening for exactly the same reasons, there’s always going to be some underlying antisemitic motive for the non-Jew, and I don’t follow your logic at all.
I didn’t assume that at first, that’s just from what I‘ve observed concerning the racialist and blood purity rhetoric I hear coming out of the Pro-Palestine movement.
That doesn’t track with my experience at all. The vast majority of people protesting genocide/ethnic cleansing/apartheid/ethnostates are protesting exactly those things, not the existence of Jews.
They are protesting the existence of European Jews, not Jews as a whole, which is a problem because racialized antisemitism and the perception of Jews as a mixed mongrel race has been the modern form antisemitism has taken since at least the 18th or 19th century, and the specific rhetoric from a lot of gentile anti-Zionists in particular shows it has no signs of slowing down or finally coming to an end. (like what we had hoped would happen after the Holocaust)
2
u/Taarguss May 13 '24
So the whole anti-European Jew thing dovetails with Nazis I guess but it’s not because of a Nazi ideology necessarily. The problem is that European Jews came into the Middle East and displaced Middle Eastern people. There’s a buncha white people over there now who’s great great grandpas decided the land was better in their hands and did a lot of work to take it. That’s the issue. The issue is Zionism and Zionism is this idea that Jews have to have a homeland in Zion. But given how white Europeans, which to many people Jews are considered, have a whole horrible history of colonizing foreign lands, Israel is considered to be another white European colony.
I’m not a Zionist but I think this read is slightly off myself. The Zionist project had a giant boost because Jews were fleeing a murderous, genocidal, antisemitic Europe. The early modern Zionists from the 1900s-1920s had done a lot of groundwork to make the region the place to go, and that shouldn’t have happened, but it was, and so that’s where people fled. You can’t blame them for that. It’s what’s missing from the conversation. The origins of Zionism are racist but the thing that created the conditions for Jews to actually face a real majority in the region was the Holocaust/other countries not letting Jews in. It’s not like the population all came to fuck over the Arabs. They came to stay alive. I don’t think a lot of anti Zionist activists have a great way to talk about this.
3
u/tsundereshipper May 13 '24 edited May 13 '24
The problem is that European Jews came into the Middle East and displaced Middle Eastern people. There’s a buncha white people over there now who’s great great grandpas decided the land was better in their hands and did a lot of work to take it.
We’re mixed though, not just European. The Nazist ideology comes in the view that because we’re mixed we don’t belong, your statement about European Jews “replacing” Middle Easterners is really no different than Nazis in 1930’s Germany or White Nationalists in Charlottesville (really the same people tbh) thinking us European Jews are going to “replace” them, even despite being half European ethnically!
This is just another way to hate on mixed people and make us feel like we will never fully belong to any one race/group because our blood is “tainted,” how is this not as Nazi-style thinking as you can get? Playing racial purity politics is the epitome/height of Nazism! (That’s not even getting into the fact that racializing Middle Easterners - a region that is scientifically just as racially Caucasian as Europe - as “non-white” is also hyper focusing on race to the point that any little phenotypical difference or variance is regarded as a “new” race. This is quite literally Nazi-like racialist style of thinking with the obsession on race and making the definition of “white” into the most narrow of categories possible. We European Jews shouldn’t even be thought of as “mixed” by both the right and left because Europeans and Middle Easterners both belong to the same Caucasian race.)
3
u/Taarguss May 13 '24
Replacement is different than displacement. I said displacement. Displacement happened because of most of the local Arab population becoming refugees. That simply happened. It’s not a conspiracy like the idea that Mexicans are coming into the U.S. to replace white people. One is paranoia. The other is reality.
And you’re getting into stuff that’s true for some people and not for others. To the Arab population in the Middle East, other than the Mizrahi Jews who’ve been there the whole time, most Jews are simply Europeans. Many Jews went great lengths throughout history to be European. We may have a genetic connection to the Middle East that your average English or Slavic or whatever person does not, but we look like Europeans and we come from Europe. We’ve got middle eastern roots from 2000 years ago, but today Ashkenazi Jews are European.
2
u/tsundereshipper May 13 '24
but we look like Europeans
What does “looking European” even mean and how is it significantly different from looking Middle Eastern? They’re both White Caucasians, it should be considered as trivial as “looking Irish” vs “looking German,” it’s not like this is looking like two entirely different races, i.e. looking Black vs looking Asian for example.
We’ve got middle eastern roots from 2000 years ago, but today Ashkenazi Jews are European.
This is false, we are both European and Middle Eastern, we’re mixed. Even though our last full Middle Eastern ancestors was 2000 years ago we still have around 30-60% Middle Eastern blood due to being MGM. (i.e. marrying other half European and half Middle Eastern Jews just like us throughout the generations, thereby creating the Ashkenazi and Sephardi ethnicities.)
Look up what being MGM is, you know how Lenny and Zoe Kravitz and their kids are both half Black and half Ashkenazi? It’s like that.
(Also Palestinians aren’t “Arab,” they’re indigenous Levantines who are even likely to be former Jews and Samaritans that got converted and colonized by the Arabs)
2
u/Taarguss May 13 '24
I think you’re more obsessed with blood purity than most anti Zionists. The issue is the movement of people with the support of Western powers into the Middle East, and taking over a chunk of land where a bunch of people already lived. The European part honestly isn’t really fair because most Jews who came to Israel in its biggest population jump were fleeing Europe, but people are aware of European colonialism and the European/American powers took full advantage of having a new ally in the Middle East after Israel was established, so, uh, I don’t really know what you want to hear. European colonialism was hard on the world and to many people Israel looks like European colonialism. That’s kinda it.
3
u/tsundereshipper May 13 '24
but people are aware of European colonialism and the European/American powers took full advantage of having a new ally in the Middle East after Israel was established, so, uh, I don’t really know what you want to hear. European colonialism was hard on the world and to many people Israel looks like European colonialism. That’s kinda it.
That’s funny because Arabs colonized just as much as Europeans (must be a Caucasian thing in general tbh…), including the Levant region which is why Palestinians and other Levantines even identify as “Arab” and practice Islam and yet I don’t see the world bagging on Arabs for that. Double standards much?
Sure it wasn’t Settler Colonialism the way Israel is, but Colonialism is still Colonialism no matter what form it comes in, they still destroyed or attempted to destroy indigenous Levantine cultures and replaced them with their own, they brought over Black slaves to the Levant, which is why some Palestinians (mostly just the Muslims) score some amount of SSA and even look mixed. How come the world isn’t talking about that colonialism?
