5 ms·

If you were your ancestors who were "run out of town on a rail" you would care very, very deeply about your familial bond to Israel. Like yours, my family was r

If you were your ancestors who were "run out of town on a rail" you would care very, very deeply about your familial bond to Israel. Like yours, my family was run out of town. Unlike yours, many in my family did not run fast enough. If only there was a place they could run to either as first resort or when quota had been reached in other places. If only there was a place that could make running a specific people out of town a very costly pursuit for those who were making those people run. Israel is and will always remain the eternal Homeland of the Jewish people. Am Yisrael Chai.

whimsicalism 5y ago
There are plenty of non-zionist people who survived the Holocaust, it is disingenuous to paint caring about Israel as the natural, inevitable reaction to the Holocaust. The whole concept of having a natural "homeland" because of your DNA/ethnicity/race is bullshit, land doesn't care what color your skin is or what religion you practice.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  The majority were not zionist, including my family. The Holocaust changed that. The premise of zionism was never "having a natural "homeland" because of your DNA." The premise of Zionism was that Jews could not stay in Europe, particularly in the age of nation states. Most commonly, this was referred to as "The Jewish Question." The majority of secular Jews believed in emancipation. The majority of religious jews believed that only god could create the Jewish state. They were also skeptical of Zionism's desire for secular Jewish identity. That said, my grandparents never referred to themselves as zionists. Before the war, zionism just meant "want a jewish state to exist." Foreign politicians (eg Churchill) were referred to as zionist for this reason. After the war, it generally meant exuberance about zionists political ideologies of the time. Founding Kibbutz, farming, hebrew language revival, etc. "Zionists" wanted to take hebrew names, for example. Today, "zionist" just means Israeli patriotism.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    The Holocaust definitely changed how the majority of people felt, but it doesn't mean that I can't be critical of that sentiment. Bundism also continued to exist after the Holocaust, albeit in a diminished form. "premise of Zionism was that Jews could not stay in Europe" -> the creation of a state where citizenship is granted explicitly on the basis of your ethnicity, in the form of a "right of return" is 100% the premise I suggested.
    - dalbasal 5y ago
      I don't think you can't be critical of that sentiment. I do dispute that it was a a sentiment at all, at least in grandparents' case. It wasn't ideology either. It was just a fact. They couldn't stay in europe. A right of return to a Jewish State^ was the only practical way to survive, besides conversion. My grandfather considered that route, as an atheist, but his first wife dissented. He also looked very Jewish. That was their conclusion att. You are free to disagree. The majority of post war immigration was non ideological. There wasn't much daylight between ideological and non-ideological zionism, for the most part. It also (in my opinion, this time) proved true for 1.5 million people who found that they could not stay in Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, etc. The new world wasn't an option for them, as it had been for many europeans. I might agree with you that nation states, or the common form of nation state, isn't ideal. It is quite terrible in its purist form. However, I don't see why this criticism is so often leveled at Zionism exclusively. I'm also Irish, and have never heard such a criticism of Irish Republicanism. Besides that, lots of countries' have rights of return, ethnonational symbolism, etc. Meanwhile, most Israelis supported South Sudanese and Kurdish independence for similar reasons. Me included. I think that Kurds have been screwed since the fall of the Ottomans, because they ended up without a state. Lebanon was founded on this premise. Pakistan. Lots of examples ^Zionism originally called for a homeland, not necessarily a state, and hoped to achieve this as cultural autonomy and migration rights under Ottoman sovereignty. Nation States were not the norm, when zionism was first conceived. +The downvotes are not from me.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        I don't know your grandparents, so really can't hope to prevail in any discussion about what their sentiments were. I don't dispute that most of this immigration was non-ideological, I wasn't trying to suggest that it wasn't. Nor am I opposed in any way to Jewish immigration to Israel. Moreover, racial & ethnic separatism is a very common and understandable reaction to oppression. But I still remain critical of it - just as I would be if Black people in the United States established a separate Black state in North America. The crime, in my view, was the insurgency, bombings, and driving out of the British following their announcement that they planned to transition Palestine into an independent, multi-racial state with majority-rule. Fighting against that goal in order to form an ethno-state is, in my view, analogous to what the white minority in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia pulled after similar British announcements around their colonial state. The primary difference is that Israel remains, Rhodesia no longer does. > I'm also Irish, and have never heard such a criticism of Irish Republicanism. Besides that, lots of countries' have rights of return, ethnonational symbolism, etc. My understanding is that Irish republicanism is not based on the same principles as Zionism, namely there is no opposition for a multi-ethnic/racial state with majority democratic rule.
tolbish 5y ago
That's the argument certain Native Americans use to say that they are the only ones whose home is America. Do you see how this argument makes you look?
- dalbasal 5y ago
  Saying that Israel is a jewish homeland does not necessarily mean that it is not anyone else's home. It does to some, but they are an extreme minority. It's also contrary to our declaration of independence. I'm not american, but I'll hazard a guess that "certain Native Americans" who take this position are also more often assumed than real.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    The history of Israel is centered around a rebellion to prevent the other people who lived there from getting joint rule. Just look at the history - this is the document that prompted the Jewish insurgency in mandatory palestine. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939#Content
    - dalbasal 5y ago
      Let me hazard a guess that I know the history of my own country better than you. That doesn't make me right, but don't be condescending. "history of Israel is centered around" - bollocks. First, the main faction, which later became the government, did not "rebel" against the British Empire. In fact, they offered to contribute troops and enforced a truce on the grounds that the UK was fighting nazis. It was a minority faction that fought the British, both before and after this event. Second, nothing about the white papers had anything to do with voting rights. There were no voting rights during the British period. Arabs had voting rights in Israel once Israel existed, but that's neither her nor there. The "rebellion" was about immigration restrictions. More to the point, it was about emigration restrictions, cutting off the last escape route out of the third reich. Third, the "Palestinian Civil War," as the British called it, had started 10 years prior, shortly after the first partition of Palestine. It started when it became clear the French & British were going to chop the region into nation states and skedaddle.
losteric 5y ago
I acknowledge the darkness of history and a desire for security in territory owned by the group you identify with. However, Israel is now repeating history by displacing present-day non-Jewish people who also have familial bonds to the territory.
refurb 5y ago
Despite the downvotes this post has a point - if you want to protect your religion/ethnicity you have to do it yourself. Rise of anti-semitism in Europe - nothing is done Jews seek safety in other countries - immigration denied Holocaust happens - world sympathizes and moves on Israel is under no illusions as to what happens if they don’t have a home and defend it. I kind of don’t blame them for ignoring the worlds criticisms.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  > if you want to protect your religion/ethnicity you have to do it yourself. What should white people be doing if they want to protect their race? Why the hell does all this tribalist & essentialist nonsense become acceptable when discussion turns to Israel?
  - UK-Al05 5y ago
    ??? I don't agree with him. But western & majority white countries have the strongest militaries in the world and project power all around the world.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Generally we don't justify US military funding on the basis of "protecting the White race." The strongest military in the world will be representing a majority non-white nation in a decade or two.
      - UK-Al05 5y ago
        No, but it still mostly defends it's countries interests. Just like the IDF does which has non Jewish member's.
      - eli_gottlieb 5y ago
        >Generally we don't justify US military funding on the basis of "protecting the White race." Someone should probably tell all the people invaded and oppressed by the USA that it's gotten woke now and white supremacist settler-colonialism is over.
tootie 5y ago
Why? We were run out of Israel on a rail too. Ancestry of any kind means nothing to me. Sunk cost. As far as I'm concerned, my ancestral homeland is New York. And I'm pretty happy with that. My wife's parents are from Korea and they had a rough time there. They think of New York as home too. Speaking of new ethnic identities, I think of my kids as being Neoamerican.

