6 ms·

What the heck does "Opposition to Zionism" even mean? Opposing Zionism is the same as opposing the Irish desire to have Ireland, or the Kiwi desire to have New

by ars 2y ago

What the heck does "Opposition to Zionism" even mean? Opposing Zionism is the same as opposing the Irish desire to have Ireland, or the Kiwi desire to have New Zealand. I suspect you don't know what Zionism is, because otherwise your message makes no sense.

jakelazaroff 2y ago
It is the opposition to Israel as an ethnostate, which describes neither Ireland nor New Zealand.
- ars 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand And I'm not picking on them - tons of countries are like that, and that's fine as long as they ensure equality of all citizens, which Ireland, New Zealand, and Israel have all done.
  - racional 2y ago
    The section on NZ refers to a set of racist policies that ended in the 1980s and are now thoroughly discredited. Are you sure you want to cite it as a comparator to Israel?
    - runarberg 2y ago
      Same with Norther Ireland. Parent links to policies of Northern Ireland aimed at minimizing Catholic’s political powers, including via controlling the demographics. History has shown these policies to be very wrong and very much the reason for the Troubles. Historically this region suffered from settler colonialism where Britain encourage Protestants to move into the area. If you wanted to make a comparison to anti-Zionism, then the Nationalist‘s fight for civil rights and political representation is much more apt, then Protestant hardliners wanting to keep the demographics in their favor in order for continue suppress the rights of Norther Irish Catholics. Ironically, the IRA were not afraid to use terrorism to further the nationalistic cause (similar to a certain Palestinian resistance movement), and when the British tried to defeat them militarily (including via occupation) it only made matter worse. What did work however was stopping these policies which stripped Catholics from their civil rights, and granting them a political avenue for their prospects. Turns out that if you have political means for your goals, you are less likely to use terrorism.
      - racional 2y ago
        Yeah, I didn't really drill down into the Ireland section. I can pretty much only do one deeply flawed country analogy at a time.
  - jakelazaroff 2y ago
    I didn’t know about the “White New Zealand Policy”, but it seems to have been rolled back in the 80s. Ireland is not the same as Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. I assume you chose the word “citizen” carefully, so let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today. Anyway, obviously you aren’t picking on them for any of that, and I’m not super interested in debating it. I’m just answering your question about what “opposition to Zionism” means.
    - whodidntante 2y ago
      "let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today." If/when there is a Palestinian state, there is no basis to assume that they would enjoy the same rights as Israelis. It would be their own state, and their rights are determined by them. For example, Syrians do not have the same rights of Israelis, and Israelis do not have the same rights as Syrians. Currently, Israeli Palestinians (Israeli Arabs) have the same rights of Israeli Jews.Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza do not have those same rights.
      - jakelazaroff 2y ago
        I could have worded that better. In a hypothetical one-state solution, they would enjoy the same rights; in a hypothetical two-state solution, as you say, it would be a nonissue. Regardless, you have correctly identified one of the core things that anti-Zionism opposes: in Israeli occupied territory, there is currently de jure discrimination against an indigenous ethnic minority population.
        whodidntante 2y ago
        I agree that there is discrimination in the occupied territories. I also have the personal view that Israelis should not be in the occupied territories (the settlements), and that there needs to be a clear path to a Palestinian state. Clearly, simply removing the settlements and withdrawing from Gaza without a better plan was not sufficient. I also do not understand what this has to do with anti-Zionism in that Zionism is the notion that the Jews have a right to a homeland, and not be relegated as a people to the hims of others. Yes, there is an occupation of West Bank/Gaza, however, I would not deny the right of the Persians to have an Iran, even though I am very much against their current government, and they have taken over control and created misery in other countries (Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and are attempting to do so in Iraq and Syria). You can be against the current government of Israel, you can be against occupation (as many people, including Israeli's are), but to be against the existence of a Jewish state (anti-Zionism) without being against an Egyptian state, a Persian state, a Jordanian state, etc is singling out the Jews, and needs to be called what it is.
- whodidntante 2y ago
  There are at least two dozen countries in that area (mid east) of the world who are, constitutionally and in practice, ethnostates. Their constitution explicitly states that they are an "Arab state" and that their laws are based on Sharia law. Just Google for and read the constitutions of those countries in the Arab league, for example Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Syria, etc. And then there is Iran. Those who actively claim they are opposed to Israel because it is an ethnostate but are not also actively calling for these other states to be dismantled need to explain why that is not anti-semetic. There is also the related question on those opposed to Israel because it is a "European settler/colonial" state. A significant majority (66%) of Israel consists of brown people. 25% of Israel is not Jewish, and of the rest (the Jewish population), at least half of those are indigenous to that area, and are, from a racial perspective, just as "non-white" as anyone else from that area.
  - jakelazaroff 2y ago