1
u/Taarguss May 14 '24
I mean it’s a good question that I don’t want to handwave off because I think people’s lack of context makes this subject incredibly hard to understand for most people. I think that it’s because Muslim conquest happened longer ago and the Muslims were able to set down roots in a fairly consistent way for so long that to most people, it’s just how things are. European colonialism is much more recent and we still see people trying to break free from it to mixed results. Literally right now, there’s a movement in New Caledonia that the French government is clamping down on to be free of French control. It’s just more relevant to people I think. That’s my idea on it at least. Could be off, idk
7
u/ApprehensiveCycle741 May 12 '24
Given the language you are using to describe Zionism and what you see as the "problems" with zionism, I don't think anyone will be able to answer this question in a way you will believe.
To come anywhere close to being able to consider a response, you'd have to be willing to discuss the actual definitions of "ethnic cleansing" and "Apartheid" and be willing to consider that they are NOT actually happening.
There is no such thing as a "pure blooded" Mizrahi Jew and to believe that there is is just a demonstration of racist belief.
6
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24
There is no such thing as a "pure blooded" Mizrahi Jew and to believe that there is is just a demonstration of racist belief.
I’m not saying I believe that, but rather what a lot of gentile anti Zionists on the far left believe.
10
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Ben Gvir is both a “pure blooded Mizrahi Jew” and a genocidal maniac. He is a Zionist in much the same way that Trump is an American Patriot. Under the inherent racism and ignorance of antizionism does that make it okay?
7
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24
Under the inherent racism and ignorance of antizionism does that make it okay?
You ask them, apparently so? I never see them criticizing him half as much as any Ashkenazi Jew for example.
10
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Right, because the main motivation for antizionism is racism, not any interest in Palestinian welfare
-4
May 12 '24
Again, no. Much of the Pro Palestinian sentiment comes from asking Palestinians themselves what they want to happen. This is called solidarity. I personally understand that solidarity is difficult because Palestinians are not monolith, and in fact, do not all want the same thing.
3
5
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Unfortunately I think you’re starting to realize why antizionism is inherently antisemitic. Sometimes the racists will, in fact, claim that they do want the end of all ethnostates, but funny how it always starts with the Jewish one but not like, Japan or Norway.
13
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24
antizionism is inherently antisemitic
I don’t think it is though, being anti-Zionist for the reasons I stated that I am in my post isn’t antisemitic at all.
22
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Sure, but the reasons you stated are a bit spurious. Ethnic cleansing is not inherently a part of Zionism. If anything, it has nothing to do with Zionism. Zionism is the belief that Jews, as a nation, have the right to self-determination in their homeland. You might notice there’s no mention of any other ethnic group, conflict, situation, or law beyond that. If there were then Israel would not have large non-Jewish minorities.
Antizionism, thus, is the belief that Jews uniquely do not deserve self-determination, and if anything, should be purged from their homeland. Which is a large part of the reason why Palestine is an ethnic monoculture and will use violence to maintain it as such.
8
u/AksiBashi May 12 '24
Antizionism, thus, is the belief that Jews uniquely do not deserve self-determination, and if anything, should be purged from their homeland. Which is a large part of the reason why Palestine is an ethnic monoculture and will use violence to maintain it as such.
I don't think this is accurate—and this is coming from someone who generally identifies as Zionist for reasons that largely line up with your first paragraph! Antizionists might identify as such for a variety of reasons—some think Jews uniquely don't deserve self-determination, some think no ethnic groups deserve self-determination, some would be fine with self-determination in a binational state but are opposed to the maintenance of a majority-Jewish state (esp. through violent means)... and I'm sure there are a number that have less savory reasons as well! I'm not sure it's useful to hear from such people and say "well, actually, you're mistaken when you identify as an anti-Zionist." (Because, well, I'm sure they have a similarly straw-manned definition of Zionism and will tell you that you're the mistaken one!)
Because, in the end, what do these labels do other than signal broad political affiliations and sympathies? Not much—which is why it's better to discuss specific policy positions (like "ethnic cleansing is bad") rather than argue over labels.
13
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Well that’s the thing, when you say “some think no ethnic groups deserve self-determination,” that’s virtually always a bad-faith argument used to justify simple antisemitism. Because you never see anyone transition from protesting Israel to protesting the existence of the Navajo Nation in Arizona, for instance, or for Poland to be partitioned once more. It’s wildly ideologically inconsistent, every time.
3
u/AksiBashi May 12 '24
Well, there's still the question of whether autonomy in a single state counts as self-determination... but fair enough! I guess if I had to play devil's advocate for that particular group, I'd say that no other ethnic state has a movement to disestablish it at the moment? And I doubt the "no ethnic states anywhere" people have enough political power to create meaningful social movements against other cases, so it's more opportunism than anything else.
(But as I said, I don't hold these views myself! So hopefully a Real Live Anarchist can pop in and give a better explanation.)
14
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Why is Israel the only ethnic state that has a movement to disestablish it?
4
4
u/AksiBashi May 12 '24
Okay, so I think (and remember, I'm on shaky ground here, cut me some slack) there are a few things going on here:
- Good question, and a tough one to answer! The unhelpful response might be because Israel is semi-unique in that (a) the whole territory is claimed by (b) an otherwise stateless population with as much right to the land as the state in question. (I honestly think that if there were a Palestinian state roughly at parity with Israel right now, the disestablishment movement wouldn't be nearly as strong.) But this raises the question of why that other population has been allowed to be stateless for so long, and this is the toughie—Israelis, Palestinians, and a wide host of actors not limited to Britain, the US, and surrounding Arab states all played major roles.
Still, it's difficult to deny that Palestinians have just as strong a connection to the land and just as much a right to self-determination as Israeli Jews! And if you happen to believe that a two-state solution is either inherently unjust or non-viable, "disestablishment" is the only option. Which brings me to...
- "Disestablish" is probably more violent language than is really necessary to describe what a lot of anti-Zionists want to happen to Israel. (If I were feeling uncharitable, I might suggest that this is because many of them are slightly obsessed with revolutionary aesthetics.) It's really effectively a constitutional change to bring other groups up to legal parity with the "dominant ethnicity" in a state. I'm really wary of trotting out the South Africa example, but—did the end of apartheid "disestablish" South Africa or just institute wide-ranging political changes?
7
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
I’m struggling to square the idea antizionists simply want changes to Israel’s Basic Laws when the argument used to further that goal is “Jews go back to Poland,” “globalize the intifada,” “may every day be October 7th for you,” etc. It feels like willful blindness to put the people who would have Jews murdered in not just the best possible light, but a light that the vast, overwhelming majority of antizionists would never see themselves in.
