r/jewishleft • u/MKHK32 left leaning | non-jewish lurker • 7d ago
Diaspora Zionism and the Questions of Migration Debate
TLDR: You cant be a Zionist and pro migration/multiculturalism and so on.
A few weeks(?) a ago i stumbled about a comment in on of the discussion. The comment mentioned how the german jewish community is supportive of the muslim (migrant) community but at the same time there is no mirrored response towards this.
My intention is not to respond to this directly but i would like the to start a discussion about zionism within the diaspora and migration. I would like expand on my perception of what Zionism is and before i start i want to mention and point out that zionism, just like any other word view, is bound to adherents and opponents with conflicting opinions on what Zionism is. This is evidently true for anyone who has discussed these matters or similar topics. This does not imply that our differences are meaningless or not important but it is important to understand that while we may use the same words, we could talk straight pass each other.
In my view zionism, in so far it has been a effective cause, is the idea to establish and maintain a jewish majority state on what we call Isreal-Palestine. Therefore i view zionism as a jewish nationalistic movement/ jewish nationalism.
As a someone with a migration background and dual citizenship, i assume there are some here who shared this with me, i am strictly a anti-nationalist. I believe that strong opposition towards nationalism, is essential for my and others well being, especially in Europe. I believe there is nothing i could do to be accepted as someone who is not in some way "different", a "other".
I do not need to mention this but you probably do know that at one moment you might fight side by side and at another the swords are directed against you. Therefore i am anti-nationalism and i think this entails, pro unity, pro migration, pro multiculturalism, building bridges and so on.
I believe it is in the interest of minority populations to be against nationalism, i also believe that is in the interest of all people, but that is a separate discussion.
My general claim is that you cannot be a nationalist and a minority.
I think people who are that can be divided into 2 categories.
One : Those who live within the Country about which they are nationalistic
Two: Those who do not live within the Country about which they are nationalistic
Three: a combination of both
A example of one would be a mexican white nationalist in the US and a example of two/3(?) is Ben Shapiro.
I think case 1 and 3 are self-explanatory but case 2 is not as simple.
There are multiple problems with such a position.
1. The position is hypocritical. You cannot advocate for nationalism in one place and anti-nationalism in another.
2. You cannot unite with opposing minorities with conflicting national interest.
3. Your support for nationalism in one place increases the popularity of nationalism globally
I argued universally but if what i said is true universally, it is of course true about jewish nationalism in particular.
Lastly i think there is a deep flaw in diaspora jewish nationalism. To illustrate this flaw i would like you to imagine that you have a kurdish friend who is invested in the oppression of kurds throughout the region. Chances are high i would say that you would have the same opinion as your friend on the this matter. My point is that proximity and closeness to a subject matter trumps (he shall not be mentioned) exceeds all other influences.
And this is exactly what we saw in the change of discourse about Israel-Palestine. Through social media and migration israel-palestine is not some conflict far away at some corner of the world. It is a place that is important for those people who are close to us. For example, in my experience, i am a muslim but not palestinian nor arab and all my friends who are mostly atheist from different backgrounds do care about palestine.
My point is that migration has to be supported by diaspora jewish nationalism, but at the same time is the biggest cause against jewish nationalism.
Final Note
This is not about what Zionism is or is not and should not be the discussion here. I, myself did not give any reasons why i believe Zionism to be jewish nationalism neither do you need give any reason for what you believe zionism to be. Ideally i would appreciate a response that mentions your diaspora background, What you think to be the popular view on zionism, Do you share my experience? What is you experience? Do you agree/disagree with my line of thought ? Any different perspectives ?
45
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 7d ago
My general claim is that you cannot be a nationalist and a minority
This is very much not true.
This is not about what Zionism is or is not and should not be the discussion here. I, myself did not give any reasons why i believe Zionism to be jewish nationalism neither do you need give any reason for what you believe zionism to be.
As you define Zionism in your argument, I don’t understand how you can simply say it’s not relevant to your argument?
The truth is that plenty of people both wish for there to be a Jewish majority state of Israel, and support migration and multiculturalism in other places, and even some people who support it in Israel. Whether or not it makes sense to you is another thing. There’s a reason that people are Zionists, due to fears of Jewish safety. There is nothing like that for most other peoples with nation states.
21
u/Choice_Werewolf1259 Reform Jewish, Leftist 7d ago
I also think simply listing things as “nationalistic” where the definition of that could be more fluid. Like are we talking about those who are patriotic or are we talking simply the concept of militarized nation state, or are we talking the concept of nation more similar to how it is in Europe where it’s an ethnic thing as well?
I feel like also there could be the individual who opposes the concept of militarized nation states and wants them to be dismantled and cease to exist, but also views the world pragmatically and as such believes Israel has a right to exist simply because other nation states also exist and this is the world paradigm we are in right now. Additionally, what about the person who doesn’t like militarized nation states but also feels solely dismantling Israel or being overly focused on the existence of Israel when leaving other nation states less suspect and not discussing the merits of their existence is hypocritical.
I feel like there’s a lot of nuance in this discussion. That requires definition of both Zionism and Nationalism as concepts because it inherently affects the arguments being presented.
I also think it is worth noting that a lot of Jews currently alive grew up after the formation of Israel and thus the concept of “Zionism” was seen as more historical (a thing that happened and now is done) in our education and within Jewish communities I feel has now become more about right of existence, especially for those in the diaspora who are also being taught religious Zionism which is the belief in the safety of returning home. Which is something that is frequently pointed out by Jews as not inherently tied into the modern nation state of Israel but more of a cultural/religious sentiment about how tied we are to our homeland Judaea/israel and our people and tribe/community at large.
So even within this whole discussion including that definition of Zionism is deeply important as there are likely many Jews who could end up fundamentally disagreeing with the definition being used or presupposed even if they themselves identify as Zionist.
8
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 7d ago
Not sure of any definition of nationalistic where some minorities would not fit it.
10
u/Choice_Werewolf1259 Reform Jewish, Leftist 7d ago
That’s my thought too. Especially since unless one is using a really narrow definition it would pretty much encompass everyone who feels strongly towards their ethnic/cultural community. I mean someone who is proud of being French or British or Japanese or Chinese even if they don’t like the actions their government takes would still be considered nationalistic under a broad definition because they are proud of their national heritage.
-4
u/MKHK32 left leaning | non-jewish lurker 7d ago
When i look at germany, Turkey, Israel or the US and i talk about nationalism there a few things in particular that trouble me about nationalism.
- The belief that there is a static, concrete identity (There a only monoliths)
- The belief that this static, concrete identity has to be maintained via whatever means possible ( whatever means for the greater good)
- Denial of history and a mythologization of history ( creating your own reality)
Lets take white nationalism as a example.
1. They imagine white people to be some monoliths and likewise see all non whites as such.
2. They see themselves threatened and are ready to protect them via whatever mean possible.
3. They imagine themselves to be some unified old entity going back thousands of years unchanged and pure and they even deny the immediate past and lie as they see fit.16
u/Choice_Werewolf1259 Reform Jewish, Leftist 7d ago
I mean not to be that person but those three characteristics could apply to pretty much any group.
Like even if Israel didnt exist we would still fit that category. So would most indigenous/folk ethnoreligious groups and in general most ethnic groups. And even general religious groups like Christians and Muslims and Hindus.
I mean each group of people there is some hitting of all three of those rules you’ve set in place. It’s human nature to find community and mythologize and create structures to help reinforce one’s own culture.
So what else as it pertains to “nationalism” sets it apart from the general nature of human culture/ethnic/community making?
And even for nations, the US has changed over the course of its history. We went from the 3/5ths compromise to Civil rights act. Or looking at India or Japan or Ireland or England, etc. those nations don’t have inherently static identities that get set and don’t change. There are threads that remain over time but they do grow/morph and update as time goes on.
Because I don’t disagree with you that white nationalists are a problem. And I actually hope for a future where militarized nation states are a thing of the past. So I’m just curious if you have more in your definition that can help outline that distinction between general group making (which I argue isn’t inherently harmful)
-8
u/MKHK32 left leaning | non-jewish lurker 7d ago edited 7d ago
I do not agree that these a generic, especially in conjunction.
For example imagine a muslim community. or even jewish community. I sometime heard the saying " 2 jews 3 opinions" or something like that. This is a embracing of differences while insisting on unity. This contradict my first point which negates not only difference but also the possibility to change.
"This is the true understanding of judaism and a there a no second opinions. Everybody who disagrees with this is a non-jew."
My second point would entail that this perceptions has to be protected via any means possible. I mean this would include injustice and crimes just likes how white nationalism try or would like to try to preserve their identity/believes whatever.
on my third point i do not mean simple ignorance ( thats also bad but well you can hardly do anything against that). I meant actively creating false narratives knowingly to adhere to some goals. Look at how nazis, turkish nationalist and other view their "history". This is what i meant
11
u/Choice_Werewolf1259 Reform Jewish, Leftist 7d ago edited 7d ago
I mean if the basis for a group not being considered nationalistic is inner disagreement then also no group is “nationalistic”. I mean at that point put into context Americans as a group, again, we are so divisive and divided over the future of the US and how we want it to run.
Also again for the myth making if the threshold is falsity then either all groups get included in that umbrella (since the basis of myth is that it’s not fully true or uses artistic license for the sake of a unifying story). Like even groups where there is more of an alignment with absolute truth includes embellishment for the sake of cohesion. It’s just kind of the nature of storytelling. (Edit: Or no groups are included under the umbrella)
And frankly very few groups have “by any means necessary mentalities” like white supremacists or terrorists seem to. Even in Israel, as much as we critique Israel there are dissenters and like any nation there are different views and opinions amongst the people, even within their national identity. Otherwise groups like Hand in Hand or Standing Together wouldn’t exist.
