Is anti-Zionism peaceful in practice? Is it peaceful in theory? Many will tell you yes.
The way I see it, everyone should want peace. Everyone should feel it in their bones.
There is much I do not understand. I try and empathize, but I find that I can not empathize with the anti-Zionist.
Here's what I don't get...
1.What is someone who is calling themselves an anti-Zionist really saying by that?
Here are my hypotheses:
I'm pretty sure it means that they do not believe there should be a modern state of Israel.
The issue with that is, it exists. Where are all of these people who live there under a functioning government going to go? Do you honestly believe they're going to just pick up and leave the places that some of them lived all their lives? That's like saying, "I don't think Italy should exist." Italy is an established entity (all be it older than the state of Israel, however the primary point of current existence still prevails). We can't distroy Italy (or any other sovereign nation) so why Israel?
Or, are they saying that they do not believe Jews deserve a homeland in Israel?
If that is so, there are many issues with that. Even the "Jews against Zionism" (whom I am guessing more subscibe to the ideal above) agree that Israel is the land of the Jews. Where those people differ is that they believe that a modern/secular state is sinful. They also believe democracy is sinful. They also believe women are subordinate to men. But I digress. Still, even those people acknowledge the fact that, on a religious basis, Israel is for the Jews. They just believe the Jews should live there under a religious kingdom at the time the Messiah comes. Are secular Zionists are going to subscribe to? I don't think so. Generally, they should stop bringing the Satmars/Nurei Kartas up at all, since they are irrelevant to the conversation. (which I shall bring up later) Generally around 80% of Jews in the world can agree that Israel is the homeland of the Jews. Where we all differ is generally the timing and method, generally.
If someone says that it is not the biblical homeland of the Jews and denies a serious pillar of Judaism (not matter what their actual tradition), that's sort of bigoted. If you outright disagree with something on a religious (or lack thereof) basis, that's one thing. Everyone is free to believe what they want. It may sound intolerant to acknowledge other people's beliefs though. But to deny a pillar of Judaism for political ends of creating over 6 million refugees. That's like saying, "I deny that Mecca is a holy place to Muslims. I believe that Muslims should leave Mecca." If someone were to say that, there would be no doubt that they are intolerant. Muslims would be outraged! But it is done to Jews. Not only that, it denies that 3,000 year old history of Jewish existence in Israel (the two temples and the Jewish kingdoms, etc). That is very hurtful.
2. Another issue is: many anti-Zionists claim to just disagree with the way the Israeli government handles things.
In my mind, that doesn't mean anti-Zionist. To be "anti" something, it means you are against. In which case one would refer to 1. But so let me address the point. It is ok to be critical of the Israeli government. I, for one, think Olmert should resign. For another, I also think women in Israel should be granted to give their husbands divorces. But that doesn't mean I think Israel should be distroyed. I just think it should be better. So if you're critical, please, be critical. But if you're trying to help, you're not "anti" anything.
3. Many anti-Zionists claim they have nothing against Jews, just Zionists. But, if you take into accound item 1 and even item 2, that doesn't really compute. You can't deny part of Judaism but still claim to love Jews. That's like saying, "I love Jews, I just can't stand the ones that are too 'Jewish!'" If you want Jews to be killed or even become homeless, you're no friend to the Jews. If you want Jews to deny their religion and, in essence, who they are as Jews, you are not a friend to the Jews.
3 1/2. Then, a lot of time, anti-Zionists will, all the while claiming to love Jews and even have lots of Jewish friends, use anti-Jewish imagery or terminology. For example, they'll call Jews/Israelis Nazis. Does anyone really think that is accurate? Also, they'll make pictures depicting that age old libelous image of the greedy "Jew-troll." You know, the one with the huge nose and elfish pointy ears that is usually oozing blood from his mouth or at least eating a baby? They'll use that sort of imagery in reference to "Zionists" (because they love Jews, just hate Zionists). So if I draw a picture of a Muslim in traditional garb with a bomb strapped to their chest shouting vs from the Q'ran as well as "Death to America!" Am I a friend to the Muslims? I don't think so. In fact, I find the "I love Jews but will use the Jewish blood libel in reference to Zionists" idea offensive, bigoted, hateful, hypocritical, and above all entirely full of it.