whimsicalism 5y ago

There are plenty of non-zionist people who survived the Holocaust, it is disingenuous to paint caring about Israel as the natural, inevitable reaction to the Holocaust. The whole concept of having a natural "homeland" because of your DNA/ethnicity/race is bullshit, land doesn't care what color your skin is or what religion you practice.

dalbasal 5y ago
The majority were not zionist, including my family. The Holocaust changed that. The premise of zionism was never "having a natural "homeland" because of your DNA." The premise of Zionism was that Jews could not stay in Europe, particularly in the age of nation states. Most commonly, this was referred to as "The Jewish Question." The majority of secular Jews believed in emancipation. The majority of religious jews believed that only god could create the Jewish state. They were also skeptical of Zionism's desire for secular Jewish identity. That said, my grandparents never referred to themselves as zionists. Before the war, zionism just meant "want a jewish state to exist." Foreign politicians (eg Churchill) were referred to as zionist for this reason. After the war, it generally meant exuberance about zionists political ideologies of the time. Founding Kibbutz, farming, hebrew language revival, etc. "Zionists" wanted to take hebrew names, for example. Today, "zionist" just means Israeli patriotism.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  The Holocaust definitely changed how the majority of people felt, but it doesn't mean that I can't be critical of that sentiment. Bundism also continued to exist after the Holocaust, albeit in a diminished form. "premise of Zionism was that Jews could not stay in Europe" -> the creation of a state where citizenship is granted explicitly on the basis of your ethnicity, in the form of a "right of return" is 100% the premise I suggested.
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    I don't think you can't be critical of that sentiment. I do dispute that it was a a sentiment at all, at least in grandparents' case. It wasn't ideology either. It was just a fact. They couldn't stay in europe. A right of return to a Jewish State^ was the only practical way to survive, besides conversion. My grandfather considered that route, as an atheist, but his first wife dissented. He also looked very Jewish. That was their conclusion att. You are free to disagree. The majority of post war immigration was non ideological. There wasn't much daylight between ideological and non-ideological zionism, for the most part. It also (in my opinion, this time) proved true for 1.5 million people who found that they could not stay in Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, etc. The new world wasn't an option for them, as it had been for many europeans. I might agree with you that nation states, or the common form of nation state, isn't ideal. It is quite terrible in its purist form. However, I don't see why this criticism is so often leveled at Zionism exclusively. I'm also Irish, and have never heard such a criticism of Irish Republicanism. Besides that, lots of countries' have rights of return, ethnonational symbolism, etc. Meanwhile, most Israelis supported South Sudanese and Kurdish independence for similar reasons. Me included. I think that Kurds have been screwed since the fall of the Ottomans, because they ended up without a state. Lebanon was founded on this premise. Pakistan. Lots of examples ^Zionism originally called for a homeland, not necessarily a state, and hoped to achieve this as cultural autonomy and migration rights under Ottoman sovereignty. Nation States were not the norm, when zionism was first conceived. +The downvotes are not from me.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      I don't know your grandparents, so really can't hope to prevail in any discussion about what their sentiments were. I don't dispute that most of this immigration was non-ideological, I wasn't trying to suggest that it wasn't. Nor am I opposed in any way to Jewish immigration to Israel. Moreover, racial & ethnic separatism is a very common and understandable reaction to oppression. But I still remain critical of it - just as I would be if Black people in the United States established a separate Black state in North America. The crime, in my view, was the insurgency, bombings, and driving out of the British following their announcement that they planned to transition Palestine into an independent, multi-racial state with majority-rule. Fighting against that goal in order to form an ethno-state is, in my view, analogous to what the white minority in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia pulled after similar British announcements around their colonial state. The primary difference is that Israel remains, Rhodesia no longer does. > I'm also Irish, and have never heard such a criticism of Irish Republicanism. Besides that, lots of countries' have rights of return, ethnonational symbolism, etc. My understanding is that Irish republicanism is not based on the same principles as Zionism, namely there is no opposition for a multi-ethnic/racial state with majority democratic rule.