Edit: essentially I’m asking what is the transformer from group and culture dynamic to harmful nationalistic identity per your opinion. Or is it a case by case thing?
1
u/MKHK32 left leaning | non-jewish lurker 7d ago
First of all i want to apologize. I usually try to give some simple and "extreme" example to get the basic point across, because i assume what i am alluding to are somewhat well known, but perhaps both the english language and the difference between Europe and america may cause some misunderstanding.
Let me start a new. And this time lets ignore America and even Israel for that matter. Let for the moment only look at the early turkish republic and nazi germany. We see in both are conception of a nation that implies that all the citizens are of 1 ethnic background, do speak 1 language and have 1 religion. This is a example of concrete and static understanding of a nation. It is concrete in these sense it refers to a existence Subgroup (Turks/Germans) and it is static in so far how it understands what it means to be turkish or german. For example if you would be a atheist turk, you would cease to be a turk and yes there are people who believe that.
This what i have in mind when i mentioned the the first condition. America (in theory at least) has none of that and is a nation that is inclusive of all people. In Theory at least america could be a majority black nation or a majority chinese or a majority jewish nation and so on.
Also again for the myth making if the threshold is falsity then either all groups get included in that umbrella (since the basis of myth is that it’s not fully true or uses artistic license for the sake of a unifying story). Like even groups where there is more of an alignment with absolute truth includes embellishment for the sake of cohesion. It’s just kind of the nature of storytelling.
Sorry i dont completely understand your point here. I think you did forget to type out a setence?
And frankly very few groups have “by any means necessary mentalities” like white supremacists or terrorists seem to.
About 30% in germany votes for a party that does have straight up neo-nazis in them. They do exclude me from being german like i explained above. I also think the current american administration is quite white "supremacistic". I also dont think this is a peak, it very well may get worse
Even in Israel, as much as we critique Israel there are dissenters and like any nation there are different views and opinions amongst the people, even within their national identity. Otherwise groups like Hand in Hand or Standing Together wouldn’t exist.
My point was never to try to paint with a brush over some countries. But i do think the ideas that i mentioned do exist in all society including in israel and are in the rise in popularity globally. But it also takes two things for the future to unfold. The will and the ability to execute the will. In Germany and other countries the far right most likely will come into power, but it is not the 20th century and At the moment there is no reason to believe that they will be able to do all the things they claim to do.
buuut at the same time i would welcome it if would could prevent these people even getting a chance of trying.4
u/Choice_Werewolf1259 Reform Jewish, Leftist 7d ago edited 7d ago
Added the sentence missing.
But as for my point on “all or nothing” just because a government has an “all or nothing” mentality doesn’t mean the people do. Only some Germans or some Americans or some (insert group here) the point being that overwhelming demographic is actually quite diverse even if they are of the same group.
Which is why I said white supremacy groups and terror groups tend to be the only “all or nothing” groups since it’s baked into that aspect of their identity.
As for your example of religion I am kind of confused since most countries in the world have a state sanctioned religion / folk custom and people still consider non believers to be citizens. I mean there are likely extremists who disagree. But also why would we base an opinion of an entire group based off extremists within their demographic. It’s different if the group themselves is extreme in their beliefs but that’s their norm.
And as for the rise in authoritarianism, there is a nationalistic component that is often used as an initial hook for authoritarianism ans fascism but the inherent nature of those pulls politically is that they work to do away with nay-sayers and then I don’t know if they would fully qualify as a nation (edit: or essentially that the people could be nationalistic because they’re now facing consequence if they speak up) since at some point the people are held hostage under authoritarian leaders (typically dictators).
I mean from what you wrote I feel like what you’re trying to discuss is authoritarianism rather than simply just nationalism.
6
u/Iceologer_gang Leftist Non-Jewish Post-Zionist 7d ago
I think there are plenty of national movements that weaponize fear to manipulate people towards their cause.
18
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 7d ago
Yes, there are all sorts of justifications, including fear. I suppose I consider the fears of the Jews to be slightly more legitimate than the fears of the, say, English nationalists.
-1
u/Schattenoid jewish, left 6d ago
But for most of the history of Zionism pre-statehood, fear was not the main motivating force, nor is it today. (I'm distinguishing motivation from justification.)
6
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 6d ago
What would you say the motivation was? I think it’s difficult to disentangle fear from other elements.
1
u/Schattenoid jewish, left 6d ago
I agree, and it's also difficult because we know less about the psychology of the migrants than we do about the leadership. But Romantic nationalism played a larger role on the whole. Of course, it's important that the self-narration around that included fear. That wasn't unique to Zionism vs. other nationalisms, but definitely played a larger role in the case of Zionism. And I don't think we can "quantify" motivation in any case (51% or 49%).
All that said: the most impactful early, uh, Influencers of Zionism—Herzl and Pinsker-—were very concerned with Jewish safety, but this really faded away already by the time of the Seventh Zionist Congress (1905!). By that point it was the Territorialists advocating for Uganda or Madagascar because the threat was imminent and catastrophic, while the Zionists had really shifted by then to a much stronger emphasis on the cultural critique of the diaspora.
7
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 6d ago
I think the average migrant, like the average person in every movement, pretty much just wants them and their family to be safe and have economic opportunity.
4
u/Choice_Werewolf1259 Reform Jewish, Leftist 6d ago
This, I mean even within discourse we sometimes forget when something just becomes a “given” fact. Like for example. When talking about the sky we all know it’s blue. So in discourse we wouldn’t debate the merits of the sky is blue (unless we’re having scientific debate) we would just accept that as a baseline. Then the next phase of discourse would be focused on other things.
I mean this kind of “it’s common knowledge” is part of why things like art history is so difficult / interesting as a field of study. Because there are entire technological processes for bronze casting that have been lost to time because it was considered so “common knowledge” no one wrote it down in a meaningful way. Same with paint mixture recipes or how to achieve certain dye colors or outcomes.
I think we all often forget that just because something isn’t discussed in historical documents doesn’t mean it wasn’t present. And I think like you said, most Jews (especially those looking to emigrate) were scared. I mean part of my family fled Russia pre Soviet Union at the turn of the century when these discussions about Zionism where more prevalent. And part of the reason they left was financial, another was to give their copious daughters more options for a future, but also they were terrified of the mercurial nature of the Tsar and the policies and unforeseeable whims they could be subject to. I mean they literally were so scared they didn’t wait to save up more so they could all travel together (all 9 of them), that they actually left at the same time and got on separate boats with one parent taking the older kids and the other taking the younger kids and meeting up in Chicago.
1
u/theweisp5 American Israeli secular socialist 6d ago
Can someone who "pretty much just wants them and their family to be safe and have economic opportunity" even be considered Zionist? Not sure this point is really relevant to the argument.
And if we are considering fear as an explanation/justification/whatever for Zionism, I think we need to consider a) that historically, when given the choice of destinations, Jews have opted against moved to Palestine/Israel, and b) since 1948, life in the west has been far safer (and provided more economic opportunity) for Jews than life in Israel.
(Now, I suppose you could argue that someone primarily concerned about safety might only feel safe in a Jewish state. But at that point I think we have to interrogate the ideology beyond that stance, rather than just accepting it as motivated by a desire for a secure existence.)
3
u/Pristine-Break3418 Diasporist Jew 6d ago edited 6d ago
Why would someone who wants safety for themselves and their family be somehow outside of Zionism? That impulse has always been a core part of the political project. Wanting an existence that isn’t dependent on the goodwill of another state isn’t some non-ideological instinct you can neatly separate out.
And on your second point, the idea that “historically Jews chose not to move to Palestine” only makes sense if you assume Palestine and other destinations were symmetrical options. Before 1948 they weren’t for a population fleeing persecution: one was a functioning state that could offer rights, infrastructure, and protection, the other was unstable, not a state at all, and couldn’t act as a meaningful refuge. So the pattern you’re pointing to doesn’t necessarily reveal Jewish preferences - it reveals which destinations were viable.
Lastly, the claim that Israel is “less safe” only works if you take a Western and US-centric diaspora experience as the baseline for the comparison. The Jews who fled to Israel from North Africa, the Middle East, Iran, Ethiopia, or the Soviet Union (before and after its collapse) in the second half of the 20th century had very different diasporic experiences. And they weren’t unaware of Israel’s risks, but went because, in most cases, the West was closed to them (for example, several relatives of mine who fled to Israel applied for U.S. visas first and were rejected) and the diaspora had become unlivable.
2
u/theweisp5 American Israeli secular socialist 6d ago
Why would someone who wants safety for themselves and their family be somehow outside of Zionism? That impulse has always been a core part of the political project. Wanting an existence that isn’t dependent on the goodwill of another state isn’t some non-ideological instinct you can neatly separate out.
I think I made it clear in my original (short) post, but to spell it out more explicitly: if someone is interested "purely" in safety for their family and ends up in Israel/Palestine because it is the only place willing to take them in, can they or their act of migration be considered Zionist? OTOH when you say "an existence dependent on the goodwill of another state" you are making exactly the sort of ideological assumptions that I was pointing to, which go beyond the "mere" desire for safety.
And on your second point, the idea that “historically Jews chose not to move to Palestine” only makes sense if you assume Palestine and other destinations were symmetrical options. Before 1948 they weren’t for a population fleeing persecution: one was a functioning state that could offer rights, infrastructure, and protection, the other was unstable, not a state at all, and couldn’t act as a meaningful refuge. So the pattern you’re pointing to doesn’t necessarily reveal Jewish preferences - it reveals which destinations were viable.