    There are a couple things that set Israel apart from the other countries you listed. Israel gives Jews specifically enumerated privileges, such as a right to citizenship. It also implements an apartheid system in the West Bank — territory it occupies in violation of international law — in which Israelis and Palestinians are subject to two different legal systems. It has withdrawn from Gaza, of course, but it still exerts a high degree of control over it, such as an air and sea blockade. I don’t know why you think the current demographics of Israel preclude it from being a settler/colonial state. There is a formal effort to attract Jewish settlers. Just a few months ago, there was literally an event in my hometown advertising property in the West Bank to Jewish prospective residents.
    - whodidntante 2y ago
      Regarding the West Bank/Gaza: My opinion is that settlements should be removed and there needs to be a path to a Palestinian state. An act of good faith would be to remove the settlements unilaterally, unfortunately, that did not work out too well in Gaza. Advertising West Bank property to Jews is, in my opinion, abhorrent, as well as making a bad situation worse. On what happens in Israel, all Israeli citizens have equal rights. All countries have rules on who can become citizens. Yes, Israel is unique (I think) in the reasons for citizenship. Israel is also unique in its needs for survival. I am not sure if there are other differences, there could very well be. On the settler/colonial issue: What I find most interesting about this is how vehement many people are in my country (US) on Israel being a settler/colonial state, when, almost without exceptions, they are the ones living on Native land, using Native resources, and participate in a conspiracy to eradicate Native culture (this is anyone in the US who is not a Native American), and are therefor themselves settler/colonists, while it is the Jews who are native to the middle east, whether the 50% who are Mizrahi or the other 50% who are returning to the land their ancestors were kicked out of. And the Palestinians are also native to that area. The fundamental issue is: Can there be a compromise where each of these peoples get a land of their own, or is the idea of a Jewish state anywhere is what at some point of time was Dar A-Islam unacceptable.
gslepak 2y ago
> What the heck does "Opposition to Zionism" even mean? If I had to guess, I suspect they might mean "opposition to Zionist control of American foreign policy" rather than "opposition to Zionism".
- ars 2y ago
  That's a weird thing to oppose considering most parties see the control running exactly the other way. The US needs Israel more than Israel needs the US.
  - racional 2y ago
    The US needs Israel It absolutely does not - and it is not anti-Israel sentiment to say so; it's just geopolitics. For the the US, Israel is optional. Meanwhile if Israel ever decides to pretend it doesn't need the US -- well, you know what would happen.
    - ars 2y ago
      > For the the US, Israel is optional. That's not really true. The reason are complicated and involve the cold war. I touched on some of the highlights here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425327 > well, you know what would happen. Nothing would happen. Israel has defended itself from multiple wars without US help, if anything Israel's enemies are weaker than they were in the past. Weirdly enough it's actually Israel's enemies that benefit from the US - without the US Israel would just do what it needed to to stay safe, and never mind if the other country is hurt. Israel would not care, because their own security comes first. With the US Israel is like "fine, we'll do the bare minimum". This is also why all those people who what the US to stop helping Israel are so incredibly foolish. If Israel felt less secure they would fight with even greater ferocity. If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure.
      - racional 2y ago
        Israel has [fought] multiple wars without US help This obviously wrong, and on multiple levels. First, there's $330b of financial support since 1946. Access to advanced weapon systems since 1962. Crucial intelligence + diplomatic support in all the big wars (56/67/73); crucial munitions support, and an offer to send a large numbers of ground troops in 73. Solid and almost unquestioning diplomatic support (or acquiescence) of essentially every action Israel has taken since 67 (no matter how provocative or ultimately detrimental to its own interests), backed by the assurance of automatic UNSC veto of course. In the current operation, you've got 2 carriers parked offshore along with other assets in the region; special access to fuel depots and arms caches (that even Ukraine doesn't get); technical support from U.S. companies like Google, etc. The idea that Israel fights its wars "without US help" just ludicrous. Meanwhile, in return -- Israel just doesn't provide all that much. The U.S. supports Israel mostly for ideological regions (such as the kindling that it provides to the apocalyptic fantasies of the Christian Right) and to please other domestic political constituencies; and yes, out of a legitimate sense of moral responsibility since the Holocaust -- but not because it really needs Israel to be around (in the sense that it needs the UK, Germany, Japan, etc). It objectively needs countries like Sweden and Turkey more than it needs Israel. Completely cut off from U.S. aid -- it would survive of course, but under significantly diminished circumstances. In particular it would have to give up the Greater Israel project -- which it of course needs to do anyway, but it would have to do so much sooner, and in an abrupt, violatile way leaving it in a much less secure position than it would like to find itself shunted into. If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure. This is of course the mantra we've hearing since 67. And which brought us to the place we're in now.
pyrale 2y ago
I suspect above poster wrote zionism as a way to refer to neo-zionism, since people often mistakenly call nzo-zionist proponents that way. The gist of the idea is that zionism is a "dead" ideology already, since it has reached its goal of creating a state. The remaining question about it is whether Israel should adhere to post-zionism or to neo-zionism. Most people in the west opposing the current situation would probably fall in the post-zionist category if they were told about the concept.