4. Often times, as I mentioned already, anti-Zionists will bring up the Satmars/Nurei Karta ("Jews against Zionism") as a sort of, "See! These people are orthodox! You aren't practicing your religion properly! You are sinning!" As if they even knew what the heck they were talking about.

Honestly, I find that very offensive and arrogant. It assumes that non-Jews can tell Jews what it is to be Jewish or even how to practice Judaism. That is highly disingenuous to pretend that is some sort of scoring point to make in a discussion. Do I sit and tell Christians how to believe in Christ? I wouldn't dream of overstepping my bounds in such a way. Do I tell atheists how to reject God? How can I even dare? Why, then, should anyone feel justified in saying such things to Jews? It bothers me so much you can't comprehend nor can I put it into words.
Furthermore, and also as I mentioned, the Satmars (as I prefer to call them) are pretty whacked out. They believe a ton of really whacked things. What many non-Jews do not realize is that these people are extremists. "But they're the ULTRA-Orthodox." Yes and no. There are many different kinds of "ULTRA-Orthodox" (a terminology I never understood in the first place). The Orthodox Unioin Is the largest Orthodox organization in the world. They are VERY religious and they just so happen to support Israel. Imagine that. The Jews of Chabad are Chasidic Jews, they support Israel. Imagine that.
Plus, and as I mentioned again, among the whacked out ideas of these "ULTRA-Orthodox" Jews are sexism, racism, and a few other things. They believe a man should sit in the Yeshiva all day while his wife raises children and works to support the family. They believe a woman is an object, able to be bought and sold by men. They believe Jews are superior to other groups. Saying that these people are the "true" Torah Jews is like saying the Taliban is "true" Islam. And we all know that is not true. I humbly ask people to stop referring to Satmars (and the like) as "proper." The very idea is ridiculous.
5. Usually, people who call themselves anti-Zionists tend to be very angry, hurtful, hateful, and just downright mean when you talk to them. They are ultra defensive and get really mad at you when you call them anti-semitic, or more accurately anti-Jewish. I can't understand why they can be so angry after the points I've already mentioned are applied. Perhaps it is the guilt of realizing the ideology they subscribe to isn't so good. But, being humans they defend their righteousness in favor of not taking responsibility for themselves. But even before a conversation descends that far, they tend to have this big ax to grind and are just plain generally unpleasant. There has to be a psychological correlation. You go so far as to simply mention the word Israel or admit to being a Zionist and you stir fervent hatred and contempt. Is it really that great to be so angry and hateful all the time?
6. If there are to be anti-Zionists, how is that to stop anyone from being anti-Palestinian or some other variation of the like? If someone was to say that they are anti-Palestinian, that makes them a racist. Why, then, is anti-Zionist excused, given the above points and this one. The very idea of anti-Zionism is counter to any form of peaceful or honest discourse. It only fuels the cycle of violence and the deep hatred between the two groups. Anyone who claims to be anti-Zionist is not seeking peace, just supremacy.
So my conclusion is that being "anti-Zionist" isn't something people should really be proud of. Perhaps it's not too far off from being anti-something else.
Maybe people shouldn't focus on being "anti" anything and really focus on being for something and helping people.
I just find the idea of anti-Zionism completely counter productive to any form of actual peaceful discourse.
Let us all dream tonight about how we can be PRO-each other.
Devious Comments
--
FAQ #27: How to get more Pageviews!
--
"Being happy does not mean that everything is perfect. It means that you have decided to look beyond the imperfections." - Maya Angelou
More of my PHOTOGRAPHY please CLICK HERE
--
FAQ #27: How to get more Pageviews!
But what's wrong with the people who centuries ago were sent out of their homes and given partitions of a nation that was once their own back? Granted, I realize there's more to all of this conflict than that. But these are two nations that have never really been at peace in the first place. This war is centuries old, and it's a war based originally on culture and belief (always more deadly and more dangerous than a war based in wealth and power). Sometimes there just is no answer. Situations get beyond the reaches of peace. It only sounds grim because it is.
Holy wall-o-text, sorry for that, I need sleep.
If you want to really get technical, the people (Arab and Jew) who settled Israel/Palestine are the same race and decedents as well. Both are semitic peoples with long histories in the region.
You get my point though, right? I was just pulling another country out for comparison. Italy exists, Israel exists, America exists ... you can't force people to leave when they have an actual sovereign nation. This was my point.