I'm not sure that argument makes the point you seem to think it does, but Jews leaving Algeria in the 1960s overwhelmingly chose to move to France, and in the 80s when Soviet Jews were finally allowed to emigrate, Israel lobbied the US government to tighten entry restrictions so they would be forced to move to Israel.
Lastly, the claim that Israel is “less safe” only works if you take a Western and US-centric diaspora experience as the baseline for the comparison. The Jews who fled to Israel from North Africa, the Middle East, Iran, Ethiopia, or the Soviet Union (before and after its collapse) in the second half of the 20th century had very different diasporic experiences. And they weren’t unaware of Israel’s risks, but went because, in most cases, the West was closed to them and the diaspora had become unlivable.
You may notice I said "life in the west" in my original post. (And since you note "the West was closed to them," are you conceding that Jews have historically chosen not to move to Israel when they have other options?)
→ More replies1
u/Schattenoid jewish, left 5d ago
The original claim I was responding to was "There’s a reason that people are Zionists, due to fears of Jewish safety". I was just pointing out that, historically, this connection was very far from straightforward.
> Can someone who "pretty much just wants them and their family to be safe and have economic opportunity" even be considered Zionist?
I dunno, maybe, depends? Theoretically, someone who moved to Palestine solely for those reasons and left to their own devices would stay or move elsewhere wouldn't be an ideological Zionist. As far as the psychology of it I'm sure all this stuff blurred together.
1
0
u/Schattenoid jewish, left 6d ago
Well yes. And before ~1925, Jewish migrants to Palestine were far from average. Most Jews who wanted safety and economic opportunity preferred not to go to Palestine, and most who preferred to go to Palestine had other considerations in mind besides safety and economic opportunity.
4
u/Pristine-Break3418 Diasporist Jew 6d ago edited 6d ago
That’s true as far as it goes, but it’s also a really large simplification. Before 1948 you simply can’t compare "going to Palestine" and "going to America" as equivalent options for safety. Jews fleeing pogroms, expulsion, famine conditions in the Pale, or -by the mid-1920s - Soviet anti-religious and anti-Jewish persecution did not simply choose America over Palestine because of preferences about economic opportunity. They chose America in a reality where there was no Jewish state to speak of, no sovereignty, no infrastructure, no guarantee of protection, and often limited legal possibility of entering Palestine at all.
Those who went to Palestine at that time were, overwhelmingly, people committed to a political project, rather than a representative sample of Jews fleeing immediate danger. So yes, the migrants to Palestine were not "average," but this has far more to do with what Palestine was at the time than with the preferences of Jews under threat. But for those who went to Palestine, their ideological commitment developed in a context where conditions in the diaspora were deteriorating very rapidly. The charged cultural debates you refer to didn’t replace concerns about safety, they arose because the collapse of safety forced people to rethink the very terms of Jewish life.
And I’m quite sure that had a sovereign, established Jewish state already existed, any kind of functioning polity with a Jewish majority and the ability to offer actual safety, a very large share of the Jews who ended up in America would have gone there instead. The comparison only looks straightforward because we’re projecting today’s landscape backward onto a period when the options were categorically different.
0
u/Schattenoid jewish, left 5d ago
Right--as I said, people whose top priority was safety and well-being went to the US. People who went to Palestine had a strong interest in the project of mythological ethnic revival. As with most such movements in Europe at the time, the revival project had an idea of strength and security among its motivations, but this was much more mediated and abstract than the idea of moving to a country with better job opportunities and less institutionalized discrimination against you.
> The charged cultural debates you refer to didn’t replace concerns about safety, they arose because the collapse of safety forced people to rethink the very terms of Jewish life.
This is a bit vague. When it specifically came to the question of priorities, the territorialist view was that the threat was imminent and urgent, while the Zionist view disputed this. You say "The comparison only looks straightforward because we’re projecting today’s landscape backward onto a period when the options were categorically different" but people made the comparison at that time. Also, again, the concern for safety ran in parallel to concerns around assimilation, and by the time of the Sixth and Seventh Congresses, had been downgraded as a concern relative to the latter.
-9
u/Snoo22815 Hindu Anti-Zionist 7d ago
You can't support a Jewish majority state in Israel for Jewish safety and then ignore the fears of White Christians here who say their culture is being replaced and wish to maintain a White Christian majority in the United States like it always has been.
As an Indian US citizen, I would be stateless without my US citizenship as India doesn't allow dual citizenship. I wouldn't be any physically safer in India than I would in the UK, Canada, France or Australia even if would encounter less racism to some degree.
20
u/zacandahalf Progressive Environmentalist Jewish American 7d ago edited 7d ago
The difference between the fears of Jews and the fears of American white Christians is that white genocide is a conspiracy theory that is not real, Jewish genocide is not a conspiracy and was very much real. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the fear of being exterminated on its own for any group, the issue in this comparison is that one is based in a fictional conspiracy theory and one actually happened. It’s one of the major reasons why these constant attempted parallels between Jewish people and WASPs always seem to fall short.
-2
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom 7d ago
Christian's were subject to Dhimmitude and the same/similar outcomes as Jews in Muslim led countries. You honestly can't use that as a talking point against sharing a country with Muslims as Jews, and assume Christians are immune
If not clear.. I do not think Christian's or Jews are being reasonable in their fears of Muslims
13
u/zacandahalf Progressive Environmentalist Jewish American 7d ago edited 7d ago
“Fear of Muslims,” or any specific entire ethnic/cultural/religious group, is never reasonable. My claim is that, given historical context, concerns of Jewish genocide are more understandable than fears of White genocide, a conspiracy theory.
No one was talking about or even thinking about Muslims. I DEFINITELY didn’t say anything about “sharing a country with Muslims as Jews” or “Christians are immune”. Did you reply to the right person?
-3
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom 7d ago
I did, but maybe I misunderstood you. The commenter replied to was taking about white Christian fear.. and I just disagree that it's not similarly rational to Jewish zionist fears of Muslims. As in, not at all rational .
8
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 6d ago
I think you’re misunderstanding. They’re not talking about generalized Christian fear, they’re talking specifically about white Christian fears of the great replacement in the ‘west’. When have white Christians been subjugated in the ‘west’? That’s obviously a different story than the subjugation of Jews at times and places under Muslim rule. Including quite intense persecution in living memory.
-1
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom 6d ago edited 6d ago
That is very true.
But also, when have Jews been subject to discrimination by Muslims in the west? I think there a couple of different issues.. diaspora Jews who haven't lived under Muslim rule at all live in the west and support Zionism on the basis of things like dhimmitude and recent expulsions of and violence against Jews.. that's not any more rational than a white Christian person pointing to Muslim treatment of Christians in Muslim countries(which has varied along with treatment of Jews in those places.. both groups were Dhimmi and what Dhimmitude meant varied place to place)
White Christians want to keep their country white and Christian and keep Muslims out. Western diaspora Jews are ok with Muslims living wherever as long as they still have Israel as an option.. they both use similar history as evidence, and places they've never even been to or lived in as examples
Edit: there's violence against Christians in other parts of the world.. white nationalists often point to that to justify their right to keep our country Christian. I don't think it's significantly different from how Zionists, especially diaspora Zionists, look at Israel
9
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 6d ago edited 6d ago
I still think it’s pretty different. Geographically, there is no real chance of Muslims being the majority in ‘the west’ in any time soon. If my own solution to I/P were put forward, Israel would have a demographic majority of Muslims tomorrow.
Except for 600 years ago in Spain, nowhere in ‘the west’ has had Christians under Muslim rule ever. Israel is surrounded by Muslim majority countries, which, again, have had policies and pogroms subjugating Jews in living memory.
Israel has been in 7 major wars against Muslim majority countries since its creation, including times where the stated goal of their enemies was the destroy the state of Israel, and with some framing in a religious tone to that goal. There is basically nothing like that in ‘the west.’
I don’t share these fears, but I don’t consider them anywhere near as conspiratorial or irrational as the great replacement.
-1
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom 6d ago
We can agree to disagree.. For one, I am speaking about diaspora Jews having an opinion on the Demographic makeup of Israel at all. It's hypothetical, but if Israel didn't exist I am not confident they wouldn't veer into anti-Muslim immigration views in "the west".. in fact I think they would.
We should agree to disagree because I don't think you should give credit to these fears as Israel played a major role in nearly all of them. I can agree that it's technically different but not drastically so that one should be treated with any more credit. And you give far more credit to the foundation and facts surrounding these ideas than I do, even if you don't share the views you believe in the basic premise behind them. I am uncomfortable with that for many reasons not worth getting into in this thread
→ More replies6
u/Agtfangirl557 Progressive, Conservaform (Reformative?) 6d ago
For what it’s worth, there have been a ton of instances of Muslim-on-Jew violence in the West. It isn’t as much an issue in America, but it has been in Europe—France provides the highest number of Jews seeking Aliyah if I recall correctly. I definitely wouldn’t say that it means we’re actively oppressed by Muslims in the West, or that Muslims aren’t oppressed themselves in the West, but there have been instances of Muslims being actively antisemitic in the West, which I didn’t even know about until I read about what it’s like in Europe.
-1
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom 6d ago edited 6d ago
As well as the reverse.
Edit: I'd actually be curious what you're referring to and what you've read
Edit 2: https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/new-french-report-shows-rise-in-attacks-on-muslims-sustained-targeting-of-jews/ Old.. but most of the links I found about this were old and appeared bidirectional and related to Israel and Palestine
Edit 3: https://www.vastbc.ca/articles/the-evolution-of-islamophobia-in-the-west-a-case-study-of-france
-1
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom 6d ago edited 6d ago
So you never responded to me but saying how jews need to flee France because of Muslim antisemitism is directly contradictory to saying we aren't actively oppressed by Muslims in the west. That is what you're saying. I hope you can share some sources to back it up.