tolbish 5y ago

That's the argument certain Native Americans use to say that they are the only ones whose home is America. Do you see how this argument makes you look?

dalbasal 5y ago
Saying that Israel is a jewish homeland does not necessarily mean that it is not anyone else's home. It does to some, but they are an extreme minority. It's also contrary to our declaration of independence. I'm not american, but I'll hazard a guess that "certain Native Americans" who take this position are also more often assumed than real.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  The history of Israel is centered around a rebellion to prevent the other people who lived there from getting joint rule. Just look at the history - this is the document that prompted the Jewish insurgency in mandatory palestine. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939#Content
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    Let me hazard a guess that I know the history of my own country better than you. That doesn't make me right, but don't be condescending. "history of Israel is centered around" - bollocks. First, the main faction, which later became the government, did not "rebel" against the British Empire. In fact, they offered to contribute troops and enforced a truce on the grounds that the UK was fighting nazis. It was a minority faction that fought the British, both before and after this event. Second, nothing about the white papers had anything to do with voting rights. There were no voting rights during the British period. Arabs had voting rights in Israel once Israel existed, but that's neither her nor there. The "rebellion" was about immigration restrictions. More to the point, it was about emigration restrictions, cutting off the last escape route out of the third reich. Third, the "Palestinian Civil War," as the British called it, had started 10 years prior, shortly after the first partition of Palestine. It started when it became clear the French & British were going to chop the region into nation states and skedaddle.

losteric 5y ago

I acknowledge the darkness of history and a desire for security in territory owned by the group you identify with. However, Israel is now repeating history by displacing present-day non-Jewish people who also have familial bonds to the territory.

refurb 5y ago

Despite the downvotes this post has a point - if you want to protect your religion/ethnicity you have to do it yourself. Rise of anti-semitism in Europe - nothing is done Jews seek safety in other countries - immigration denied Holocaust happens - world sympathizes and moves on Israel is under no illusions as to what happens if they don’t have a home and defend it. I kind of don’t blame them for ignoring the worlds criticisms.

whimsicalism 5y ago
> if you want to protect your religion/ethnicity you have to do it yourself. What should white people be doing if they want to protect their race? Why the hell does all this tribalist & essentialist nonsense become acceptable when discussion turns to Israel?
- UK-Al05 5y ago
  ??? I don't agree with him. But western & majority white countries have the strongest militaries in the world and project power all around the world.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Generally we don't justify US military funding on the basis of "protecting the White race." The strongest military in the world will be representing a majority non-white nation in a decade or two.
    - UK-Al05 5y ago
      No, but it still mostly defends it's countries interests. Just like the IDF does which has non Jewish member's.
    - eli_gottlieb 5y ago
      >Generally we don't justify US military funding on the basis of "protecting the White race." Someone should probably tell all the people invaded and oppressed by the USA that it's gotten woke now and white supremacist settler-colonialism is over.

tootie 5y ago

Why? We were run out of Israel on a rail too. Ancestry of any kind means nothing to me. Sunk cost. As far as I'm concerned, my ancestral homeland is New York. And I'm pretty happy with that. My wife's parents are from Korea and they had a rough time there. They think of New York as home too. Speaking of new ethnic identities, I think of my kids as being Neoamerican.