by ars 2y ago

jakelazaroff 2y ago

It is the opposition to Israel as an ethnostate, which describes neither Ireland nor New Zealand.

ars 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand And I'm not picking on them - tons of countries are like that, and that's fine as long as they ensure equality of all citizens, which Ireland, New Zealand, and Israel have all done.
- racional 2y ago
  The section on NZ refers to a set of racist policies that ended in the 1980s and are now thoroughly discredited. Are you sure you want to cite it as a comparator to Israel?
  - runarberg 2y ago
    Same with Norther Ireland. Parent links to policies of Northern Ireland aimed at minimizing Catholic’s political powers, including via controlling the demographics. History has shown these policies to be very wrong and very much the reason for the Troubles. Historically this region suffered from settler colonialism where Britain encourage Protestants to move into the area. If you wanted to make a comparison to anti-Zionism, then the Nationalist‘s fight for civil rights and political representation is much more apt, then Protestant hardliners wanting to keep the demographics in their favor in order for continue suppress the rights of Norther Irish Catholics. Ironically, the IRA were not afraid to use terrorism to further the nationalistic cause (similar to a certain Palestinian resistance movement), and when the British tried to defeat them militarily (including via occupation) it only made matter worse. What did work however was stopping these policies which stripped Catholics from their civil rights, and granting them a political avenue for their prospects. Turns out that if you have political means for your goals, you are less likely to use terrorism.
    - racional 2y ago
      Yeah, I didn't really drill down into the Ireland section. I can pretty much only do one deeply flawed country analogy at a time.
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  I didn’t know about the “White New Zealand Policy”, but it seems to have been rolled back in the 80s. Ireland is not the same as Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. I assume you chose the word “citizen” carefully, so let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today. Anyway, obviously you aren’t picking on them for any of that, and I’m not super interested in debating it. I’m just answering your question about what “opposition to Zionism” means.
  - whodidntante 2y ago
    "let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today." If/when there is a Palestinian state, there is no basis to assume that they would enjoy the same rights as Israelis. It would be their own state, and their rights are determined by them. For example, Syrians do not have the same rights of Israelis, and Israelis do not have the same rights as Syrians. Currently, Israeli Palestinians (Israeli Arabs) have the same rights of Israeli Jews.Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza do not have those same rights.
    - jakelazaroff 2y ago
      I could have worded that better. In a hypothetical one-state solution, they would enjoy the same rights; in a hypothetical two-state solution, as you say, it would be a nonissue. Regardless, you have correctly identified one of the core things that anti-Zionism opposes: in Israeli occupied territory, there is currently de jure discrimination against an indigenous ethnic minority population.
      - whodidntante 2y ago