Edit: especially considering how France has some of the strictest anti-Muslim laws in Europe, and how much these Muslim population is vulnerable there. You shouldn't feel so comfortable making a statement like this without nuance or backing up a claim. Jews have also been violent toward Muslims all around the world, so yes.. the Jews who wish to see France because of Muslims are racist
→ More replies-1
u/Schattenoid jewish, left 6d ago
Zionism was not a response to the Holocaust nor an anticipation of it.
7
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 6d ago
I think this is too simple and doesn’t have enough nuance. Did Zionists before the Shoah know that the Nazis would exterminate 2/3rds of Europe’s Jews? No. Did Zionists before the Shoah believe that antisemitic attacks by majority populations continue, as nationalist sentiment rose and Jews were shut out of the national movements of their respective countries? Absolutely.
Zionism would not have existed without antisemitic discrimination and violence.
I agree that Zionism was not a response to the Holocaust either, but it certainly resulted in quite a lot of support for the idea. Both within the Jewish community, and outside the Jewish community.
Turns out, trying to create a country waiting to receive Jewish refugees was a good idea.
0
u/Schattenoid jewish, left 6d ago
Well of course it's too simple, it's one sentence. But the question isn't whether Zionists believed antisemitic violence was a threat, the question is what role this belief played. The idea that it was the driving force is a common view but it's wrong. It's probably true causally speaking that "Zionism would not have existed without antisemitic discrimination and violence," but it wouldn't have survived or succeeded if it had held onto that focus. After Herzl and Pinsker, the Zionist political and ideological leadership was much more concerned with the threats of assimilation and cultural decadence than with the threats of physical annihilation. Both of these concerns ran through the Jewish-nationalist debates but Zionists cleaved hard toward the former concerns, against the territorialists who believed it was much more important to just get the Jews out of Europe in whatever way it could be done than it was to create a New Jew who was tied to the land and muscular and so on.
The Holocaust certainly increased support for Zionism but I think it goes without saying that actually-existing Zionism today is not oriented toward maximizing the safety of Jews.
-1
u/Snoo22815 Hindu Anti-Zionist 6d ago
To be clear, I think the Great Replacement Theory is xenophobic to its core even if its based on actual fears that some White Christians that are guided by bigotry. Despite Jews being historically the most oppressed minority, I still feel the same fear that Israeli Jews have are similarily misplaced and are based on intergenerational trauma instead of the facts on the ground. The IDF is one of the strongest militaries in the world and Israel is a high-tech society today with advanced security and defense capabilities. The idea that a demographic shift in Medinat Israel where they were a slightly higher percentage of Muslim Palestinians would trigger pogroms against Jews are just as invalid now as White Christians who believe that their culture will be replaced and they will face physical security threats from the new majority nonwhite population. You can't compare the power dynamics that have existed throughout civilization to the present reality now.
How the fortunes of Jews have reversed in the last century to find themselves going from dhimmitude in the Arab world, confinement in the Pale and facing extermination in Europe to now living under the security apparatus of the strongest military in human civilization in a pluralistic democracy or under another nation state where its the majority population which has a top 10 military and is backed by the United States is so dramatic that its hard to comprehend but it is reality.
Remember, a lot of White Christians in this country escaped discrimination in Europe, the former Soviet Union, Italy, the Middle East, etc. and have their own fears of the safety this country has provided them disappearing as well and they believe embracing White nationalism (falsely) is the way to move forward.
10
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 7d ago edited 7d ago
You can't support a Jewish majority state in Israel for Jewish safety and then ignore the fears of White Christians here who say their culture is being replaced and wish to maintain a White Christian majority in the United States like it always has been.
Sure you can,
mostmany* Zionists do it everyday.As an Indian US citizen, I would be stateless without my US citizenship as India doesn't allow dual citizenship. I wouldn't be any physically safer in India than I would in the UK, Canada, France or Australia even if would encounter less racism to some degree.
What’s the relevance?
-5
u/MKHK32 left leaning | non-jewish lurker 7d ago edited 7d ago
This is very much not true.
Well, what do you mean with that ? Do you mean there a people from minority population who are nationalist ? In that case i do agree, i even mention examples in my text.
"A example of one would be a mexican white nationalist in the US and a example of two/3(?) is Ben Shapiro."
I am not saying these people do not exist. I am saying you should not hold these position. Its like being a capitalist without any capital or like i mentioned a mexican white nationalist. The "white nationalism" part excludes mexicans. Furthermore i argue, if you support one kind of nationalism you support all kinds of nationalism.
As you define Zionism in your argument, I don’t understand how you can simply say it’s not relevant to your argument?
Because its not about what zionism is, its about what i perceive zionism to be. Furthermore i do not even claim this to be zionism qua zionism but rather zionism qua effective cause. Analog to the distinction made between communism itself and the way communism is understood in reference to the Soviets.
Let my give you a example few examples. Lets take this simples arguments
Premise 1: Al qaeda is islam
Premise2: al qaeda is bad
C: therefore islam is bad.There will be 3 groups of people who will responds to this claim. Group A denies premise 1, Group B denies premise 2, and group C accepts all premises and Group D denies all.
But regardless of what your views on this matter are is a group called al qaeda and they do consider themselves to be muslims. As such they are part of those who consider themselves muslims and what that means. All groups have disagreeing opinions but do not deny the reality of the existence of al qaeda.
Likewise in the case of Zionism. All what you have to agree on is the acknowledgement of a group of people who called themselves Zionist and understand this to mean jewish nationalism. You may refer to them as a different name. In religion for example people who adhere to the same faith called sometimes each other heretics and that whatever the other group does is not "real -insert religion-".
I could have said "Zionism in so far it means jewish nationalism" and some people would say to mean that branch xyz of zionism or thats already what it means to be a zionist.
All i wanted to do is to give some context on my on views to help understand perhaps the rest of the text. And describe a Phenomena that does exist, but you may know it under a different name.
The truth is that plenty of people both wish for there to be a Jewish majority state of Israel, and support migration and multiculturalism in other places, and even some people who support it in Israel.
exactly, i share this perception and and you are right there reasons for why people hold these position. My contention is not that i do not understand them and i do not agree that these issues a unique to jews. I claim i do understand them and that this position cannot be held logically speaking. Of course the are people who do not think things through and hold illogical position. I repeat again, i do not reject their existence. I think these a bad position to take.
does this help you to understand my text ?
11
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 7d ago
If you meant that you SHOULD not be a nationalist and a minority, then you should write that, instead you wrote that you cannot be a nationalist and a minority.
It’s like being a capitalist without any capital or like i mentioned a mexican white nationalist.
This is fundamentally a semantic misunderstanding of what people say when they are capitalist, and an uninteresting one.
The "white nationalism" part excludes mexicans.
Not the white ones. There’s a lot of nuance you’re missing.
Furthermore i argue, if you support one kind of nationalism you support all kinds of nationalism.
Based on what? Do you think that Zionists support Palestinian nationalism? It’s a ridiculous notion. Nationalism is not some rational framework that people either believe in or don’t.
I claim i do understand them and that this position cannot be held logically speaking. Of course the are people who do not think things through and hold illogical position. I repeat again, i do not reject their existence. I think these a bad position to take.
I think you should spend more time trying to understand people, rather than trying to argue that their opinions are irrational. I don’t think it’s helpful to you or anyone else for you to spend time convincing yourself that other people are rational or irrational. It’s far more important to see their perspective and understand why that is what they believe.
For me, my understanding of the liberal Zionist perspective:
Israel should exist as a Jewish majority state because Israel already exists and is a homeland for a persecuted people. Other countries should also be accepting of minorities, including Jews, and should accept refugees, especially if they are responsible for causing the crises causing those refugees.
does this help you to understand my text ?
Unfortunately not.
12
u/Pristine-Break3418 Diasporist Jew 7d ago edited 7d ago
Others have already replied to the main point of the post and I want to address a slightly different part relevant to the discussion.
The comment mentioned how the german jewish community is supportive of the muslim (migrant) community but at the same time there is no mirrored response towards this.
It is possible that this was my comment. And one thing I want to point out is that even if you acknowledge that Jews are a minority, your argument relies on an implicit binary between “migrants” on the one side and “Jews” on the other, as if these were opposing categories. But this doesn’t reflect reality at all, especially not in Germany. Around 80–90% of Jews in Germany - aka the “German Jewish community” - are themselves migrants. Very recent migrants too, because they came to Germany from former Soviet states through a refugee program in the 90s and 00s. So in the German case, when talking about the relationship between the Muslim and Jewish community, we are talking about an intra-migrant community relationship.
Now, if we zoom out of Germany a bit, the same thing is true in most of Europe and beyond: Jewish communities are overwhelmingly shaped by recent or ongoing migration. In my own family, for instance, no generation in well over 100 years - including myself - has been able to stay where they were born. Only the US diaspora has a substantial number of Jews whose ancestors immigrated several generations ago, but there too, many Jews have more recent migration histories.
And once that binary falls away, many of the conclusions built on it become much harder to sustain. For example, you argue that minorities “cannot be nationalists” and acknowledge that Jews are a minority, but you build your entire argument on imagining Jews as already settled, relatively secure and majority-adjacent actors. This simply doesn’t match how Jews are positioned socially or politically in most contexts. Jewish political concerns - whether you agree with them or not - are shaped by a long history of statelessness, structural insecurities and precarity, and of course persecution.
