Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is. All Zionism says is Jews have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It's a central tenet of Judaism.

Anti-Zionism says they have no right to self-defense and denies the historical connection to Israel.

So when people say I'm not against Judaism, just Zionism...they make no sense. Zionism and Judaism are inseparable.

Um no. Zionism as expressed originally is an ideology that says 1) Jews are a nation; 2) Jews cannot integrate, whether for their own reasons or widespread anti-semitism, into other societies; 3) therefore a homeland is necessary; and 4) all Jews should emigrate to that homeland.

Zionism as originally concieved was location agnostic.


Full disclosure, I am anti-Zionist because I do not believe in points 2 or 4.

[Anonymous]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

OP did not say "Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security." And that is not required under Zionism. For example, 1948 lines shared land and even today Israel does not hold the full Levant. But even if that is what OP said, it is a common feature of nations that they seek the right to define those who can be citizens and residents of the land they occupy as a country--and the right to defend that land. Israel was granted statehood. So if you accept that act, why should the only Jewish country (among many nations where there is an official or de facto religion and/or cultural identity) in the world be different?

I only point this out because your first statement fits within a very antisemitic narrative that Jews view themselves as superior. As a jew, my experience is most jews are motivated by a fear of extinction.

Why would Israel hold the full Levant?

[Anonymous]

The Jewish state always assumed a Jewish majority and a Jewish rule.

We only have to look back to see how this was achieved in a place that wasn’t organically majority Jewish.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

DP

“I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean, and you better believe it’s anti-semitic!” is actually the #1 seller at my Chosen Ones etsy store. J/k, but I’m sure it would be if I had an etsy store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

DP

The majority view is that the phrase means that the goal is for Palestinians in the region to be free (from their current status as refugees under the subjugation of Israel) across the entire region.

That’s it. It has zero to do with anything else. It doesn’t have to do with harming others or Israel disappearing from the map or any of the other propagandized nonsense that we hear about (always from pro-Israel fanatics) all the time.

Therefore, if you have a problem with that phrase, the actual problem is you.

[Anonymous]

What are the different versions of Zionism? It seems to have different flavors these days.

[Anonymous]

Yes

[Anonymous]

Absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is. All Zionism says is Jews have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It's a central tenet of Judaism.

Anti-Zionism says they have no right to self-defense and denies the historical connection to Israel.

So when people say I'm not against Judaism, just Zionism...they make no sense. Zionism and Judaism are inseparable.

But what about the people that exist on their “ancestral homeland” who are not Jewish? That is really the whole nub of the issue.

I am I guess “anti Zionist”. I have never denied any historical connection of Judaism to Israel. I also think any sovereign nation, Jewish or otherwise, has a right to self defense. I just think that it is hypocritical to view the current Israeli issues as purely self defense against an external force. In some ways, it’s a civil war. Two factions living on the same land are tearing each other apart.

[Anonymous]

Antisemitism centers around 3 Ds. Demonization:
When Israel and its leaders are made to seem
completely evil; when Israel’s actions are blown
out of all sensible proportion; when Israel and
Israelis are equated with Nazi Germany and Nazis;
when Israel is seen as the sole cause for the
situation in the Middle East—this is considered
antisemitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
Double Standards: When criticism of Israel is applied selectively and
in a grossly unfair manner and Israel is singled
out when clearly immoral behavior of other
nation-states is ignored—for example, when Israel
is criticized by the United Nations for human rights
abuses while the behavior of known and major
abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is
ignored—this is considered antisemitism. Delegitimization:
When Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied
alone among all peoples of the world—this too is
considered antisemitism.

[Anonymous]

In reply to the poster who said Zionism as expressed originally is an ideology that says 1) Jews are a nation; 2) Jews cannot integrate, whether for their own reasons or widespread anti-semitism, into other societies; 3) therefore a homeland is necessary; and 4) all Jews should emigrate to that homeland. Certainly, assimilation helps Jews avoid antisemitism for a while, but eventually not so much. And Zionism does not require moving to the homeland. Zionism does require supporting the existence of that homeland so it'll be there when push comes to shove, as it inevitably does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Antisemitism centers around 3 Ds. Demonization:
When Israel and its leaders are made to seem
completely evil; when Israel’s actions are blown
out of all sensible proportion; when Israel and
Israelis are equated with Nazi Germany and Nazis;
when Israel is seen as the sole cause for the
situation in the Middle East—this is considered
antisemitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
Double Standards: When criticism of Israel is applied selectively and
in a grossly unfair manner and Israel is singled
out when clearly immoral behavior of other
nation-states is ignored—for example, when Israel
is criticized by the United Nations for human rights
abuses while the behavior of known and major
abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is
ignored—this is considered antisemitism. Delegitimization:
When Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied
alone among all peoples of the world—this too is
considered antisemitism.

I don’t understand the fundamentality of Israel’s right to exist. Dozens of ethnic groups worldwide are striving for a state of their own. Some get it, some don’t. What makes the Jewish aspirations for a state of their own qualitatively different from, say, Kurds or Palestinians? Why is theirs fundamental and other people’s conditional?