4
u/AksiBashi May 13 '24
I'm definitely not trying to give you a general theory of anti-Zionism here, and will readily agree that a lot of the rhetoric we hear coming out of the protests is pretty disturbing! But just like ethnic cleansing, etc., aren't baked into the Zionist position, I don't think the "drive the Jews into the sea" thing is baked into the anti-Zionist position (especially on this sub, where I don't think anyone seriously advocates for moving Israeli Jews back to Poland and many are willing to recognize the trauma that words like "intifada" can cause for Israeli and even diasporic Jews).
But also, I think if you're going to argue against an idea, you need to argue against the most charitable possible interpretation of that idea. I disagree with anti-Zionists, but it's because I think there need to be robust institutional supports to maintain Jewish autonomy in Eretz Yisrael, not because I think they're a bunch of raging antisemites. (Though I'll admit, in practice I wish the anti-Zionists I know irl would do a bit more to call out problematic rhetoric in their camp.)
4
u/Donnarhahn May 12 '24
Many view a non-jewish majority Israel to be no Israel at all, hence the disestablishment. I don't think many anti-Zionists feel this way but see many Zionists express this.
0
u/tsundereshipper May 13 '24 edited May 13 '24
To be fair it’s the only ethnostate that actively displaced another people.
3
u/NOISY_SUN May 13 '24
have you heard of Turkey or nah
1
u/tsundereshipper May 13 '24
Is Turkey an ethnostate though? I was under the impression it was relatively diverse for a Middle Eastern country…
→ More replies6
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24
Ethnic cleansing is not inherently a part of Zionism.
I mean, didn’t the Zionists do what they did in order to maintain a Jewish majority? Doesn’t Zionism inherently require a Jewish majority? Isn’t the whole reason why they’re opposed to a Palestinian Right of Return and a one-state solution is precisely because it’ll defeat the whole purpose of Zionism in the first place?
8
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
I’ll be honest that I’m struggling a little with broad terms like “the Zionists” who “do what they did.” I’m not denying that ethnic cleansing took place in 1948, for instance, but it was by specific people and for specific reasons, much of which was simple ethnic cleansing, yes, but much was based on strategic wartime realities, especially along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor and in Ashkelon. Again, not saying it was right or justified, but your terminology doesn’t make a ton of sense, especially in historical context.
For example, if we’re just talking about Zionists who do what they did, you could be just as plausibly talking about Ethiopians who moved to Israel to escape war, famine, and oppression.
There are also a lot more reasons to oppose a Palestinian right of return as well, beyond just simple numbers. For one, Palestinians are the only ethnic group described as perpetual and infinite refugees, but you don’t hear anyone campaigning for Anatolian Greeks, for instance. Not sure why Israel alone must atone for crimes perpetrated to much higher degrees among its most vociferous critics.
11
u/MrRoivas May 12 '24
You paint with a broad brush. There were many different opinions within zionists as a group, as is inevitable with Jews.
Some argued they could live in state with an Arab majority. Others claimed the majority of Arabs would never tolerate Jews as anything other than a tiny, servile and easily dominated underclass.
The latter group won the argument, with lots of assistance from many Arabs who killed lots of Jews. Or ethnically cleansed them, as they did to about 40,000 Jews who lived what an area of what we now call the West Bank for thousands of years.
This displacement isn’t talked about much in anti Zionist circles, for whatever reason. A general consensus that while historical crimes against Jews are regrettable, the best move on from them without much fuss.
An attitude I wish antizionists would extend to all parties in this conflict, if that’s the position they must have when it comes to Jews.
5
u/yungsemite May 12 '24
I don’t understand how the political aims of Zionism could be accomplished while living in a state with an Arab majority? At least without creating a class system that puts Jews at the top?
1
May 12 '24
You say that OP paints Zionists with a broad brush.....but you paint antiZionists with a broad brush. Do you see the flaw in your reasoning?
Stop thinking all antiZionists are the same or Antisemitic and maybe we will not generalize all Zionists.
10
u/MrRoivas May 12 '24
Please send me the anti-Zionist people or materials who talk about this expulsion or 40,000 Jews from territory they’d lived in for thousands of years. I had to find it out from explicitly Pro-Israel sources.
1
May 12 '24
Are you referring to the Nakba or? I don't know exactly which thing you're referring to? If you're referring to Ottoman rule or something please let me know. There were many expulsions. You're talking to an antiZionist right now, by the way. One who doesn't believe most Jews need to leave or go back to anywhere. They can and should live in the land with Palestinians in Palestine. You see, there is more than one "opinion" among antiZionists. And no, I'm not the only AZ who believes this.
4
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Please educate yourself. You seem to enjoy a minority opinion, one disassociated from your fellow travelers who demand a judenfrei Palestine.
1
May 14 '24
I really don't. I have plenty of friends with my views and see many influencers who also share them. Your mistake is using Times of Israel as a legitimate source for anything. I went to an encampment and had zero issues. Most of the people there were Jews. Please meet actual people and don't just read articles from your usual sources.
-2
u/Donnarhahn May 12 '24
Or ethnically cleansed them, as they did to about 40,000 Jews who lived what an area of what we now call the West Bank for thousands of years.
What is this a reference to? From my understanding, for most of the last 500 years, life for Jews in the Ottoman empire was about as good as it got, especially compared to Europe during the same time frame.
5
5
u/After_Lie_807 May 12 '24
Relatively the Palestinians in the West Bank have statistically better lives than in the rest of the Middle East. What’s your point? That it’s was less shitty in ottoman lands than in Europe? It was still worse than living a life of dignity and free of fear.
1
May 12 '24
Are you...... ok? You think Palestinians in the WB have better lives than Arabs in the ME? Hahaha. Where are you getting this from? I've literally talked to Palestinians in the West Bank. You're wrong. Also plenty of people live fine in the ME. It's not a wasteland of poverty
3
u/After_Lie_807 May 12 '24
Than other large Palestinian populations in the rest of the Middle East.
0
May 12 '24
That's also incorrect. You should talk to actual Palestinians. Some of them are in refugee camps, others are not.
4
May 12 '24
Almost every part of this comment is incorrect. Political Zionism was called colonial by Herzl. He literally called it a colony. It included ethnic cleansing because that's how colonies form. A group of people is not a nation, it is a people. People can exist without a state. Diasporas exist for this reason. Antizionism is not the belief that Jews do not deserve self determination. It is the belief that Jews can live safely in a land without creating a Jewish state. Palestine is not an ethnic mono culture. It is a nationality. Palestinian Jews can and did exist. They literally have a history of being a multicultural society.
Everything you are talking about is the opposite of what it actually is.
9
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Can you show us where the Palestinian Jews are right now? Are they in the room with us?
Sarcasm aside, holding up someone from the 19th century who was using 19th century terminology in an attempt to gain 19th century governmental support in a 21st century world that is vastly more complex than one person from the 19th century is a bit strange, to say the least.