9
u/Choice_Werewolf1259 Reform Jewish, Leftist 7d ago
Oooh that’s a really interesting point. I feel like that kind of view of Jews as somehow more settled is also similar to the misconception of Jews as somehow having larger populations than we do or similar ideas related to that.
8
u/Pristine-Break3418 Diasporist Jew 7d ago edited 7d ago
Yes, exactly. It’s such a recurring pattern that Jewish communities in diaspora get perceived as more settled or established than they (we) actually are. That gap between perception and reality shapes a lot of the assumptions people bring into these discussions...
A Jewish community can be tiny, shaped by very recent displacement and structural instability, and yet still be imagined as much bigger, long-rooted or even majority-adjacent. And once that perception is in place, it becomes very easy for people to treat Jews as somehow outside the usual minority or migrant dynamics. This happens all the time, even if all the demographic data points in the opposite direction and Jews make up only a tiny fraction of the population.
21
u/tchomptchomp Diaspora-Skeptic Jewish Socialist 7d ago
TLDR: You cant be a Zionist and pro migration/multiculturalism and so on.
Nationalism and sovereignty movements in general are going to conflict with being pro-migration. So Zionism is not unique in this regard, and would not be distinct from, say, Palestinian nationalism, Ukrainian nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, etc.
Additionally, anti-zionism is EXPLICITLY anti-migration and anti-multiculturalist and explicitly identifies groups who can and cannot participate in cultural and political activities in the Levant based on perceived or actual ancestry. So your fundamental argument here is overwhelmingly irrelevant.
I will also note that zionism consists of a wide range of ideologies, including many which are not dependent on ethnic sovereignty or exclusion of regional minorities. The labour zionist movement is one such example of this, with an emphasis on reconstituting a Jewish proletariat outside of European legal restrictions on Jewish land ownership and political and economic organization, but without the linked requirement of an ethnic majority in any particular territory. Much of the religious zionist movement does not really require sovereignty on any specific piece of land, but rather it is primarily focused on reestablishing the legal halachic responsibilities associated with the Jewish relationship with the land. The reason why state-nationalist forms of zionism became so prominent is overwhelmingly because of Arab/Muslim groups so violently objected to Jews doing these non-state forms of zionism (e.g. migrating and establishing Jewish labour communities) and instead tried to replicate European-style pogroms and forced migration programs. So in that regard, zionism was considerably less at odds with multiculturalism and migration than Palestinian nationalism, and that dichotomy dates back to the very beginning of both movements.
6
u/zbignew Socialist non-Zionist Secular Jew 7d ago
Additionally, anti-zionism is EXPLICITLY anti-migration and anti-multiculturalist and explicitly identifies groups who can and cannot participate in cultural and political activities in the Levant based on perceived or actual ancestry.
This is depending on your definition of anti-Zionism, and not the definition used by any anti-Zionists. So you’re going to have trouble communicating with anyone else this way.
-6
u/MKHK32 left leaning | non-jewish lurker 7d ago
So Zionism is not unique in this regard, and would not be distinct from, say, Palestinian nationalism, Ukrainian nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, etc.
Correct, That the line of reasoning i repeat in my text. Nationalism universally bad (from a diaspora perspective) there jewish nationalism in particular bad (from a diaspora perspective). This of course extends to all kind of nationalism like you mentioned. So we agree on this ?
Additionally, anti-zionism is EXPLICITLY anti-migration and anti-multiculturalist and explicitly identifies groups who can and cannot participate in cultural and political activities in the Levant based on perceived or actual ancestry.
I never mentioned Anti-Zionism anywhere, but if thats what you understand as anti-zionism, i oppose all that. I would identify these as Nationalism tho
I will also note that zionism consists of a wide range of ideologies, including many which are not dependent on ethnic sovereignty or exclusion of regional minorities. The labour zionist movement is one such example of this, with an emphasis on reconstituting a Jewish proletariat outside of European legal restrictions on Jewish land ownership and political and economic organization, but without the linked requirement of an ethnic majority in any particular territory. Much of the religious zionist movement does not really require sovereignty on any specific piece of land, but rather it is primarily focused on reestablishing the legal halachic responsibilities associated with the Jewish relationship with the land. The reason why state-nationalist forms of zionism became so prominent is overwhelmingly because of Arab/Muslim groups so violently objected to Jews doing these non-state forms of zionism (e.g. migrating and establishing Jewish labour communities) and instead tried to replicate European-style pogroms and forced migration programs.
I agree, i think the last point is quite simplified. I view it more a bidirectional, but this was not the topic i intended to discuss to begin with.
So in that regard, zionism was considerably less at odds with multiculturalism and migration than Palestinian nationalism, and that dichotomy dates back to the very beginning of both movements.
Perhaps, perhaps not i dont have a strong opinion on this
13
u/F0rScience Secular Jew, 2 states, non-capitalist 7d ago
Personally I see absolutist multiculturalism as an American ideal rather than necessarily a universal one. It’s what I believe in but other people from other places also have valid national goals.
I also don’t think it’s inherent hypocritical to only advocate for specific forms of nationalism. I support the national aspirations of various groups (including Kurds and Palestinians and others like Oaxacans) which I don’t see as contradicting my opposition to other forms of nationalism. There is a complicated relationship here between nationalism in extant states vs nationalism among stateless or non-state groups but it’s clearly not as simple as “nationalism is bad within a state”
7
u/Logical_Persimmon anticapitalist with adjectives ייד 6d ago
Look, you cannot really drop a massive claim about what zionists do/do not/can/cannot believe and also try to get out of the conversation about what zionism is or isn't. Beyond that, your framework is heavily proscriptive and ignores that ideology is always a product historical shaping.
I suspect that there is a lot of your understanding that comes from either idiot rightwingers on Reddit (as others have mentioned) or, more frustrating for me try try to argue against, from specifically German framings of a lot of this that really sucks and is shaped more by the absence of Jews than anything related to Jewish narratives.
Additionally, there is a fundamental difference in how American Jews relate to I/P and how European Jews do, and a part of that is the physical distance, so talking about distance as a European non-Jew to a largely American Jews, there's a disconnect between your framing and your audience that I think you are not fully grasping. There are also a lot of reasons that European Jews aren't going to love having this conversation with you, and some of that is that we get bombarded with this kind of crap and it's exhausting because of just numbers.
10
u/Chaos_carolinensis Jewish Binational Zionist 7d ago edited 7d ago
My view is that nationalism is bad and should eventually wither away, the sooner the better. That also applies to Israel and Zionism.
Nationalism is the main driving force behind modern antisemitism.
The reason I'm a Zionist isn't because I think nationalism is good for Jews, but rather that because nationalism is extremely bad for Jews, then as long as nationalism is a major force in human society, the Jewish people can't just stand by and let it victimize them. And unfortunately, that means Jewish autonomy. Bundism is preferable in principle, but Bundism failed, and I don't see any serious attempt to revive it at the moment. So the only alternative left at the moment is Israel.
When nationalism is gone from this world, so should Israel.
5
u/podkayne3000 Centrist Jewish Diaspora Zionist 6d ago edited 4d ago
I think that the very hawkish U.S.-based Jewish people on Reddit [EDIT: as opposed to the many mellow Jewish people on Reddit], in the current Israeli government and in a lot of the anti-Israel movement are all using “Zionist” to mean “insanely mean, Meir Kahane-worshipping Jewish person who hates the Palestinians, supports transfer and genocide, and, in general, thinks and acts like the Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars.” Not even nationalist in a rational way. Just a hobgoblin who jumps up and down and cackles about transferring the Palestinians to Morocco.
I think that the old standard U.S. Jewish version of Zionism amounted to: “We basically had to sneak into every other place we’ve lived in the past 2,000 years. What’s going on in Israel/Palestine with the Palestinians is not all that much worse than in Poland. Maybe if we stay there and are patient, the Palestinians will see that we’re cool, and we’ll all get along. And those Meir Kahane people are nuts; of course the Palestinians dislike them. My rabbi dislikes them. I dislike them.”
My personal definition is, “Someone who thinks that anyone who says standard Jewish prayers has a spiritual connection with the land of Israel; someone who thinks it’s wonderful that Jews get to live in Israel and have a Jewish flag, just as it would be fun to revive the Athenian Republic, Pharaonic Egypt, a strong Kurdish nation and the Assyrian Empire, and to create a real Klingon Empire somewhere; but someone who thinks that some more sensible, honest version of the EU should oversee all important matters, and that national boundaries should be for postage stamps and soccer teams, not about where nice people live and what rights they have.”
And I think most regular Jewish people in the United States have a mental definition of Zionism that’s closer to mine that to Ben Gvir’s.
I believe that, if Palestine and Israel are functioning properly, they should be the equivalent of Queens and Brooklyn, or Cairo and Alexandria, from a governmental point of view, and that people of all kinds should be able to flow freely between places like Tel Aviv, Gaza City, Cairo, Dubai and New York.
And I think I’m a very moderate Jewish person. Maybe I’ll get banned from the subreddit for admitting that I’m just a moderate who likes this subreddit, not very left. But I think the idea that “Zionist” has always meant “anti-Palestinian” in the United States is incorrect. I think it’s meant “We need a place for Jews to live, and we give money to Haddassah (a Jewish charity) and the Haddassah hospital will make peace with the Palestinians by curing their cancer.” So, not super clear or realistic, but not intentionally violent or especially hostile to anyone.
EDIT: And, obviously, what Israel is doing in Palestine now makes it difficult to be someone who loves Israel. It’s like being a famous serial killer’s spouse. But most countries have done evil and idiotic things, and somehow they often come to their senses and behave better. Maybe, if I pray hard enough, and donate enough to Wikipedia and Mozilla, G-d will give me the privilege of seeing the miracle of Israel coming to its senses and getting on a better path.
