I know to many of you, Zionism appears to be a left/right issue, that is you believe that Zionist Jews are right wing, and non or anti-Zionist Jews are left wing.
This is not the case.
Zionism is an issue that does not fall neatly in the left/right political paradigm. Early Israeli Zionism was extremely left, even Communist in nature, and modern diasporatic Jews, many of whom are left-learning, are also Zionists.
If you're a gentile and wondering where you should fall on Zionism, the answer is generally: no where.
Zionism is a Jewish issue, deeply tied to Jewish thought and the Jewish experience. It's not a matter for you to weigh in on, and it's generally not a "political" issue, even though it has political implications.
As for Babka, it is not a Zionist or non-Zionist instance. We don't exclude or gatekeep Jews based on their stance towards Zionism.
@serge Really? Didn't you recently defame, smeared and then deleted all your aggressive posts before you blocked an entire instance because you were accused of spreading Islamophobic content by someone who regularly publishes academic content that airs #Zionism dirty laundry? If you're so unfazed, one would assume you'd keep your cool and engage. Calling an Israeli #antisemite because they're not right-wing is hypocritical considering all of the above.
@serge well, unless your socket puppet @emacsen has a life of its own, one of you defederated emacs.ch as can be seen on fediblock. Would you mind releasing the summary document with its admin, or at least explain why contrary to what you're saying here, you thought that an Israeli you didn't agree with, is an antisemite, and why did that justify blocking a very popular instance which otherwise has nothing to do with #zionism or anything related?
@serge well, unless your socket puppet @emacsen has a life of its own, one of you defederated emacs.ch, as can be seen on fediblock. Would you mind releasing the summary document you coauthored with its admin, or at least explain why contrary to what you're saying here, you thought that an Israeli you didn't agree with, is an antisemite, and why did that justify blocking a very popular instance which otherwise has nothing to do with #zionism or anything related?
@serge I see this post as a clear communication of boundaries and I wish that more of us felt like we could express boundaries about this issue. One of mine in my personal life is "please don't ask me if I'm a Zionist or not. If I trust you I will tell you. If you ask, I will tell you it's none of your business."
That being said, I do disagree with the notion that only Jews should interrogate their stance on Zionism as a whole. I think that's how we end up with apathy and a lack of critical thinking around this issue, until it comes up out of the blue, and then the response is "I can't decide if [x] is antisemitic without asking my Jewish friend" and one of us ends up getting bothered about Zionism regardless.
My take is, if you are interested in global affairs at all, do some reading on this and do some critical thinking on your own--just understand there's a time and a place for discussing it and respect the boundaries of those around you that are more affected by it.
To me, a gentile's opinion on zionism—that is, the question of whether or how an explicitly Jewish state should exist in the Levant—is not an input I'm interested in taking.
One can have an opinion on the actions of the Israeli government, or Israelis in specific or broadly, and even an opinion about whether Israel should be recognized as a state or dissolved completely without opining on the question of whether the Jewish people require a political state to ensure our survival.
Gentiles voicing their opinions on zionism, or framing those other opinions as questions of zionism should be treated as bizarre. It would be like commenting on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and calling that your position on Armenian nationalism.
@ibreezy@serge I also, for the most part, am not interested (with a few exceptions). My ask for more introspection isn't an ask for non-Jews to go around telling Jews (and others who are from ethnic groups in the Levant) their opinions so much as for them to think for themselves rather than going with what is the easiest or most popular thing to think. I think that's how you end up with so many people that are otherwise well-informed spouting off so many baffling things. People don't know enough and are afraid of sticking their necks out, so they say what they think they're supposed to say, even if it's both unhelpful and incorrect.
On both of these, if discussing the state itself and/or the ideology (rather than labels), I think an important starting point would have to be that Israel exists so that Jews do not require non-Jews to agree about how and where they live.
That seems like one of the most necessary components, because it underpins a lot of these points.
Their opinions aren't most importantly unhelpful and incorrect (as you put it), but intentionally irrelevant.
Jews who live in their countries need to take their opinions seriously (hence my point about the labels being content-free). But Israel was created specifically because Jews (correctly!) decided they couldn't rely on non-Jews.
Whether Israel is the answer or not (and I know from individual discussions that would split opinions in this group) is something that was taken out of their hands.
To continue this line of thinking, there's an important, I'd even argue, critical issue, which is that the State of Israel exists now, and has for generations.
The people who live there now are predominantly refugees or the children of refugees, and to call for the destruction of Israel is to call for those 7 million Jews, predominantly refugees, to either be made refugees once again, or to put their lives at risk by neighbors who have declared their desire for the death of Jews both in Israel, and in their own countries.
So really, Zionism as a topic is somewhat academic.
In my view, if someone is arguing against the state of Israel's existence and they aren't addressing the safety (including physical, psychological and economic) of its vulnerable inhabitants, including Jews, Druze, Samaritans, and Queer folks, then it's a call to violence.
It probably is, and I think you are almost certainly correct, but the outcome of those two things is basically that it's a good thing they don't get a say in that anymore.
Israel exists, in large part, because whether it is intended as a call to violence or not, Israelis don't have to care whether it is. That's why I think it's an important starting point.
Like if my old landlord says my choice of porch is bad and ugly and shouldn't be there. Sure, you can have your opinion, but that's why I have a house now. I don't need to care about your input.
And if you don't want me living in this house, you are not making a great case for it. You are just convincing me of all the reasons I left in the first place.
I'm really confused by this post. Are you saying that it's okay for Jews to leave Israel? Because I agree with that. Are you saying it's okay for Jews to choose to live in the diaspora (for any reason), because I agree with that too.
I'm saying a non-Jew in America doesn't get a say in the existence or non-existence of Israel. And that Israel exists specifically so that they don't get a say in it. That is basically the purpose of the country.
So, whether that person wants Israel to not exist or to change policy A or B, that Jews feel threatened by, Israelis don't have to care.
Add comment