        I agree that there is discrimination in the occupied territories. I also have the personal view that Israelis should not be in the occupied territories (the settlements), and that there needs to be a clear path to a Palestinian state. Clearly, simply removing the settlements and withdrawing from Gaza without a better plan was not sufficient. I also do not understand what this has to do with anti-Zionism in that Zionism is the notion that the Jews have a right to a homeland, and not be relegated as a people to the hims of others. Yes, there is an occupation of West Bank/Gaza, however, I would not deny the right of the Persians to have an Iran, even though I am very much against their current government, and they have taken over control and created misery in other countries (Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and are attempting to do so in Iraq and Syria). You can be against the current government of Israel, you can be against occupation (as many people, including Israeli's are), but to be against the existence of a Jewish state (anti-Zionism) without being against an Egyptian state, a Persian state, a Jordanian state, etc is singling out the Jews, and needs to be called what it is.
whodidntante 2y ago
There are at least two dozen countries in that area (mid east) of the world who are, constitutionally and in practice, ethnostates. Their constitution explicitly states that they are an "Arab state" and that their laws are based on Sharia law. Just Google for and read the constitutions of those countries in the Arab league, for example Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Syria, etc. And then there is Iran. Those who actively claim they are opposed to Israel because it is an ethnostate but are not also actively calling for these other states to be dismantled need to explain why that is not anti-semetic. There is also the related question on those opposed to Israel because it is a "European settler/colonial" state. A significant majority (66%) of Israel consists of brown people. 25% of Israel is not Jewish, and of the rest (the Jewish population), at least half of those are indigenous to that area, and are, from a racial perspective, just as "non-white" as anyone else from that area.
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  There are a couple things that set Israel apart from the other countries you listed. Israel gives Jews specifically enumerated privileges, such as a right to citizenship. It also implements an apartheid system in the West Bank — territory it occupies in violation of international law — in which Israelis and Palestinians are subject to two different legal systems. It has withdrawn from Gaza, of course, but it still exerts a high degree of control over it, such as an air and sea blockade. I don’t know why you think the current demographics of Israel preclude it from being a settler/colonial state. There is a formal effort to attract Jewish settlers. Just a few months ago, there was literally an event in my hometown advertising property in the West Bank to Jewish prospective residents.
  - whodidntante 2y ago
    Regarding the West Bank/Gaza: My opinion is that settlements should be removed and there needs to be a path to a Palestinian state. An act of good faith would be to remove the settlements unilaterally, unfortunately, that did not work out too well in Gaza. Advertising West Bank property to Jews is, in my opinion, abhorrent, as well as making a bad situation worse. On what happens in Israel, all Israeli citizens have equal rights. All countries have rules on who can become citizens. Yes, Israel is unique (I think) in the reasons for citizenship. Israel is also unique in its needs for survival. I am not sure if there are other differences, there could very well be. On the settler/colonial issue: What I find most interesting about this is how vehement many people are in my country (US) on Israel being a settler/colonial state, when, almost without exceptions, they are the ones living on Native land, using Native resources, and participate in a conspiracy to eradicate Native culture (this is anyone in the US who is not a Native American), and are therefor themselves settler/colonists, while it is the Jews who are native to the middle east, whether the 50% who are Mizrahi or the other 50% who are returning to the land their ancestors were kicked out of. And the Palestinians are also native to that area. The fundamental issue is: Can there be a compromise where each of these peoples get a land of their own, or is the idea of a Jewish state anywhere is what at some point of time was Dar A-Islam unacceptable.