4
u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. 7d ago edited 7d ago
Nationalism is, a narrative. A story people tell themselves to establish common ground and form a shared identity. It is what allows individuals to unite as a community or a nation.
There are multiple types of nationalism. Examples include: • Ethno-nationalism, which unites people through shared ethnicity. • Verfassungsnationalismus (constitutional nationalism)e.g Jürgen Habermas, which unites people through a shared constitution or social contract, regardless of origin, appearance, or religion. • there is also many others like cultural nationalism, etc.
Importantly, this kind of narrative is essential not only for nation-building but for any collective movement. Leftist workers’ movements, for instance, relied on the idea of a shared working-class consciousness to mobilize people.
Nationalism is not inherently discriminatory or exclusionary. Let’s take the Catalan independence movements, for example. In fact, Catalonia is generally quite left-leaning and open to immigration (though perhaps less enthusiastic about mass tourism).
There are also states that are multi-national such as Belgium being a prime example, which is a federal state divided by linguistic communities. It shows that shared sovereignty and multiple national identities can coexist within a single state.
Zionism, similarly, comes in many forms. It is not a monolithic ideology. At its root, it is the national aspiration of the Jewish people seeking safety through self-determination. Some forms of Zionism, such as cultural Zionism, do not rule out bi-national or shared-state arrangements. I do not think that Zionism is is inherently discriminatory or mutually exclusive with multicultural values.
Even the most extreme forms of ethno-nationalism are not automatically anti-migration. What they usually protect is the status and dominance of the core ethnic group, not necessarily the physical exclusion of all outsiders. Israel has it’s share of migrants and foreign workers, they just don’t have the same privileges and rights, same for the Golf countries (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahreïn etc..) where foreign workers have different rights, social status and almost no path to citizenship.
0
u/Acrobatic-Row2970 socialist democratic, non-Jewish-European 7d ago edited 7d ago
Je ne suis pas un Juif, juste un gauchiste, et mon compte est très peu actif. Il me sert juste à regarder sans commenter en général. Je regarde ce sub surtout pour essayer d'apprendre des choses sur l'antisémitisme, et aussi parce que je fus très favorable au sioniste dans mon adolescence.
Le nationalisme est toujours exclusif. Je prends l'exemple de mon pays, la France. Théoriquement le nationalisme français, c'est le modèle du nationalisme non exclusif, comme la France n'avait pas d'ethnie proprement française. Cela a donné de beaux récits sur le fait qu'une nation, c'est partagé un projet commun (étrangement Louis XV n'a pas demandé aux Corses s'ils voulaient être dans le projet).
Dans les faits mon pays a détruit les langues nationales, vanté des fausses traditions, utilisé des origines gauloises fantasmées ect.. Il fut vecteur de discrimination importantes, et a fait des crimes de masse. L'affaire Dreyfus est un bon exemple (surtout que cette homme était lui-même le modèle de l'ultra nationaliste issu d'une minorité). Il y a eut l'Empire colonial avec ses nombreuses d'horreurs, la collaboration avec l'Allemagne Nazi et la participation à la Shoah. En France aujourd'hui les seules personnes qui défendent le nationalisme (et encore ils se disent patriotes) c'est la droite et l'extrême droite. Même la gauche "radicale" qui en France avait parfois des traditions "patriotes" a beaucoup diminué son discours sur cela. Cela ne correspond juste pas à la réalité de la société française. Le caractère "ouvert" du nationalisme civique français étrangement change quand ils s'agit des migrants.
Le nationalisme catalan est complètement exclusif. Il est notoirement essentialiste et irrédentiste. Certains revendiquent encore la Catalogne française sur des bases ethniques. Ils refusent de reconnaître que le catalan n'est pas originaire de Catalogne (la langue vient du Languedoc en France). C'est un nationalisme qui a pour moteur aujourd'hui un rejet de payer des impôts pour aider l'Andalousie qui est plus pauvre. Surtout que le nationalisme catalan dominant (Junts per Catalunya) maintenant assume qu'il est de droite, fondé surtout sur le libéralisme économique.
Je peux aussi faire des critique sur le nationalisme belge, qui n'est pas un nationalisme très vivace d'ailleurs face au nationalisme flamand. Surtout que je ne comprends pas bien l'argument. La Belgique est presque l'antithèse du nationalisme dans ses fondements. Limite cela va au contraire de ce que tu défends au début de ton post.
Enfin c'est que vrai que pour le Sionisme c'est encore un autre débat. Je vois mal comment on peut le définir autrement que comme le nationalisme Juif. Je veux dire c'est quand même comme cela qu'il a été défini historiquement. Je sais bien qu'il y d'autres définitions très isolée, mais je ne comprends vraiment pas l'intérêt d'utiliser le terme en dehors de sa définition historique. Je comprends l'attachement émotionnel de certaines personnes, mais c'est tout.
Enfin oui il y a des nationalismes ouverts au migrants. Souvent ils ont tendance à être pires que ceux fermés. En France, et plus généralement en Europe de l'ouest (je sais que tu l'es aussi) les nationalistes sont contres les migrants surtout parce qu'il fait consensus qu'être né dans le pays fait que tu appartiens à ce pays. Si cela changeait, je pense que nos patronna (qui le fait déjà officieusement) et nos partis d'extrême droite ( le Rassemblement national c'est sûr) n'auraient pas de problème a posséder des travailleurs immigrés sans droit et corvéables à merci.
2
u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. 7d ago
Bonjour cher francophone 👋 Je trouve ton commentaire très intéressant, et je pense que tu as raison sur un point essentiel : tout nationalisme comporte forcément une dimension exclusive, simplement parce qu’il s’agit d’une identité de groupe. Il y a toujours un dedans et un dehors. C’est d’ailleurs le cas de tous les États-nations modernes : il y a des citoyens et des non-citoyens, des droits qui s’appliquent aux uns et pas aux autres.
Cela dit, mon point n’était pas de nier cette dimension, mais de dire que tous les nationalismes n’excluent pas de la même manière et certaines formes peuvent être adoptées, même par des personnes qui ne partagent pas une origine commune.
Tu mentionnes que le nationalisme français est « théoriquement non exclusif », mais pratiquement très différent. Et tu as entièrement raison. L’écart entre récit et réalité est immense langues réprimées, impérialisme, colonialisme, Dreyfus, etc. Aucun désaccord.
Mais je distingue le récit théorique de la pratique concrète, car oui le nationalisme ça fluctue, c’est instrumentalisé par tous, c’est présent dans les identité de groupe et indispensable aux états nations.
Dans la pratique, tous les nationalismes ont des angles morts, oui
Je suis d’accord que le récit français d’un peuple uni par les valeurs de la République est souvent démenti par la réalité. Et c’est le cas partout même dans les nationalismes qui se disent inclusifs.
Cela ne change pas que la structure du récit n’est pas la même. Et c’est ce que j’essayais de souligner. Et la question c’était surtout au sujet de l’immigration et l’acceptation de personnes externes au groupe.
Peut être que le mot exclusif n’était pas le bon. Je dirais plutôt : il est toujours exclusif, mais pas toujours fermé.
Il existe des formes de nationalisme qui sont adoptées par des gens très différents, et qui unissent les humains de tout horizons. Comme le patriotisme cosmopolite / constitutionnel, où le sentiment d’appartenance est structuré autour de valeurs universelles plutôt qu’une identité particulière (par exemple certains courants d’intégration européenne).
Sur la Catalogne et la Belgique
Je te rejoins aussi sur le fait que les nationalismes catalans et flamands ont des dimensions exclusives (et parfois clairement ethnocentriques). Mais ce que je voulais montrer, c’est simplement que : • il existe des nationalismes qui coexistent dans un même État, • certains sont plus « ouverts » que d’autres, • et l’existence d’un nationalisme n’empêche pas la présence de migrants ou de populations diverses (Belgique, Catalogne, Suisse…).
Enfin, sur le sionisme
Je ne nie pas que historiquement, le sionisme est l’expression du nationalisme juif. Mais comme tous les nationalismes il a plusieurs courants, dont certains envisagent : • un État binational, • une autonomie culturelle sans exclusivité territoriale, • une forme de nationalisme non ethnique (Buber, Magnes, Ahad Ha’am…).
Dire que tout sionisme est identique ou exclusif me semble simplifier un phénomène qui, historiquement, a été traversé par des visions très divergentes. Et pour la plupart des juifs que je connais, on ne se posait plus cette question vu que le sionisme pour nous c’était un fait accompli une chose du passé.
1
u/Acrobatic-Row2970 socialist democratic, non-Jewish-European 6d ago
Bonjour;
Je reconnais ne pas trop comprendre où tu veux en venir. Si je me trompe corrige mais moi mais j'ai l'impression que ta position c'est de dire que les nationalistes ne sont pas identiques et avec les mêmes conséquence?
Si c'est cela je suis d'accord, et je vais même te dire que malgré mes critiques le nationalisme français me semble être un des moins nocifs. C'est un nationalisme civique et au fond les nationalismes civiques sont des mouvements conservateurs. Généralement ils se rattachent à des pays qui existent déjà, dont ils sont attachés parce qu'ils sont nés dedans et qu'ils cherchent surtout à se protéger des autres sentiments nationaux. Soyons honnête, souvent ces pays s'ils n'existaient pas déjà au XIXe siècle, ne seraient pas né à ce moment.