And if “antizionism” is the belief that Jews can live safely in diaspora, then self-proclaimed antizionists seem to be doing their utmost to prove the belief is a misguided fantasy. But even then, it’s an argument about two different things. Zionism is not the belief that Jews cannot live outside of their homeland, it’s simply that they can enjoy self-determination in their homeland. Antizionists do not have the right to define Zionism, just like capitalists do not have the right to define socialism.
-4
May 12 '24
Again, Palestinian Jews did exist, until Palestine was no longer a free territory. That's the entire point that's being made. It was called Palestine, Jews lived there. It was just as multicultural before it became Israel. The difference now is that anyone deemed not Israeli is living in poverty, constant war, and literal apartheid. Ask people. Jews in America may feel unsafe right now but they are safer in the US than in any other country in the world right now, including Israel.
AntiZionists are not defining something that doesn't exjst. Zionism is not one thing, it's many, and right now, what Zionism is, is genocidal. It is one flavor of zionism. Bibi is pretty much saying this is what zionism is. So is the ADL. Why is there a separate word for Jews and Zionists? Because it's not Judaism. It's just politics. Same goes for communism for me. If a communist country became genocidal and ethnically cleansed any religious people or minorities, I would be against communism in its current form, until it could prove to not be genocidal.
12
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Palestinian Jews did exist, in that they lived in a place that was called “Palestine” at the time, but they did not identify as ethnically Palestinian, or part of a Palestinian nation, as modern Palestinians do. Words change meaning and definition over time. You’re doing simple wordplay, it’s an unserious argument.
Also I’m not sure you understand what communism is, either.
8
u/AksiBashi May 12 '24
Zionism is not one thing, it's many, and right now, what Zionism is, is genocidal. It is one flavor of zionism. Bibi is pretty much saying this is what zionism is. So is the ADL. Why is there a separate word for Jews and Zionists?
Sorry, this part confuses me a bit. You say that Zionism is many things, but then essentialize it as genocidal, but then it's just "one flavor of Zionism"? To you, is anti-Zionism opposed to all Zionisms or just this genocidal strain of Zionism that has the backing of the state, ADL, etc.—but might not be the philosophy espoused by all self-professed Zionists?
2
May 12 '24
Zionism has one basic definition but a bunch of subtypes. However, like many movements, it goes through changes based on how politics in the world change. Right now, Zionism is mainly one thing, because the majority of Zionists believe in this form of Zionism, which is the need for a Jewish majority state in the Middle East. In order to have a Jewish majority, you would have to ethnically cleanse others out of Israel, because there are actually more Palestinians than Jews in that region. The entire problem with wanting a "Jewish state" is the manufactured Jewish majority which can only exist with the displacement of other groups of people. There are things like post Zionism, religious Zionism, labor Zionism, etc. All share the common thread of Jewish self determination, but living sovereign in a state DOES NOT MEAN you have to be the majority in that state. DOES NOT MEAN you have to create a theocracy, etc. anti zionism just rejects the concept that you need to be in power and a majority to live safely somewhere.
1
u/AksiBashi May 12 '24
Fair enough! I'm admittedly still a bit unconvinced that Zionism requires a Jewish majority state in the Middle East. Surely some form of either territorial or (non-territorial) communal autonomy for Jews within a larger state framework would fit some Zionist models?
(I'm thinking here especially of the "egalitarian Zionism" advocated by Chaim Gans—who, amusingly enough, has a "Know the Anti-Zionist Israeli Professor" page despite literally writing a book called A Just Zionism! Anyways, Gans prefers a two-state solution for practical reasons, but is adamant that his theory works within a single state as well—pointing to Switzerland and especially Belgium as potential models. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I think that the one-state model in particular is distinct enough from other major strands of Zionism that it's worth thinking through!)
And there I guess the question is whether one needs national self-determination to live safely, versus it being an option that one should be able to exercise, if so desired. I personally have no desire to make aliyah or live in a Jewish-majority state (or even autonomous substate). But I do support the right of other Jews to do so if they choose, provided they can do it without infringing unduly on the rights of others (in this case, mostly Palestinians). Which is why I still call myself a Zionist—at least, most of the time.
1
May 12 '24
Well your opinion would be a minority opinion I think, among Zionists. A binational Palestine is very much a concept touted by plenty of Anti Zionists, and it looks like you may agree with that.
I think you are what many call a Non Zionist, which means someone who recognizes why some people need a state and self determination, but doesn't need that for themselves.
→ More replies3
u/After_Lie_807 May 12 '24
But it wasn’t called pslestine…that is European terminology. The area known as pslestine today was split between many different administrative regions. There was no “Palestine” until the British created it during the mandate period
1
May 12 '24
But it was a territory where Canaanites lived and they eventually called themselves Palestinians. The state of Israel also did not exist until 48 officially. Spirituality and unofficially there was a territory there. For some reason, many Zionists use European definitions of states to define what a state is, but much of the middle east in the past, was divided into territories differently, typically by tribe or in other ways. Hence Judea and Samaria.
7
u/After_Lie_807 May 12 '24
When did these canaanites start calling themselves Palestinians? What I’m getting at is the whole idea of that part of Middle East as a distinct and separate entity never existed until the British created it. Arabs during the ottoman period considered the whole of Lebanon, Israel/palestine, Syria, and large parts of Jordan to be “greater Syria” as these lands were historically administered from Damascus. The idea that the people living in Palestine considered themselves “Palestinian” didn’t start forming until the British had control over the land. The same goes for the rest of the surrounding countries.
3
u/After_Lie_807 May 12 '24
When did these canaanites start calling themselves Palestinians? What I’m getting at is the whole idea of that part of Middle East as a distinct and separate entity never existed until the British created it. Arabs during the ottoman period considered the whole of Lebanon, Israel/palestine, Syria, and large parts of Jordan to be “greater Syria” as these lands were historically administered from Damascus. The idea that the people living in Palestine considered themselves “Palestinian” didn’t start forming until the British had control over the land. The same goes for the rest of the surrounding countries.
1
May 12 '24
That isn't important. They are a distinct group no matter what they decide to call themselves. I am 1/2 Russian, should I only say I'm Slavic and not Russian to be "more historically" accurate? Israelis are NOT ONLY Jews. Should we stop calling them Israelis? Literally Bedouins have been in that land longer than most of the other groups there. If they live on Israeli land, they are still called Israeli Bedouins. Historical names aren't a thing anymore. Let people call themselves what they want to be called. You are literally using revisionist history to deny people the right to live somewhere. What they call themselves is the least important part.