gslepak 2y ago

> What the heck does "Opposition to Zionism" even mean? If I had to guess, I suspect they might mean "opposition to Zionist control of American foreign policy" rather than "opposition to Zionism".

ars 2y ago
That's a weird thing to oppose considering most parties see the control running exactly the other way. The US needs Israel more than Israel needs the US.
- racional 2y ago
  The US needs Israel It absolutely does not - and it is not anti-Israel sentiment to say so; it's just geopolitics. For the the US, Israel is optional. Meanwhile if Israel ever decides to pretend it doesn't need the US -- well, you know what would happen.
  - ars 2y ago
    > For the the US, Israel is optional. That's not really true. The reason are complicated and involve the cold war. I touched on some of the highlights here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425327 > well, you know what would happen. Nothing would happen. Israel has defended itself from multiple wars without US help, if anything Israel's enemies are weaker than they were in the past. Weirdly enough it's actually Israel's enemies that benefit from the US - without the US Israel would just do what it needed to to stay safe, and never mind if the other country is hurt. Israel would not care, because their own security comes first. With the US Israel is like "fine, we'll do the bare minimum". This is also why all those people who what the US to stop helping Israel are so incredibly foolish. If Israel felt less secure they would fight with even greater ferocity. If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure.
    - racional 2y ago
      Israel has [fought] multiple wars without US help This obviously wrong, and on multiple levels. First, there's $330b of financial support since 1946. Access to advanced weapon systems since 1962. Crucial intelligence + diplomatic support in all the big wars (56/67/73); crucial munitions support, and an offer to send a large numbers of ground troops in 73. Solid and almost unquestioning diplomatic support (or acquiescence) of essentially every action Israel has taken since 67 (no matter how provocative or ultimately detrimental to its own interests), backed by the assurance of automatic UNSC veto of course. In the current operation, you've got 2 carriers parked offshore along with other assets in the region; special access to fuel depots and arms caches (that even Ukraine doesn't get); technical support from U.S. companies like Google, etc. The idea that Israel fights its wars "without US help" just ludicrous. Meanwhile, in return -- Israel just doesn't provide all that much. The U.S. supports Israel mostly for ideological regions (such as the kindling that it provides to the apocalyptic fantasies of the Christian Right) and to please other domestic political constituencies; and yes, out of a legitimate sense of moral responsibility since the Holocaust -- but not because it really needs Israel to be around (in the sense that it needs the UK, Germany, Japan, etc). It objectively needs countries like Sweden and Turkey more than it needs Israel. Completely cut off from U.S. aid -- it would survive of course, but under significantly diminished circumstances. In particular it would have to give up the Greater Israel project -- which it of course needs to do anyway, but it would have to do so much sooner, and in an abrupt, violatile way leaving it in a much less secure position than it would like to find itself shunted into. If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure. This is of course the mantra we've hearing since 67. And which brought us to the place we're in now.

pyrale 2y ago

I suspect above poster wrote zionism as a way to refer to neo-zionism, since people often mistakenly call nzo-zionist proponents that way. The gist of the idea is that zionism is a "dead" ideology already, since it has reached its goal of creating a state. The remaining question about it is whether Israel should adhere to post-zionism or to neo-zionism. Most people in the west opposing the current situation would probably fall in the post-zionist category if they were told about the concept.