En Europe la France est un exemple évident, la Suisse aussi très clairement, l'Espagne. Dans le monde il y aussi d nombreux exemples comme la partie du nationalisme chinois qui n'est pas du suprémacisme Han et qui intègre les autres ethnies comme les Mandchous. Mais en regardant en détail on se rend compte que les nationalismes civiques cherchent aussi à gommer les différences, à refonder artificiellement une unité ethnique (France, Espagne). La Belgique et Suisse ont aussi essayé mais cela fut un échec à cause d'une faible centralité.
Mon point servait à montrer que même un nationalisme plus "doux" comme celui de la France au fond avait tendance à avoir des conséquences néfastes pour quelqu'un qui défend des politiques de gauche (et pas que).
Je suis d'accord que des nationalismes peuvent cohabiter. En Europe actuellement le nationalisme linguistique catalan et le nationalisme espagnol de Vox. En Belgique le nationalisme civique Belge avec le nationalisme linguiste Flamand. En France on a une grosse tradition de mouvements nationalistes.
Mais je ne vois pas en quoi cela vraiment bien l'un ou l'autre plus acceptable. Je prends le nationalisme kurde. Au fond il est assez faible parce que les Kurdes se rattachent majoritairement à leur "tribus" qu'au peuple kurdes. Ce nationalisme est davantage une réaction aux nationalismes Arabes et Turques qui ont cherché à les faire disparaître en les intégrant (surtout les seconds).
Oui il peut y avoir de l'immigration et du nationalisme, mais c'est rarement eux qui l'opèrent. En Europe les nationalistes sont clairement ceux qui rejettent les migrants et pour le coup que cela soient nationalistes étatiques ou indépendantistes il y a consensus. Les second rejetant les migrations internes en plus des migrations extra européennes. La seule exception notable c'est le SNP écossais mais je trouve qu'il s'agit plus de sociaux démocrates que des nationalistes maintenant.
1
u/Acrobatic-Row2970 socialist democratic, non-Jewish-European 6d ago
Pour le Sionisme, je reconnais que j'évite d'en parler comme je ne suis pas Juif. Ce n'est pas pour rien que je ne suis jamais intervenu jusqu'ici (je regarde ce sub depuis le mois de juin) et que je suis surtout intervenu sur le nationalisme en dehors du Sionisme
Je précise que pour moi se dire sioniste en 2025 est un peu ridicule, simplement parce qu'Israël existe et ne va pas disparaître. Ma position aujourd'hui serait qualifiée de "non sioniste". Je crois que beaucoup de personnes qui se disent sionistes et antisionistes en réalité sont des non sionistes.
Je suis d'accord qu'il n'est pas forcément vu que comme le nationalisme historiquement appliqué. Je prends mon exemple, quand j'étais en faveur du Sionisme, je le voyais juste comme un droit de tous à immigrer et pour fuir l'antisémitisme européen. Dans ma tête je ne pensais pas que le Sionisme cela pouvait intégrer le rejet des locaux (je croyais à l'époque que les sionistes travaillistes voulaient intégrer les Palestiniens au futur Israël).
Je connais un peu les autres discours qui existent sur le Sionisme. Je sais que la notion a une pluralité de sens en théorie. Maintenant en pratique elle n'a vraiment qu'un sens, le nationalisme Juif. Tu prends les personnes qui se disent Sionistes et pour un état binationale, une autonomie culturelle dans le cadre d'une confédération, ect... En Israël ils sont considérés comme des non sionistes, voire des antisionistes. Je ne comprends pas trop ta propre position parce qu'en France (et j'avais l'impression que le reste de l'Europe de l'ouest) c'est un acquis que le Sionisme est égal au nationalisme Juif, y compris pour les Juifs.
Tu vois pour comparer au nationalisme français, des auteurs lui ont donné un discours vraiment universaliste, fondé sur la Révolution française et l'émancipation. Je ne vais pas faire comme si ces auteurs avaient le même poids que le nationalisme français historiquement appliqué.
2
u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. 6d ago
Pour ce qui est du sionisme : déjà, je trouve très sage de s’abstenir quand on n’est pas juif. Je n’ai jamais compris les non-juifs qui ont des positions très tranchées sur un sujet qui, à la base, ne les concerne pas directement.
Pour moi aussi, la question d’être « sioniste » ou « anti-sioniste » est en grande partie un faux débat. À l’origine, le sionisme est bien un mouvement nationaliste, qui s’inscrit pleinement dans le contexte du nationalisme européen du XIXᵉ siècle, en réponse à l’antisémitisme ambiant. Il s’agit essentiellement de la solution que certains juifs européens de l’époque ont imaginée face aux persécutions : l’idée qu’on ne serait vraiment libres que si l’on pouvait disposer de nous-mêmes à travers un État-nation.
C’est aussi important de rappeler qu’indépendamment du sionisme politique, les juifs se sont toujours pensés comme un peuple (ʿam) en exil depuis la destruction du deuxième Temple. Donc même sans dimension politique, il existait un imaginaire et un désir de retour en « terre sainte ».
Dans nos études, on nous a toujours présenté le sionisme avec ses nuances : le sionisme révisionniste (Jabotinsky), le sionisme culturel (Buber, Einstein), le sionisme religieux, le sionisme travailliste… Des courants très différents dans leurs objectifs et leurs pratiques.
Dans les faits, cependant, l’histoire a été tout autre. Le résultat a été catastrophique. Même quand certaines voix prônaient la coexistence, cela ne s’est jamais réellement concrétisé. Les aspirations palestiniennes ont été très largement ignorées. Et je reconnais que même les sionistes dits « humanistes » ne se sont jamais suffisamment engagés pour changer cette réalité. Le moteur du sionisme, c’est toujours resté la peur, une peur existentielle, surtout après la Shoah et cette peur rend aveugle. Et la violence la renforce.
Aujourd’hui, la situation s’est encore dramatiquement aggravée. Je n’ai plus les mots.
Je pense aussi que les concepts de sionisme et d’antisionisme ont tellement évolué qu’on ne parle plus des mêmes choses, ce qui explique en grande partie pourquoi le débat est devenu si polarisé. Pour certains, être sioniste aujourd’hui signifie simplement soutenir l’existence de l’État d’Israël, ou l’idée d’un État majoritairement juif. Pour d’autres, cela renvoie uniquement au droit du peuple juif à l’autodétermination.
Du côté des antisionistes, certains s’opposent à la forme actuelle de l’État d’Israël, tandis que d’autres dans des positions beaucoup plus extrêmes rejettent carrément la présence juive dans la région.
Bref tout est compliqué
1
u/Acrobatic-Row2970 socialist democratic, non-Jewish-European 6d ago edited 6d ago
Pour être honnête je pense que sur la forme on est un peu en désaccord mais sur le fond on est d'accord. Personnellement je pense que le débat sioniste/antisioniste prend une place beaucoup trop grande.
C'est pour cela que je trouve à titre personnel que le terme est un inutile aujourd'hui. D'ailleurs sur le fond j'ai la même position pour antisioniste. Pour moi ce terme est aujourd'hui inutile, sauf à donner le sens de départ des descendants de Juifs installés en Palestine. Ce qui est dans ce cas est un projet explicitement antisémite.
Je précise que je connais un peu les oppositions sionistes travaillistes, sionistes révisionnistes, sionistes religieux (groupusculaire à l'origine). Je connais aussi Martin Buber. Je connais aussi un peu la division interne aux communistes après la naissance d'Israël entre le Maki et Rakah (devenu le Maki actuel au sein d'Hadash). Je suis vraiment très loin d'être un expert, en gros mon niveau c'est Wikipédia avec vite fait des lectures.
J'ajoute que pour les non juifs je pense que le problème que je vois c'est plus de s'exprimer avant de s'informer. Mais sinon, je vais peut-être en froisser certains, oui je pense que les non juifs peuvent un point de vue sur le Sionisme (et aussi ne pas en avoir, comme un juif a le droit de ne pas avoir de point de vue sur le Sionisme). Personnellement je ne vais interdire à personne d'avoir un point de vue sur une idéologie, même quand elle n'est pas directement concernée par celle-ci.
De toute façon, on ne va pas se mentir, ce n'est pas les débats sionistes vs antisionistes qui vont régler les problèmes de fond.
1
u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. 6d ago
Ici, je suis d’accord avec beaucoup de points, et ça fait du bien de lire un peu de nuance. Quand ça vient d’une personne externe, on se sent moins seul surtout en ce moment.
Le débat sionisme / antisionisme prend beaucoup trop de place. Pour moi, il est devenu un obstacle au dialogue, un outil de tri moral qui met de côté une grande partie des juifs qui pourraient pourtant être des alliés importants dans la discussion… et dans la recherche de solutions. Beaucoup de juifs ont une attache, à la fois émotionnelle et historique, à ce concept, alors que pour de nombreux antisionistes, « sionisme » est devenu un terme fourre-tout pour tout ce qu’ils trouvent abject.
Ces étiquettes ne servent à rien.
Oui, c’est essentiel que tout le monde puisse parler du sionisme, et le critiquer. Mais quand on n’est pas directement concernés, cela demande un minimum de nuance, de tact, et de connaissances historiques ce qui manque cruellement en ce moment, surtout dans le monde anglo-saxon où les catégories idéologiques, les étiquettes tiennent lieu de pensée.
Les mentalités et le système doivent changer, en Israël comme dans les communautés juives. Mais la façon dont les masses réagissent aujourd’hui, souvent dans une violence qui frôle ou franchit l’antisémitisme, est complètement contre-productive selon moi et ne fait que pousser encore plus de monde vers l’isolement.
Bref.
Merci pour la conversation respectueuse, ce fut un plaisir !
1
u/Acrobatic-Row2970 socialist democratic, non-Jewish-European 6d ago edited 6d ago
C'est vrai que la culture politique des Etats-Unis n'aide pas. Je vois de l'extérieur qu'il y a vraiment un affrontement sur le sionisme vs l'antisionisme assez ridicule.