--
FAQ #27: How to get more Pageviews!
And even if you do not believe in the bible or the torah or Q'ran or what have you, there is archaeological evidence to support that Jews were there in the past and unfairly stripped of their land by foreign imperialist (although ancient) entities. No one can dispute the Roman conquest of Judea and still be relevant to conversation. I digress ...
In any case, a lot of land wasn't just "taken" in the 40s. Much of it was paid for at exorbitant prices when better land was cheaper in the US. The main issue is that the partition plan was not to the Arab liking so they warred and lost. It happens everywhere in the world, but for Israel it is not ok.
It still is a mute point. We do not have a time machine, either way.
Israel exists. The Palestinians exist. There must be a way to accommodate everyone. Being anti anything is not going to pave the way for that, which was the point of my article.
--
FAQ #27: How to get more Pageviews!
The author has tried to play on the terms anti-Israel/anti-Zionism to conduct meanings other than what those who regularly use it really mean. The popular usage of
"Being anti-Zionism"
is essentially equal to
"Being against occupying Palestinian territories, Sheba Frams and Golan Heights; against ethically cleansing it's modern population and their continuing suffering under occupation; against spreading lies all over the media that resistance groups are "plain terrorists" and they have no justification for attacking Israel, [and more as I pointed out in my article [link] "
Even if Zionists justify all this by "God promises" or just plain insanity, for this particular topic, I'm not concerned about who they think they are and what they believe in. I'm concerned about what they ARE doing no matter what handy, short and compact terms are used to describe it.
That being told, there are "side-effects" of giving a name to something . Due how we use and perceive language, the terms might carry an "implication" that might or might not be true. This is what framing tricks are all about: the more "polished", "good-looking" terms you use to describe something, the more well perceived it will be.
Please see my reply below
--
~Mozilla
But did that "God" or archaeological evidence command you to ethically cleanse an area of it's population, occupy it and oppress them to "return" later!!
"In any case, a lot of land wasn't just "taken" in the 40s. Much of it was paid for at exorbitant prices when better land was cheaper in the US."
Quoting the former Israeli foreign minister "I think it was Israel Zangwill, the first to say that we are — we came a nation without a land to a land without a people. Obviously, it was not true, but again, part of the tragedy was that the Palestinians, as such, did not have — the Palestinian peasants did not have the full control of their own destiny. Part of that land was bought by the Zionist organizations from Affendis, landowners living in Turkey or anywhere else throughout the Ottoman Empire, and these people were inevitably evicted by these kind of transactions [deporting them out]. But as a whole, I think that not more than 6 or 7% of the entire surface of the state of Israel was bought" From [link]
"We do not have a time machine, either way."
Doesn't mean we can't know what happened (and this very recent history after all.)
--
~Mozilla
Reality gives words their meanings but words doesn't define what reality "really" is. We use a nomenclature as a handy, short and compact means to convey our knowledge about a certain topic. But the terms inside this nomenclature is of and by themselves are meaning-less. For example, an "apple" (as a word) is only useful because we all agree on what in reality an apple is (that reddish delicious rounded fruit.) But the word "apple" itself is nothing without that agreement. It could have well be anything else as long as we agree on what it is. So in essence words are mere keys to longer descriptions in our minds.
You have tried to play on the terms anti-Israel/anti-Zionism to conduct meanings other than what those who regularly use it really mean. The popular usage of
"Being anti-Zionism"
is essentially equal to
"Being against occupying Palestinian territories, Sheba Frams and Golan Heights; against ethically cleansing it's modern population and their continuing suffering under occupation; against spreading lies all over the media that resistance groups are "plain terrorists" and they have no justification for attacking Israel, [and more as I pointed out in my article [link] "
Even if Zionists justify all this by "God promises" or just plain insanity, for this particular topic, I'm not concerned about who they think they are and what they believe in. I'm concerned about what they ARE doing no matter what handy, short and compact terms are used to describe it.
That being told, there are "side-effects" of giving a name to something . Due how we use and perceive language, the terms might carry an "implication" that might or might not be true. This is what framing tricks are all about: the more "polished", "good-looking" terms you use to describe something, the more well perceived it will be.
"I'm pretty sure it means that they do not believe there should be a modern state of Israel.
The issue with that is, it exists. Where are all of these people who live there under a functioning government going to go?"
