Post by anarchistluke on Mar 13, 2009 14:24:34 GMT
I feel that much of the recent disagreement, as with much disagreement in general, is down to the use of poorly-defined terms, or people reading implications into potentially emotionally charged words, etc...
On the question of Zionism: 'Zionism' is a word which causes controversy because it has a specific and relatively simple meaning, but different political/cultural/etc groups have generalised that meaning and attached 'baggage' to it in various ways. This results in partially-overlapping but discernible definitions being used by different people, without them necessarily being aware of the difference in definition between them.
The Oxford English Dictionary:
"Zionism
/ziniz’m/
• noun a movement for the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel."
That's a pretty good, uncontroversial, and open definition of the term. It doesn't attach implications or associations from any one political angle. It doesn't mean that you support Israel's attacks on Gaza, or their occupation of the West Bank, or that you don't support the right of Palestinians to have their own state, free from Israeli interference, etc. It doesn't necessarily make you a racist, an imperialist, or anything of the sort.
For the Left, Zionism tends to be bound up in expansionism, imperialism, militarism, etc. For Israelis, Zionism tends to be bound up in patriotism, cultural/ethnic/religious pride, etc. For Christian Zionists (particularly Fundamentalist Christians), Zionism tends to be bound up in its religious significance, as the existence of the State of Israel is seen as being the fulfilment of the word of God as delivered in the Bible.
The question of how to interpret the idea of a "Jewish nation" or "Jewish state" is itself controversial, as David Massey pointed out at the debate held in Queens - does this mean: A nation of only ethnic Jews? A nation of only religious Jews? A nation which has an ethnic or religious Jewish majority, but also has other valued minority groups who have equal rights? A nation which has an ethnic or religious Jewish majority, with a subordinate and inferior minority of other ethnicities/religions? A state founded on the religious pillars of Judaism, but allowing people of any religion or ethnicity to live there, just forcing them to live by a legal system which is based in Jewish law?
You can see how these unanswered questions can easily lead to misunderstanding and conflict. Using the strict definition of Zionism, many of us are in fact Zionists, as many of us believe that the Israeli people have the right to a nation state. A further point which has repeatedly come up, and which Eleftherios again raised in his email today, is the notion that all of us are, on the other hand, in favour of a Palestinian state. This may just be a question of whether we're talking in the short term or long term, etc, but for many of us, the ideal situation would involve neither an Israeli nor a Palestinian state.
As an Anarchist, I am ideologically committed to the abolition of every state. Many Socialists are ideologically committed to the abolition of every extant state and the establishment of a single world-State ruled by the single Party that would administer it. To that extent, those of us who are Anarchists or Internationalist Socialists are Anti-Zionist, but we are also against the Palestinian State. Therefore to assume that we all want a world in which the Palestinians live in their own country and the Israelis live in their own country, or even a world in which the Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in a new one-state solution which encompasses them both as citizens is simply naive.
Our political viewpoints are, as has been pointed out many times before, diverse, and many of them are outside of the political mainstream. What may seem like a given to one person - that statehood is the right of a nation, or that we are 'Anti-Zionist' - may be seen as completely mistaken and wrong by another member of the group. So let's try not to make these sort of assumptions, and most importantly, let's be clear about what exactly it is that we're talking about when we're talking about our group being Anti-Zionist or Zionists coming to our meetings, etc.
On the question of Zionism: 'Zionism' is a word which causes controversy because it has a specific and relatively simple meaning, but different political/cultural/etc groups have generalised that meaning and attached 'baggage' to it in various ways. This results in partially-overlapping but discernible definitions being used by different people, without them necessarily being aware of the difference in definition between them.
The Oxford English Dictionary:
"Zionism
/ziniz’m/
• noun a movement for the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel."
That's a pretty good, uncontroversial, and open definition of the term. It doesn't attach implications or associations from any one political angle. It doesn't mean that you support Israel's attacks on Gaza, or their occupation of the West Bank, or that you don't support the right of Palestinians to have their own state, free from Israeli interference, etc. It doesn't necessarily make you a racist, an imperialist, or anything of the sort.
For the Left, Zionism tends to be bound up in expansionism, imperialism, militarism, etc. For Israelis, Zionism tends to be bound up in patriotism, cultural/ethnic/religious pride, etc. For Christian Zionists (particularly Fundamentalist Christians), Zionism tends to be bound up in its religious significance, as the existence of the State of Israel is seen as being the fulfilment of the word of God as delivered in the Bible.
The question of how to interpret the idea of a "Jewish nation" or "Jewish state" is itself controversial, as David Massey pointed out at the debate held in Queens - does this mean: A nation of only ethnic Jews? A nation of only religious Jews? A nation which has an ethnic or religious Jewish majority, but also has other valued minority groups who have equal rights? A nation which has an ethnic or religious Jewish majority, with a subordinate and inferior minority of other ethnicities/religions? A state founded on the religious pillars of Judaism, but allowing people of any religion or ethnicity to live there, just forcing them to live by a legal system which is based in Jewish law?
You can see how these unanswered questions can easily lead to misunderstanding and conflict. Using the strict definition of Zionism, many of us are in fact Zionists, as many of us believe that the Israeli people have the right to a nation state. A further point which has repeatedly come up, and which Eleftherios again raised in his email today, is the notion that all of us are, on the other hand, in favour of a Palestinian state. This may just be a question of whether we're talking in the short term or long term, etc, but for many of us, the ideal situation would involve neither an Israeli nor a Palestinian state.
As an Anarchist, I am ideologically committed to the abolition of every state. Many Socialists are ideologically committed to the abolition of every extant state and the establishment of a single world-State ruled by the single Party that would administer it. To that extent, those of us who are Anarchists or Internationalist Socialists are Anti-Zionist, but we are also against the Palestinian State. Therefore to assume that we all want a world in which the Palestinians live in their own country and the Israelis live in their own country, or even a world in which the Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in a new one-state solution which encompasses them both as citizens is simply naive.
Our political viewpoints are, as has been pointed out many times before, diverse, and many of them are outside of the political mainstream. What may seem like a given to one person - that statehood is the right of a nation, or that we are 'Anti-Zionist' - may be seen as completely mistaken and wrong by another member of the group. So let's try not to make these sort of assumptions, and most importantly, let's be clear about what exactly it is that we're talking about when we're talking about our group being Anti-Zionist or Zionists coming to our meetings, etc.
It is also true that the usage of word anti- x sounds very threatening in English. Probably, some people thought that I am going to start condemnations or bombing etc.. Of course I am in the peaceful expression of anti-. 