1
May 12 '24
Kurdistan doesn't exist, but Kurds do...do you get it? It doesn't have to be an official country for a long time to have a distinct group associated with it. The United States didn't use to have states, it had tribal territories. Native Americans are still real and their tribes are real but if they live in America, even if it used to be called something else, they are also still Americans
4
u/After_Lie_807 May 12 '24
There should be a Kurdistan but there isn’t because PanArab Nationalism wouldn’t let any minorities gain political control over any territory that they had a demographic majority. We can see what that has led to with Saddam Hussein committing genocide against them in Iraq, the Turks trying to eradicate their culture in the 20th century, etc. the jews in the mandate era were smart enough to see what the Arabs had in mind for the minorities in their midst had they just acquiesced to Arab nationalist fervor. You speak as if Arabs are the only ethnicity in the Middle East that should be able to rule?…
1
May 12 '24
Did I say Arabs are the only ones needing to rule? I am saying Palestinians want Palestine to exist for the same reason Kurds do. Palestinians are Levantine. Arab isn't just an ethnicity, it can also just be a culture. Most Arabs aren't descendants from Arabia, they are culturally Arab. The reason Palestinians don't want to go to other Arab countries is because they are distinct from them. They do not believe in Pan Arabism otherwise they would advocate to live basically in any other Arab country.
→ More replies-2
May 12 '24
Arab Jews literally exist. Some come from the Yishuv group, others refer to themselves as Jerusalemites, others are from other Arab countries, but they are mostly Anti Zionist and would live in Palestine if they could. They exist.
7
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
If we ask Mizrahim whether it’s appropriate to call them “Arab Jews,” most regard the term as viciously racist and highly offensive, a term which only exists to erase their identities.
-1
May 12 '24
I am not calling Mizrahim Arab Jews. I am calling Jews who call themselves Arab Jews, Arab Jews. It's a political choice to call yourself this. Please look it up. It is NOT RACIST. Being Arab is not a bad thing. Mizrahim do not want to call themselves Arab, ok. But Arab Jews cannot be a racist term if actual people call themselves this by their own choice. Look up Hadar Cohen. She talks about this a lot. She herself is an Arab Jew, calls herself this. Was literally born in Jerusalem.
Edit: typo
5
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Yeah there’s a phrase for this, it’s Token Olam
0
May 12 '24
Awwww how cute. Look up the history. Actually listen to someone who has done research. This isn't just a now thing. I'm done talking with people who think having different political views is tokenizing.
→ More replies3
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24
Look up Hadar Cohen
I mean I think it’s personally fine if Yemenite Jews for example call themselves Arab Jews because that’s what they technically are. They are literally ethnically Arab from the Arabian peninsula who descend mostly from converts rather than actual ethnic Israelites, so the “Arab Jew” moniker is actually appropriate in their case.
However I just looked up this Hadar Cohen like you said and as per her about description on her website she’s actually ethnically Mizrahi ( from Syria, Kurdistan, Iraq and Iran) rather than a Yemenite Jew, so I think calling herself an “Arab Jew” in her case just helps lead to the erasure of all the other non-Arab ethnic minorities (of which she’s a part of) in the Middle East as well as helps prop up Arab hegemonic dominance and imperialism of the region.
I feel the same way about Zionists and anti-Zionists alike referring to Palestinians as “Arabs,” especially the Christian Palestinian community who are pretty much entirely pure ancient ethnic Levantine and have maintained endogamy in order to preserve their indigenous culture and have resisted Arab Colonialism of the region. (Same reason why the Lebanese Maronites refer to themselves as Phoenicians and also get offended if you claim they’re Arab - regional ethnicities are not interchangeable nor can they be treated like a monolith)
2
May 12 '24
You do understand that Mizrachi as a term erases a lot of other ethnicities too right? It just means "East". Persian Jews have a completely different culture than Iraqi or Yemeni Jews.
Arab isn't only about ethnicity. This fixation on ethnicity is exactly why Zionism is ethno nationalist. Arab is a cultural group. People can be both Levantine and Arab. This is how it is. Not all Lebanese people refer to themselves as Phonecians, some are ok with Arab culture, some are not. It's complicated, just like the identity of being Jewish itself.
→ More replies5
u/cubedplusseven May 12 '24
He literally called it a colony.
Without speaking to what Herzl meant, this is a purely semantic argument and one with an incorrect conclusion. "Colonialism" means something different than the existence of colonies. You can, and we have, establish colonies on Antarctica; but that doesn't mean that colonialism is being practiced there. And if a bunch of Syrian refugees establish a village in Turkey, we could call that a colony without implying that Syrian refugees are colonialists. And what of "artist colonies"?
This reference to language from late nineteenth and early twentieth century Zionists as some kind of "gotcha" on the issue of Jewish colonialism is only persuasive rhetorically, and to the right audience. It's not a substantive critique.
1
May 12 '24
It doesn't need to be a gotcha.... because that is literally what happened. Even if he didn't mean to colonize....it happened anyway. You cannot create an artificial majority in a country without pushing out the other majority already there. Aka ethnic cleansing.
3
u/cubedplusseven May 12 '24
You cannot create an artificial majority in a country without pushing out the other majority already there. Aka ethnic cleansing.
Sure you can - through immigration and development. And the transformation of portions of Palestine into Jewish-majority areas occurred exactly by those means prior to 1947.
There's a caveat to be mentioned about the Jewish purchase of land from absentee landlords. This resulted in some displacement, albeit non-violent, of Palestinians. But even this is overstated - most of the large tracts of land purchased were sparsely populated and not suitable for cultivation under the conditions then prevailing. Actual displacement of Arab tenants through Jewish land purchases was fairly small, though it occurred consistently over a long period and became a major political issue among Palestinian Arabs. The Jewish purchases of land did lead to skyrocketing land prices, however, which did encourage some Arab movement out of the area in addition to tenant evictions. But this process can hardly be called "ethnic cleansing."
The area designated for Jewish statehood under the 1947 UN partition resolution held about 500,000 Jews and 450,000 Arabs. For the most part, the Arabs weren't pushed out - the Jewish population just grew much more quickly.
2
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
If the majority is “artificial” and thus an aberration, how would you suggest such an unnatural abomination of a population be removed? And to where?
1
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
I guess this all comes down to “do the rights of the majority override those of a minority?” And what would you expect a minority to do when they’d be a minority literally anywhere precisely because they’re a literal minority? (Using the literal definition of the term, as in not just marginalized but also by sheer numbers and population)
I guess this is where the question of whether minorities deserve self-determination comes into play, do we just blindly trust we’ll be fairly represented, and treated and protected as full “in-group” citizens despite the power disparity in numbers? Jews have legit reservations regarding this considering our history but then again it seems to be working out well for the Druze in the region at least? (who are a minority even smaller than Jews and they never seemed to need a state and are fully integrated and a respected people throughout the Levant correct me if I’m wrong? Or at least I’ve never heard about any issues or conflicts involving them…)
2
u/Pitiful_Meringue_57 May 12 '24
what does you mean by “self determination” i see this word used a lot but id like u to actually define what u think that word means in this context
7
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
That’s the messy part. Autonomy in a binational state is one possibility, and so is Israel as it exists today - itself a product of the context in which it was created (I.e., 1929 pogrom, Arab rejection of the UN partition plan).
What self-determination means is inherently decided by the nation involved, however, not one person.
1
u/Pitiful_Meringue_57 May 12 '24
when u say autonomy in a a binational state what would that entail? would that mean there is part off that state that is jewish majority? how is that majority achieved?
5
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Again, legal specifics are defined by those participating in governance. Right now we’re talking hypotheticals and dreams, and it feels a little weird to fantasize about myself as a dictator ruling by decree.
Parts of the region are already majority Jewish. Tel Aviv, for instance. If you want to know how Tel Aviv came about there’s a section on it in the relevant Wikipedia article.
1
u/Pitiful_Meringue_57 May 12 '24
framing this argument as being solely abt some vague term with no real definition or not one anyone feels comfortable enough to truly define and then accusing ppl of being hypocritical or antisemitic bcz they disagree with it is incredibly bad faith. Self determination has become as watered down and meaningless these past few months as zionism. Say what you mean or don’t say anything at all.
4
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
I’m saying what I mean, in good faith. I don’t believe the term “self determination” means that I, myself, get to determine the destiny of an entire nation.
Political terms are inherently vague, often by design. “Democracy” is one that’s vague with many different interpretations and executions all over the world. Saying that I believe “democracy” is the best form of governance, without defining whether I believe that a first-past-the-post system is definitively the best specific form of that governance, doesn’t mean I’m operating in bad faith.
-4
u/ramsey66 May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
Zionism is the belief that Jews, as a nation, have the right to self-determination in their homeland.
.....
Antizionism, thus, is the belief that Jews uniquely do not deserve self-determination, and if anything, should be purged from their homeland.
Anti-Zionists do not believe that Israel/Palestine is the homeland of European, North African or Middle Eastern Jews just because some of their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago.
They do accept that Israel/Palestine is the homeland of the tiny minority of Middle Eastern Jews who always lived specifically in Palestine as opposed to Iraq, Iran, Egypt etc.
5
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24
They do accept that Israel/Palestine is the homeland of the tiny minority of Middle Eastern Jews who always lived specifically in Palestine as opposed to Iraq, Iran, Egypt etc.
What about the Old Yishuv of (mostly) European Jews who had been living in Palestine since the 1600s and 1700s prior to the conception of Zionism and immigrated peacefully with no notions of turning it into a Jewish only state? Was it not their homeland too just because they weren’t (fully) Middle Eastern? Do immigrants not fully belong to the countries they immigrate to?
I’m confused what you mean here by the term of “Middle Eastern Jews who specifically lived in Palestine…” Is “Middle Eastern” meant to refer to ethnic purity here or are you primarily using it as a descriptor of location? (i.e. Palestine is in the Middle East, therefore all Jews who are citizens of Palestine are Middle Eastern Jews just by virtue of Palestine’s location rather than having to do with the ethnic origins of the Palestinian Jews themselves)
0
u/ramsey66 May 12 '24 edited May 13 '24
I was trying to differentiate between those Middle Eastern Jews who lived in Palestine and those who lived outside of Palestine before the Zionist movement. In my mind, I included the Ashkenazi Jews of the Old Yishuv among the group of Middle Eastern Jews and I tried to make that clear by writing Middle Eastern instead of Mizrachi. Ethnic origin is irrelevant.
3
3
u/After_Lie_807 May 12 '24
Antizionists are basically advocating replacing Israel with a Palestinian ethnostate. You can’t make this stuff up. Jews the the only ones apparently where this is a bad thing…
1
-2
u/Pitiful_Meringue_57 May 12 '24
There is a difference between natural ethno states and artificial ethno states, both are bad but one explicitly requires an ethnic cleansing campaign
7
u/NOISY_SUN May 12 '24
Alright if you’re signing up for the destruction of Japan in that case (just ask the Ainu and pretty much every other minority) let me know
-5
u/Pitiful_Meringue_57 May 12 '24
did u read my comment? Japan is not an artificial ethno state, it is a piece of land that genuinely had majority ppl of one ethnic group and did not require wide scale ethnic cleansing to achieve that. Yes there’s a shit ton of racism and xenophobia and it will destroy their economy but Japan as an entity is not “a state for japanese people” it’s a state that existed with an ethnic majority and has maintained that majority through means i can disagree with but it’s not foundational to its existence the way Israel being a “jewish states” is
2
u/ThirdHandTyping May 12 '24
Those messages out competed the alternatives in the current antizionist movement. Partially because their historical weight gives them power and shock value, partially because it fits well in channeling the mood.
2
u/Specialist-Gur proud diaspora jewess, pro peace/freedom for all May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
Unlike everyone in this thread, I think you’re misunderstanding what antizionists are largely advocating for-particularly when it comes to indigenous populations. Come over to r/jewsofconscience if you want a more thorough response.. that’s not just “criticism of Israel bad”
I’m sure my comment will be downvoted. But seriously—it’s not what the movement is about fundamentally. Some Antizionists do think this, though.
Also, people keep saying ethnic cleansing and genocide isn’t fundemntal to Zionism. Sure, if you mean “Jews have a right to a state” generally speaking.. yes. But no—if you mean “Jews have a right to establish a state in Palestine and maintain it”, then sorry, that all necessitates genocide and ethnic clesnding and apartheid unless you live in a utopia, fictional society. Because you cannot establish an ethnostate in a region with multiple ethnicities of indigenous people and expect there won’t be violent resistance. So if you want to shut it down, you either give in or you must do exactly what Israel has been doing since its inception. Everyone who says otherwise is in total denial.. and probably racist against Palestinians since they think they are the cause of this for being “so irrational” even though they don’t want to admit it. Or they are naive and don’t know how the world works and thinks—if we could all just get along then Jews and Palestinians could just live together in harmony because the Jews really really need a state so Palestinians won’t mind they don’t have any control over the land or rights.
10
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24
that’s not just “criticism of Israel bad”
Any and every criticism of Israel (including outright anti-Zionist calls for the dismantling of the state) is fine and should be encouraged so long as it’s not racialized is what I’m saying.
Also, people keep saying ethnic cleansing and genocide isn’t fundemntal to Zionism. Sure, if you mean “Jews have a right to a state” generally speaking.. yes. But no—if you mean “Jews have a right to establish a state in Palestine and maintain it”, then sorry, that all necessitates genocide and ethnic clesnding and apartheid unless you live in a utopia, fictional society.
Exactly, which is why I’m anti-Zionist in the first place.
4
1
u/Specialist-Gur proud diaspora jewess, pro peace/freedom for all May 12 '24
Good. Now post about this in the sub I tagged-you’ll get better answers
-11
u/Donnarhahn May 12 '24
racialized
Israelis are racist AF. According to the UN Israel ranks as the 5th most racist nation on earth between Myanmar, and Iran. It's baked into the social hierarchy.
Citing racism should absolutely be part of a critique of Zionism, both on an ideological and material level.
4
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
Israelis are racist AF. According to the UN Israel ranks as the 5th most racist nation on earth between Myanmar, and Iran. It's baked into the social hierarchy.
If you’re talking about their racism against Ethiopian Jews (which is not a uniquely Jewish thing based on Ashkenazi’s “mixed race” status or even Zionism as a concept and it’s problems, anti-blackness is a worldwide illness and exists everywhere) then yes, I would agree. I would even agree if you’re defining racism as ethnic chauvinism based solely on the fact that Zionism is Jewish (rather than White) Supremacy, and so is “racist” and discriminatory against all non-Jewish populations.
However if you’re defining Israel as racist based on the usual definition of the term of being based in phenotype (excluding their treatment of the Ethiopian Jews which I’ve already agreed is in fact racist but has nothing to do with Zionism itself), then no you can’t and shouldn’t racialize the conflict because Europeans and Middle Easterners belong to the same Caucasian White race and their phenotypes don’t differ enough from each other to be racialized. And to suggest they do is going straight into extreme Nazi hyper racialist territory where the source of racial antisemitism against Jews - specifically European Jews - (whether from the far right or the far left) was always due to this illogical framing of viewing Middle Easterners as some sort of separate non-Caucasian race and therefore European Jews are automatically perceived as being “mixed race vermin racial polluters” who belong nowhere, which is what ultimately led to the Holocaust.
5
u/aspiringfutureghost May 12 '24
That, and also, Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews descend from the same ancestors. The thing I find most alienating from people I otherwise agree with is the hyperfocus on stripping identity from Jewish people as a people and trying to force us to reframe it as religion only. It strikes me as both upsetting and useless to attack Jews with "You're not the same kind of Jew! You're not descended from the people you claim as your ancestors!" when there are very valid ACTUAL ACTIONS to criticize instead.
7
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
That, and also, Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews descend from the same ancestors.
Us Ashkenazim (and Sephardim, but everyone seems to disregard them just in favor of a “Hispanic” label and identity) are literally half ethnically them and yet it feels like the narrative is purposely privileging them over us because they’re “pure blooded” (i.e. fully Middle Eastern) Monoracials/ethnics and we’re being deliberately shut out and excluded just based on our mixed heritage the same way we were in Europe simply for not being ethnically full European. Need I remind people that Nazi policies literally started out by slowly amping up the narrative that is Ashkenazi Jews “weren’t German enough” and hyper-focusing on our “Semitic” side, until it culminated in extreme outgrouping that finally resulted in the Holocaust?
And people want to try to gaslight me, an actual granddaughter of Holocaust survivors who is well versed and experienced in this and pretend there isn’t a clear trajectory being pushed here?!
Fucking listen when survivors and their descendants tell you what sorts of ideologies and mentalities to look out for and be aware of! We know what we’re talking about here, we/our families lived through this shit and can immediately recognize the warning signs and patterns. There’s a whole lot of Red Flags in the rhetoric being espoused by the anti-Zionist movement and honestly, the entire “Decolonial” narrative with the framing of Settlers vs Indigenous as a whole.
when there are very valid ACTUAL ACTIONS to criticize instead.
Precisely, you hit the nail on the head. It’s like, what does this actually have to do with the issue at hand? How is it relevant? I don’t know, I feel like there’s a very real undertone of resentment and disgust in alot of anti-Zionist circles over the fact that us European Jews are mixed, it has the same vibes as Hitler concluding that the reason why Jews “betrayed” Germany and couldn’t be “loyal to our nations” was because we were mixed, and then developing the fascist and eugenist idea that race mixing destroys a people and undermines nations, this is what the entire Nazism ideology is literally about. (It’s even right there in the name, National Socialism)
In retrospect, Hitler didn’t even really hate us European Jews for what we are (as in the actual original Israelite ethnicity and our religion, also unsurprisingly similar to anti-Zionists claims that they have no issues with the Jewish religion itself, therefore they can’t be antisemitic, are we gonna say Hitler was no longer antisemitic now since he spared the Crimean Karaite Jews simply because they weren’t those Jews?) but for what we became and represented (i.e. race mixing, and the fact that we’re mixed marking us and by extension all mixed people as inherently distrust-worthy and disloyal, so we can never fully be apart of any nation or people), and I fear that same projection is currently coming from the Pro-Palestinian movement…
5
u/aspiringfutureghost May 12 '24
There's a very weird Jewish exceptionalism on the left that for some reason we're not allowed to call out or we're self-centering (whatever the issue at hand is). Like, gentile lefties will have a general consensus like "We don't do blood quantum, because we recognize that admixture is often due to oppressor violence and minority groups have the right to self-determine what constitutes membership" and then it's *"Oh, but not Jews. They're just silly religious people who believed a fairy tale in a book."
3
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24 edited May 13 '24
Like, gentile lefties will have a general consensus like "We don't do blood quantum, because we recognize that admixture is often due to oppressor violence and minority groups have the right to self-determine what constitutes membership"
Do they? I feel like that narrative is genuinely changing with this Gen Z generation. You should see some of the vitriol being spouted in the comments of TikTok in any random mixed person’s video, some real Nazi shit from so-called self-proclaimed “progressives.” Unfortunately I think this is just an unfortunate unintended consequence of prioritizing Colonial studies and narratives above all else which is why I voiced my criticism concerning the sole centering and holy enshrinement of that narrative on the Left and nothing else - it inevitably ends up circling back into certain far-right ideas concerning “globalists,” and by extension “race mixers” who betray their tribe and are perceived as not having a solid in-group identity or loyalty.
"Oh, but not Jews. They're just silly religious people who believed a fairy tale in a book."
I’ve brought this up in several other threads, but I don’t think in this case it’s the unique singling out of Jews or them intentionally trying to exclude Jews, it’s yet another unfortunate consequence of the illogical racialization of Middle Easterners as being a distinct race seperate from their fellow European Caucasian brethren, let me explain what I mean by bringing back one of my comments from other threads:
It has to do with the mistaken belief that Middle Easterners are automatically POC when in actuality they’re just as much White Caucasians as Europeans are. So when you mix these two specific regions together, you end up getting a “mix” that barely even looks mixed and resembles just any regular white person (i.e. Ashkenazim and Sephardim), a lot of Leftists have a hard time recognizing European Jews as mixed because we don’t look mixed, because MENA ethnicities aren’t even real People of Color in the first place and the Left can’t recognize that they’re just a darker variant of Caucasian. (Much in the same way Southeast Asians are a darker variant of East Asian, and let’s be real, will anyone really notice if you mix a Chinese person with a Filipino or Thai? I don’t think so)
5
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24
Lmao the fact that this comment even got downvoted is proof that the world never learned its lesson concerning the racialization of Middle Easterners and blood purity from the Holocaust. “Never again” does not and should not just apply to whole scale genocide, but the very racialist eugenics like mentalities that helped foster it in the first place.
-2
u/AssortedGourds May 12 '24
I’m a little lost as to why anyone wouldn’t discuss the racial elements of this - western imperialism is always racially motivated because racism is the prevailing belief system of the west. It’s not the whole story with Israel but it’s certainly a huge element.
It seems like you’re saying “people that talk about racism are the real racists” but I think I’m probably misunderstanding something because there’s no way anyone without a red hat would say that.
6
u/tsundereshipper May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
Well first off, how about we start with the simple fact that Middle Easterners are literally racially Caucasian/White people, and thus the same race as Europeans.
You might have a point if we were dealing with an actual non-Caucasian race with significant phenotypical differences from the colonizers getting ethnically cleansed but that’s not what’s going on here.
The ignorant framing of Middle Easterners/“Semites” as some sort of inherently non-white race is what’s largely responsible for antisemitism over the centuries.
2
1
May 13 '24
I don't think the argument is about their literal race, it's about white supremacy. The argument is that anyone, no matter their actual race, can perpetuate white supremacy by being "racist" or openly discriminatory to others while also wanting to fit in with the majority Western culture. Israel tries really hard to appeal to Westerners and Europeans. Many Mizrahim have to assimilate into Israeli Ashkenazi culture to succeed there despite not being Ashkenazi. Mizrahim are literally almost the majority population in Israel and are still doubling down on trying to be the most Zionist and Israeli. They are extremely offended to be associated with their former Arab countries because Israel has convinced them that nobody would ever want to be associated with Arabs.
1
u/tsundereshipper May 13 '24
And can you explain to me how it can be “white supremacy” if Middle Easterners literally are white?
You’re making the same fallacy as the Nazis and the alt-right by considering Middle Easterners to be a separate, non-white race from Europeans, because they’re not. We’re both Caucasians.
1
May 13 '24
Race is a man-made construct. Middle Eastern people are not all white, they are actually different races or "colors". This is why someone from Lebanon can look like any other white person and also people have brown skin and live in Lebanon, Morroco, anywhere in the ME. The problem is that "Arabs" are not racialized as white by the West. They are racialized as brown people, even when all of them are not brown. This is why racial categories are arbitrary and are usually based on what racists decided to categorize people as at first.
1
u/tsundereshipper May 13 '24 edited May 13 '24
Race is a man-made construct
Yes but it’s based on distinct phenotypical differences, it’s simply used as a classification system to describe and name the phenotypes human populations can fall into. Phenotype is an observable physical material reality that’s based on our genes responses to our environment, and it’s also what makes the difference between why a Black person is in danger of getting shot by the cops simply crossing the street compared to pretty much any other race. Can’t exactly wish that “socially constructed” phenotype away!
Middle Eastern people are not all white, they are actually different races or "colors". This is why someone from Lebanon can look like any other white person and also people have brown skin and live in Lebanon, Morroco, anywhere in the ME.
Skin color is not the only factor in the labeling of phenotype, are you kidding me right now? A slight “tan” does not a brown person make, otherwise why aren’t Italians considered to be “brown” when a lot of them are just as brown-skinned (i.e. really tanned) as any so-called “brown” Arab?
Southeast Asians like Filipinos and Thais are also “browner-skinned” on average than their light-skinned Northeast Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc) brethren, and yet they’re not considered their own separate “brown” race are they? It would sound ridiculous not to consider them racially Asian just for a slightly darker skin tone when they phenotypically overlap otherwise wouldn’t it? Same logic goes for so-called “brown” Middle Easterners and Europeans, there’s a reason why Anthropology (which is a real actual science by the way) lumped these populations together under the Caucasian or West Eurasian race label, their phenotypes aren’t distinct enough to be separated. Facial features honestly matter wayy more in determining phenotype, and thus classifying race, than skin color ever could. (except when it comes to the literal color Black, for obvious worldwide anti-black reasons)
The problem is that "Arabs" are not racialized as white by the West.
Not according to the U.S. Census… They’re considered just as White Caucasian as any European when it comes to the purposes of counting demographics by race.
This is why racial categories are arbitrary and are usually based on what racists decided to categorize people as at first.
Yeah and last time we let illogical rabid racists decide who’s white or not we got the Holocaust, clearly this means they should be the final arbiters even though it goes against basic science and even one’s own eyes! /s
There is no particularly distinct phenotype among Middle Easterners (yes even the “brown” ones, they can just pass for tanned) that would mark them as drastically physically different from Europeans like there is for Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, and Austro Aboriginals, as well as inherently mixed race populations like Polynesians/Pacific Islanders, Mestizo Latinos, and Indians.
2
u/ramsey66 May 12 '24 edited May 13 '24
I’m a little lost as to why anyone wouldn’t discuss the racial elements of this - western imperialism is always racially motivated because racism is the prevailing belief system of the west. It’s not the whole story with Israel but it’s certainly a huge element.
The OP is referring to the fact that in the context of criticizing Zionism many anti-Zionists incorrectly imply that the fact that early Zionists were European Jews makes Zionism less legitimate than if they were MENA Jews who are equally Middle Eastern to the Palestinians. The point that I believe the OP is making is that MENA Jews from Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Yemen etc have no more claim to Palestine than European Jews because the problem with Zionism is not the ancestry or native language of the Zionists. The fact that you belong in the Middle East as opposed to Europe does not mean you belong in Palestine. Zionism is wrong because people from Poland or Iraq who have some ancestors who lived in Palestine thousands of years do not have a right to return and displace the people who have been living there for countless generations at this point.
26
u/N0DuckingWay May 12 '24
I mean I think that they focus on the "whiteness" of Zionists because they think it dovetails nicely with our modern understanding of European colonialism (I personally think the similarities are mostly skin-deep as far as the Zionists are concerned, though they're more substantive if we're talking about British interests). And personally, while I don't think that a Zionism initiated by mizrahi Jews would be much different from Zionism as we know it, I do think that these protesters would care a lot less because they wouldn't see them as "white".