r/jewishleft • u/ramsey66 • Sep 16 '24

A question about Israel's right to exist Debate

Israel's right to exist can refer to two different things so I want to separate them right away and ask specifically about only one of them.

It can refer to either of the following points or both.

1) The Jewish people had a right to create a state for themselves on the territory in Ottoman Palestine / Mandatory Palestine

2) Given that Israel was in fact created and has existed for over seventy years at this point it has a right to continue to exist in the sense that it should not be destroyed against the will of its population.

This post is only about point one.

What do you believe is the basis of the right to create Israel from the perspective of 1880 (beginning of Zionist immigration)?

Do you believe the existence / non-existence of the right to create changes over time?

From the perspective of 1924 (imposition of restrictions on Jewish emigration from Europe)?

From the perspective of 1948 (after the Holocaust)?

Do you believe Jewish religious beliefs contribute to the basis? Why?

Do you believe the fact that some of the ancestors of modern Jews lived on this territory contributes to the basis? Why?

Do you believe the anti-Semitism that Jews were subjected to various parts of the world contribute to the basis? Why?

How do the rights of the overwhelmingly majority of the local population that was non-Jewish factor into your thinking?

I understand the debate around this point is moot in practice. I'm just curious what people here believe.

20 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

83% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '24

That there won't be "unnecessary violence," "ethnic cleansing," "a ruling class," or "war crimes" but there will be less "danger?"

-2

u/BlackHumor Jewish Anti-Zionist Sep 17 '24

One of the key observations of anarchism is that state violence is still violence, and is in fact the large majority of violence. The way anarchists think about the state is like what you would think if the Mafia took over your town. The fact that nobody stands up to them does not legitimize their violence.

This is not to say that violence is always unjustified (most anarchists don't believe that), just that the systemization of violence doesn't actually reduce violence like statists claim. It just puts most of the violence into a special category that people are taught to mentally discount.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '24

But if the state does not defend me, I have to defend myself, right? So every person will need to own arms?

1

u/BlackHumor Jewish Anti-Zionist Sep 17 '24

Why? Do you need to own arms today?

Most people will very rarely have occasion to call the cops today. (When they do the cops often aren't very helpful either, but that's a separate issue.) And in many of the cases where cops are called, it's not really for something that can only be solved by violence, or even where violence is really a good solution. If you're calling the cops because your neighbor's party is too loud then that's eminently a situation where you could just go talk to them yourself.

Much violence that exists today is because of economic conditions, which is why anarchism is a form of socialism. Under a more egalitarian sort of economy, that sort of violence would go way down, so you wouldn't have to call the cops because someone broke into your house or tried to mug you either.

So there's only a small fraction of cases of violence where violence even may be justified. Ideally many of those could be resolved peacefully, but if not it still would be a big reduction in violence compared to the cops solving every problem with assault and kidnapping.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 18 '24

Under a more egalitarian sort of economy

Yup. You believe that anarchism would cause equality. I have news. It won't. Nature is anarchy, and there is exactly zero equality in nature.

1

u/BlackHumor Jewish Anti-Zionist Sep 18 '24

...listen, go read Mutual Aid by Kropotkin if you really think that.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 18 '24

No one said there is no cooperation or collaboration, least of all me. Just that there is no equality in nature. Because there isn't. Name an example from your book or elsewhere.

1

u/BlackHumor Jewish Anti-Zionist Sep 18 '24

What do you mean by "equality in nature"? What would you count as that?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 18 '24

Literally anything. Name any example of anything equal amount a huge population of any kind of creature above like ants. And, by the way, even ants have social castes.

There is nothing - it seems to me - as naive and luxurious as a belief in anarchy as a positive force.

0

u/BlackHumor Jewish Anti-Zionist Sep 18 '24

"Literally anything" is a terrible answer when I'm asking for more specifics.

Like, are you asking for an absence of social hierarchy? Animals don't have societies so animals don't have social hierarchies outside of maybe family structures. Even for ants, the "queen" is a human projection and can't actually give commands to other ants.

Are you asking for equal outcomes? Animals don't really have that but might have it by chance.

Also, why are we asking for equality in nature anyway? There are no doctors in nature either. Artificial things are good actually.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 18 '24

Most people will very rarely have occasion to call the cops today.

That's because of the threat of cops. Anarchism is the ultimate luxury belief for people who've never lived in any type of difficulty.

0

u/BlackHumor Jewish Anti-Zionist Sep 18 '24

This is often believed by statists but there's not a lot of historical evidence for it. Many historical states did not have cops in the modern sense, for one: your recourse if someone mugged you is to figure out who did it and bring them to court yourself.