In a perfect world, yes there should NOT have been a state of Israel built on occupaying and oppressing Palestines and people in other territories. There should have been a Jewish-Christian-Muslim co-existing population living side-by-side not a country founded on racial basis. But the reality on the ground today is that there EXISTS a state of Israel but the point is, where (geographically) does it start and does it end? That's all what "peacful" political negeotiations are all about and the whole point of the "two states" formula. Is the current state of Israel willing to retreat to 1945 borders and stop the occupation of the rest of Palestine, Lebanese Sheba farms and Syrian golan heights? Obviously not because if so, they could have done so long ago and stopped expanding all illegal sattlements and the apartheid speration wall being built to this very same moment. Israel always play tha game that what has been done can not be undone. What has been occupied can not be released (or as with Gaza, politically released but practically under a military seige with daily attacks.) It's not all "black" as you are trying to paint the picture (total destruction of the state of Israel and deporting the current population some of whom were born on this land)
"Now, the Israeli government was fully aware that this was the international consensus, but they were opposed (a) to a full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, of course, and (2) they were opposed to creating a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories.
Come 1981, as pressure builds on Israel to reach a diplomatic settlement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, they decide to invade Lebanon in order to crush the P.L.O., because the P.L.O. was on record supporting a two-state settlement. As Dr. Ben-Ami's colleague, Avner Yaniv, put it in a very excellent book, Dilemmas of Security, he said, “The main problem for Israel was,” and now I'm quoting him, "the P.L.O.'s peace offensive. They wanted a two-state settlement. Israel did not.” And so Israel decides to crush the P.L.O. in Lebanon. It successfully did so. The P.L.O. goes into exile.
Come 1987, Palestinians in the Occupied Territories despair of any possibility of international intervention, and they enter into a revolt — the Palestinian Intifada — basically nonviolent civilian revolt by the Palestinians. And the revolt proves to be remarkably successful for maybe the first couple of years. Come 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait. The P.L.O. supports, ambiguously, but I think we fairly can say, and I agree with Dr. Ben-Ami on this, they lend support to Iraq. The war ends, Iraq defeated, and all the Gulf states cut off all of their money to the P.L.O. The P.L.O. Is going down the tubes.
Along comes Israel with a clever idea. Mr. Rabin says, 'Let's throw Arafat a life preserver, but on condition.' And Dr. Ben-Ami puts it excellently, that “the P.L.O. will be Israel's subcontractor and collaborator in the Occupied Territories,” and I'm quoting Dr. Ben-Ami, "in order to suppress the genuinely democratic tendencies of the Palestinians." Now, it's true, exactly as Dr. Ben-Ami said, that Israel had two options after the Iraq war. It could have negotiated with the real representatives of the Palestinians who wanted that full two-state settlement in accordance with the international consensus, or it can negotiate with Arafat in the hope that he's so desperate that he's going to serve as their collaborator and subcontractor in order to deny the Palestinians what they're entitled to under international law. The Israelis chose Arafat, not only because Arafat himself was desperate. They chose him because they thought he would deny them what they were entitled to. He would suppress all resistance to the occupation. And then, finally, the day of reckoning came with the Camp David talks. It turned out Arafat was not willing to make those concessions to deny Palestinians what their rights were under international law, and I think that's where the impasse occurred at Camp David and at Taba. " Dr Finkelstein at [link]
Now to conclude, and to re-cap on my second comment, even if YOU believe that the Jewish faith supports occupying palestine and oppressing it's population, it's YOUR believe no matter what justification you use. And for this very same reason, Star David symbols are used in anti-Zionist/anti-Israeli-occuaption deviations because you don't distance these actions from these Jewish (now Zionist) symbols, Zionists use them exclusively in their propaganda (and most notably on the Israeli flag.) Your picture of a terrorist (ie bombing civilains not military solidiers) wearing like an Arab or reciting verses from the Quran would be racist/indiscrimenting because it obviously suggets that Islam justifies terrorism against innocent civilains which is not true for the majority of Muslims. On the other hand, you seem to justify the Israeli occupation because of "God promoises" and then blame people for using the symobls you use, when countering this propaganda!!
At the end it is occupation regardless of whether it is by Zionists, Zanzibarians or three-fingered Martians; and any associated symbols.
--
~Mozilla
Previous Page12345... Next Page