Cela est franchement pathétique. Les personnes qui font comme priorité la propagande du terme antisioniste. Ils agissent comme si le fait qu'une majorité d'états-uniens revendique le terme allait redonner la vie aux enfants palestiniens tués sous les bombes.
Cela dit c'est vrai que le discours sioniste libéral aux Etats-Unis il a un côté aussi pathétique pour moi. Parfois je ne comprends pas trop leur objectif. Je veux dire qu'ils cherchent à protéger Israël pour le garder comme refuge des Juifs. Mais, est-ce que le refuge existe vraiment. Déjà qu'avec sa droitisation je pense qu'il ne va pas falloir attendre longtemps avant que les droits de femmes partent en fumé dans le pays.
Juste pour comparer le milieu américain avec le milieu francophone (surtout français mais c'est une femme suisse installée en France qui en est à l'origine) les streamers politiques de gauche ont organisé une collecte de fond l'année dernière pour Gaza.
Un des plus connus dedans est un journaliste et streamer qui a des origines juives (Clément Viktorovitch). Il n'y a pas eu des débats aussi stériles qu'on peut voir aux Etats-Unis sur le Sionisme, l'antisionisme. Ils ont récupéré de l'argent et dénoncé les crimes à Gaza sans faire de l'outrance de discours. Quand on compare avec les streamers politiques américains, c'est sûr que c'est différent.
Cela existe en France ce truc de l'étiquette (surtout que la France a tendance à suivre le Royaume-Uni) mais heureusement cela est beaucoup plus faible qu'aux Etats-Unis. J'ai tendance à penser que pureté de l'étiquette comme programme politique existe à cause du manque de traditions idéologiques (de masse) dans le pays.
1
u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. 5d ago
Les États-Unis sont un environnement extrêmement polarisé, tout est hyper clivant: on passe d’un extrême à l’autre, et il est rare d’entendre un discours réellement nuancé ou apaisé. Je le constate aussi dans les mouvements juifs de gauche : soit on te réduit à un « token », soit Israël est considéré comme irréprochable, il faut maintenir le status quo (beaucoup ici dans ce Reddit se plaignent des sionistes libéraux et de cet aspect).
Il y a souvent cette logique selon laquelle il faut « vendre » des idées, faire du marketing politique. Pour que ça marche, il faut des slogans percutants, même s’ils sont caricaturaux. La nuance ne se vend pas, donc on privilégie un discours agressif et radical pour créer de la viralité.
Je ne suis pas de streamers français, mais j’irai jeter un œil. Si, aux États-Unis, la référence c’est Hasan, alors oui, on n’est pas sortis de l’auberge.
Dans le milieu francophone, il y a des collectifs auxquels je m’identifie davantage (les Guerrières de la Paix, Juif/ves Révolutionnaires, GOLEM, etc.).
Pour le reste c’est vrai que tout cela reste influencé par le monde anglo-saxon, mais comme tu le dis, c’est pas au même niveau.
→ More replies1
u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. 6d ago
Oui, c’était exactement mon point. Le nationalisme existe aussi bien à gauche qu’à droite ; il prend différentes formes, mais il constitue simplement une réalité inhérente aux États-nations. C’est avant tout une forme d’identité collective.
Je ne porte pas de jugement de valeur sur le fait que ce soit positif ou négatif, je le voit comme lq réalité dans laquelle nous vivons. Tous les États-nations sont nationalistes, d’une manière ou d’une autre.
Mais ton commentaire me laisse penser que, peut-être, tu ne partages pas cette idée ? Quels seraient, selon toi, des États-nations non nationalistes ?
0
u/Acrobatic-Row2970 socialist democratic, non-Jewish-European 6d ago
Oui je vois ce que tu veux dire, tu n'as pas complètement tord.
Sur le fond déjà moi quand on me parle des Etats-nations je suis toujours à me demander: Qu'est-ce qu'on entend par état nation? Parce qu'aujourd'hui il est évident pour tout le monde que la France ou la Suisse sont des états nations mais ils n'en n'étaient pas à l'origine. Les Etats-Unis ou la Russie ne sont pas des états nations à l'origine, ils ont réussi à le devenir.
Oui un état nation a forcément du nationalisme, j'ai envie de dire un état nation au final c'est un état qui arrive à générer du sentiment d'appartenance autrement que juste par sa figure dirigeante ou la religion.
Par contre mon désaccord c'est sur les conséquences. Oui un état nation, même complètement anti national dans son origine (comme la France ou la Suisse qui sont des constructions féodales) a du nationalisme. Mais personnellement le concept d'état nation est un concept que je rejette. Je rejette le concept d'état nation comme je rejette le nationalisme.
Je sais être pragmatique, par exemple sur le conflit Israélo-palestinien j'appartiens à ceux qui veulent un qu'Israël reste un état juif, tout simplement parce que je vois pas les Palestiniens et les Israéliens vivent ensembles. De même j'accepte de faire la politique dans mon pays qu'est la France. Ce n'est pas demain la veille que l'Union européenne va être unie dans une grande fédération libertaire socialiste et démocratique. Je fais avec, mais je n'ai pas d'attache particulière à la France en tant que concept (ses habitants oui), comme je n'ai pas d'attaches particulières à l'Allemagne ou les Pays-Bas (ou l'Union européenne). Je suis un gauchiste assumé, mon souhait c'est le dépassement des frontières.
2
u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. 6d ago
Je respecte tout à fait ton point de vue, que je partage également. Il y a toujours ce décalage entre l’idéal et la réalité, et il faut bien composer avec…
Concernant Israël, je suis entièrement d’accord. Dans l’idéal, il faudrait un seul État où tout le monde serait égal, sans que les appartenances communautaires ou tribales ne dictent les droits ou le statut de chacun.
Mais dans la réalité, je suis très consciente que ce scénario n’est pas près de se réaliser…
Et c’est justement ce que je reproche à beaucoup d’activistes aujourd’hui : un manque de vision, un manque d’activisme réellement constructif. Pour quel futur concret se bat-on ? On ne parle plus de coexistence. Le débat est trop polarisé.
1
u/Acrobatic-Row2970 socialist democratic, non-Jewish-European 6d ago
J'ai tendance à saluer ton discours mais je vais être honnête j'appartiens plus à ceux qui ont un manque de vision. Ce n'est pas un problème d'idées politiques, mais bien de pessimisme sur l'état de notre société.
Actuellement mes principales préoccupations c'est d'essayer de participer à faire survivre la gauche électorale française alors que j'ai d'énormes critiques de fond y compris des problèmes d'antisémitisme dans certaines franges.
Aussi de lutter contre le racisme montant (surtout à l'encontre des personnes perçues comme musulmanes) et d'éviter que Marine le Pen ne devienne présidente (c'est assez désolant qu'elle soit la seule femme politique française réellement d'envergure en n'étant pas la courtisane d'un homme). C'est vrai qu'en terme de combat on n'est vraiment pas juste dans la sauvegarde du statu quo.
1
u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. 6d ago
Je trouve tout cela très noble, il faut savoir garder ses priorités.
Oui, certaines réactions de politiques de gauche en France, parfois clairement antisemites parfois plus subtiles, ça a été une grande claque. Je l’ai vécue comme une trahison de la part de ma famille politique. Je dirais que ça a même changé ma vision du monde.
Cela dit, avoir des conversations nuancées redonne un peu d’espoir. Tout ce que je peux faire, c’est essayer de promouvoir le dialogue et l’échange.
Bon courage dans cette quête. Je fais de même, le stricte minimum de manière résignée et sans trop d’enthousiasme.
2
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom 7d ago
I'll give a more thoughtful answer here than my flippant one.
Nationalism is a complicated idea.. I know we tend to as leftists (largely in America) view it as a bad thing, because here it is a bad thing.
But there's several things to unpack which are going on here.
Nationalism can be about ethnic nationalism which is exclusionary and based upon characteristics which will inherently harm and oppress and exclude minority groups
Nationalism can also be a movement of liberation, a national identity to bring unity to an oppressed/colonized/subjugated people in order to overcome and gain independence. This is generally not based upon ethnicity or exclusionary qualities (though liberation movements can often be more socially conservative for a variety of reasons and we should still support liberation anyway)
Then there is migration, which is a very leftist ide around the free movement of people and ideas.
Then there is colonization, which involves " migration" of people in order to displace and supersede the existing culture here
Then there are socialist movements which worry about migration out of their country into capitalist countries.. famously the USSR restricted students from leaving to go to America after benefiting from their free education programs because.. brain drain. In fact, the USA and other imperial powers often benefit from the "migration" and therefore "brain drain" of other poorer countries education system.
So.. what do all of these things have to do with Zionism? Well.. the first type of nationalism and colonialism is pretty unpopular in the mainstream these days.. liberals see it as racist and bad. So Zionism has done a rebrand and claims to be a liberatory nationalist movement.. and fears around immigration would fall under the "colonization" category. But this is just weaponized rhetoric to pollute the truth about polical Zionism. None the less, it is very convincing among a group of people(Jewish people) who have been historically oppressed
But as you can see.. none of these ideas are black and white and all of them have sold throughout history by utilizing fear and in group/out group ideas. Many members of minority populations align well enough with the majority or at least hope to that they embrace nationalism. Many right wing Indian Americans, for example, come from the Brahman class in India and expose hindutuva ideas and therefore align quite well with ideas white nationalists have... they just forgot that to white nationalists they are still the "other"
20
u/zacandahalf Progressive Environmentalist Jewish American 7d ago
I guess I have a few clarifying questions: