Anti-Zionism = antisemitism

[MillerCHF]

I thought given Zionism and Israel have been a focus on this messageboard, I would show Martin Luther King's thoughts on the issue.

"Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism"
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.

This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.

Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.
Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

 

[BlueMark]

And here I have to disagree with Mr King.

To be anti-Zionist which I freely admit to being, does not mean I am anti-Semitic. I have many Jewish friends and a intimate friend who is Jewish. Hell I even sat amongst Jews at the footy last weekend.

There are many Jews who are against the occupation and what the settlers are doing. Are they anti-semitic? Are they bad Jews as some have.

I am against John Howard and his right wing exclusionist policies. I am against the War and the cruel and inhumane way we treat the refugees. Does that make me anti Australian, despite the fact the I have served in our nations armed forces.

I am against George Bush and his neo con controllers. Does that make me anti-American? So why am I allowing my son to travel to the US next year on a school excursion.

CHF I am anti Zionist because Zionism at its very core is racist and exclusionist. For it to succeed it means an entire people have to be displaced. Over a hundred thousand Jews and Arabs have died in the name of Zionism and many more will will die. All because one group of people believe that thier rights to a land is more important than other peoples rights.

 

[MGREG]

Originally posted by BlueMark
And here I have to disagree with Mr King.


All because one group of people believe that thier rights to a land is more important than other peoples rights.

I assume here you are talking about Palestinian terrorists?

 

[ah_19]

ok, so zionists can steal a peoples land, deny them democracy, commit genocide, mess with eugenics, steal their water, banish them to ghtettos and claim to be a superior race (hitler anyone) while claiming that the palestinians are akin to animals. And should anyone oppose this, well "youre just a filty anti-semite against the poor old jews who just want a homeland and a place to live"....even if they have to kick someone else out of it. More than 50% of the worlds jews oppose zionism. Its a political movement, perhaps you could tell me how this could be?
self-hating jews right? how so very convenient for you.
A religion is not implicated by its followers.

Judaism is an Abrahamic(w) religion, those that follow it follow the righteous path. I for one find it insulting what he has said, that anyone opposing the criminal actions of the zionists opposes jews themselves. The true jews, that that follow the Torah, such as the ones in palestine who have lived there thousands of years oppose zionism, some have even fought with the palestinians in the various wars against the zionists. Those that follow the talmud and zionism, well go read the talmud. In it, if you are not a jew, you are called an animal who can be killed, stolen from or raped without commiting a crime, and in which adultary with a "gentile"(non-jew), is not adultary but "beastiality". I will oppose this any day, perhaps Miller, you can tell why you do not?

The anti semetism squeals are the last desperate attempts to flog a dead horse, criminals hiding behind a facade through which they can claim all opposition to THEM is criminal. Its like the mafia suing the police for being racist to italians. Its like a black person coming and shooting your family, and if you stop him or testifiy in court, well youre racist

pathetic

 

[BlueMark]

Sorry MGreg, but selective editing is something I expect from Dolt.

I was actually referring to the Irgun and the Stern Gang, the forbears of modern terrorist groups and the latter day settler groups including KACH. The Palestinians didn't organise a cohesive resistance until the mid 60s and weren't effective until after the 67 war.

You see MGreg in 1917 there were 85 000 Jews living in Palestine and had been living there since ancient times. They lived in peace with thier Arab neighbours (unlike the continual pogroms that ocurred in Europe)with many raising to important position in government. Then after WW1 the Zionists started to arrive and thats when the trouble started. It is the Zionists that started the trouble and continue to ferment it every chance they get. They will go as far as directly threatening thier own PM and former champion Sharon.

 

[MGREG]

Originally posted by BlueMark
Sorry MGreg, but selective editing is something I expect from Dolt.

I was actually referring to the Irgun and the Stern Gang, the forbears of modern terrorist groups and the latter day settler groups including KACH. The Palestinians didn't organise a cohesive resistance until the mid 60s and weren't effective until after the 67 war.

You see MGreg in 1917 there were 85 000 Jews living in Palestine and had been living there since ancient times. They lived in peace with thier Arab neighbours (unlike the continual pogroms that ocurred in Europe)with many raising to important position in government. Then after WW1 the Zionists started to arrive and thats when the trouble started. It is the Zionists that started the trouble and continue to ferment it every chance they get. They will go as far as directly threatening thier own PM and former champion Sharon.

SO taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you are saying Israel should disappear.

 

[BlueMark]

Given that the original UN partition called for the establishment of a Jewish state and a Palestinian state in the current area of Israel and the Occupied Territories. I believe that Israel in its 67 borders should be allowed to exist and a fully independant Palestinian state should be established in the current area of the Occupied Territories. This would mean the removal of the settlements in the Occupied Territories as they are illegal and are directly contributing to the current troubles.

Not is the above suggestion fair to both sides I believe that a fully independent Palestinian state will only benefit both Israelis and Palestinians economically and politically.

 

[MGREG]

Originally posted by BlueMark
Given that the original UN partition called for the establishment of a Jewish state and a Palestinian state in the current area of Israel and the Occupied Territories. I believe that Israel in its 67 borders should be allowed to exist and a fully independant Palestinian state should be established in the current area of the Occupied Territories. This would mean the removal of the settlements in the Occupied Territories as they are illegal and are directly contributing to the current troubles.

Not is the above suggestion fair to both sides I believe that a fully independent Palestinian state will only benefit both Israelis and Palestinians economically and politically.

But if you support the 67 borders you are supporting the gains of zionism are you not?

 

[BlueMark]

In a way yes. I have some sympathy to the right of Jews to live in a homeland. particularly after the way they have been persecuted over the centuries. What I do not support is the way the zionists created the state by the use of terrorism or the ongoing persecution of Arab Israelis within the state or the continued acts of agression against those Palestinians in the occupied territories. My ideal solution is for Jews and Palestinians to live in harmony is a state called Palestine (as they did before the advent of Zionism), but as that is not going to happen then a two state solution as proposed by the UN partition resolution is the most reasonable and viable solution.
The catch is that the hardline Zionists want to create a Jews only state over the entire area and some even want to include parts of current day Syria and Jordan as well. Even as I write the settlers are building new and expanding thier current settlements despite being ordered to stop by thier own government. It is the settler groups that are the biggest threat to a peaceful resolution to the current conflict, not Sharon, not Arafat or even Hamas but the settlers. Hell they even shoot at fellow Jews if they think they are a threat to tier ideals.

 

[MightyFighting]

Reading that speech, you'd think the Jews were simply emigrating to an unhabitted land (or terra nullius perhaps). To think like that is to treat Arabs as if they aren't even people.

 

[GuruJane]

Originally posted by MightyFighting
Reading that speech, you'd think the Jews were simply emigrating to an unhabitted land (or terra nullius perhaps). To think like that is to treat Arabs as if they aren't even people.

??????????

Israel is just a tiny notch in a SEA of Arabs.

The Palestinian refugees who went to the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria after the Arab armies failed to destroy the nascent Israeli state in 1948 ...

MightyFighting ... it was analagous to them moving from Geelong to Hamilton; some to Ballarat, some to Shepparton, the farthest to Wodonga!

The refugees ever since have been in OTHER ARAB countries, in their own culture, their own language and their own religion!

What do you mean then "treating them as though they aren't even people" ???!!!

 

[BlueMark]

Hey Jane, the UN has just decided that the original landowners of Hawthorn can have your house back. But being good at my job I have found you a new place to live out at Doveton, it is amongst your own culture, lanuage and kind.

Geez even myself as a non Arab understands that you cannot move one group of Arabs and dump them in antoher area without massive disruption to the local culture. Something to do with the tribal and clan structure of Arab society I believe.

 

[MightyFighting]

Hey! There's lots of Slavic countries! Lets go force the Poles to go live in Russia.

There are several Germanic countries, so the English people can all move to Sweden! After all, England used to be Welsh land. Didn't it?

This is fun.

 

[MightyFighting]

Originally posted by GuruJane
What do you mean then "treating them as though they aren't even people" ???!!!

If I say, "There are only Arabs on this land, therefore the land is uninhabited." I am treating the Arabs like they aren't even people.

Similarly, expecting Arabs to do things that we would never expect white people to do (like quietly pack up and leave their homes just because we've been reading a book on ancient history) is obvious racism.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by GuruJane
??????????

Israel is just a tiny notch in a SEA of Arabs.

The Palestinian refugees who went to the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria after the Arab armies failed to destroy the nascent Israeli state in 1948 ...

MightyFighting ... it was analagous to them moving from Geelong to Hamilton; some to Ballarat, some to Shepparton, the farthest to Wodonga!

If you lived in Geelong and some group came and kicked you out, you wouldn't be happy about being sent to Ballarat.

And if that group then settled part of the area, and surrounded Ballarat with walls that made movement difficult (maybe you now have to get to Bacchus Marsh via Bendigo because you're not allowed to use the highway any more), but your livelihood required you to get to somewhere just beyond the wall, you'd feel aggreived.

When the rest of the world turns a blind eye to the destruction of your HOMES, your CULTURE, your HISTORY and your entire WAY OF LIFE, you'd feel downright ****ed off - especially if the rest of the world had said the incoming group could have a particular enclave around Geelong, and your cultural group could have certain other areas, yet the incoming group occupy large tracts of the land you were told you could have.

Originally posted by GuruJane
The refugees ever since have been in OTHER ARAB countries, in their own culture, their own language and their own religion!

To continue your analogy its still not Geelong though.

The Palestinians, like the remnant Jewish population that lived in the area pre-1948 had been living there for centuries. They weren't Lebanese or Syrian, or Jordanian or Egyptians. That's like saying the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh are all the same because they are all Caucasian, they all speak a common language and they have a common religion.

Originally posted by GuruJane
What do you mean then "treating them as though they aren't even people" ???!!!

Well if destruction of their livelihoods, restricting travel, reducing communication between them and treating them as less relevant than others in the area is treating them as "people" then I guess they're treating them as people. Sounds like something another nation did about 60-70 years ago, certainly less overt and less vicious perhaps, but with a similar effect.

 

[ah_19]

i have great respect for your knowledge BlueMark, because its hard to have understanding like yours in the modern world where the media is akin to communist propaganda. But accepting the 1967 borders as a solution isnt right.

The UN said that the lands of muslims now belongs to the jews, who is the UN to dictate to the muslims what is thiers and what will be jewish???
Where did this authority come from?
Surely you cannot claim that this is right....

The land was stolen from a people, just because those people can go live 50km away doesnt make it OK. If thats OK with you jane feel free to post your address on this forum (not your ASIO one either), your residential one, thanks.

Of course the zionist state should dissapear, its called democracy, it will happen eventually, unless genocide takes place. Do you support genocide jane/mgreg??

This is what muslims cannot stand about westerners like you nae/hawk/mgreg/ASIO scum/paid moutpieces, is that your hypocrites who will never answer a straight out question because you have no just answer to give.

 

[CharlieG]

Ah - be realistic. Israel isn't going anywhere.

I fully support a Palestinian state, but you'll never get rid of Israel. Until the Palestinians accept that, they won't get any closer to peace, either.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I've been watching this debate develop in recent months. At the heart of it, there is a question of whether criticising Israeli policy is automatically antisemitic, or whether that is simply a method of silencing that criticism, regardless of whether it is legitimate.

Debunking the myth that anti-Zionism is antisemitic | Peter Beinart

The long read: All over the world, it is an alarming time to be Jewish – but conflating anti-Zionism with Jew-hatred is a tragic mistake

www.theguardian.com

The Biden administration has recently embraced the Working Definition of Antisemitism, which is an international declaration endorsed by the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Most of it is pretty straightforward and beyond dispute, identifying as antisemitic any calls for violence against Jews, dehumanising stereotypes about Jews as well as various stripes of Holocaust denial. I think most reasonable people would recognise 95 per cent of it as fairly describing antisemitism without much objection.

There is, however, one point that has been the source of disagreement. The working definition also includes this line: "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour."

That has made people uncomfortable because it could be used to short circuit criticism of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. It could be used to brand any such criticism as antisemitism. For example, if someone accuses Israel of administering an apartheid state, is that automatically antisemitic? Does that mean the BDS movement and its supporters are automatically antisemitic because of their antipathy towards certain Israeli policies?

 

[Admiral Byng]

what an epic bump. 16 years - gotta be some sort of BigFooty record.

 

[Frank Bunn]

There are plenty of Jews around the world who disagree with the right to a Jewish homeland, And plenty of Jews within Israel who disagree with government policy towards the Palestinians. Are these Jews anti-Semitic?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Jewish people deserve to be safe EVERYWHERE. They belong everywhere. Earth - the whole planet - is the Jewish homeland. It's also the homeland of the rest of humanity. Ethno-exclusive nation states are a dangerous thing in my opinion, because whoever is not of the dominating ethnicity (or religion) is at an immediate disadvantage.

There should be no such thing as a Jewish State. There should be no such thing as an Islamic State. There should be no such thing as a Catholic or Protestant Christian State. Ditto all other religious and ethnic groups.

 

[Roylion]

Jewish people deserve to be safe EVERYWHERE.

But they haven't.

Zionism emerged as the Jewish national movement in the late 19th century with the ultimate aim of returning to their ancient homeland centered upon the city of Jerusalem and where the Jews could create a nation where Jews could be the majority, rather than the minority which they were in a variety of nations in the diaspora.

Due to a particular brand of romantic nationalism emerging in Europe at this time with peoples identifying themselves as a nation based on a shared history, culture, tradition and shared ancestors, Jews once again found themselves on the outer fringes, unable to relinquish their hereditary traits even if they relinquished their traditions. Traditionally the Jews had dealt with changes to their status in European countries, usually for the worse, by accepting their destiny with resignation. Gradually some Jews who had expected to participate as citizens in these merging nations came to the realization that they needed to recreate their own group or national identity, even though they were technically without a territory for that national identity. Zionism offered a solution to the problems that Jews faced in Europe.

And as European peoples were defining themselves based on that shared history, culture, tradition and shared ancestors, Zionists believed that they should do the same.

Zionism defined the Jews as a nation and advocated a Jewish national State, preferably based on the land that saw the origins of their history, culture and traditions.

Zionism was also a reaction to modern anti-semitism’s definitions and applications of blood, race and genetics. Like other nationalities struggling to emerge for subjugation to other nationalities, likewise Zionism was a political reaction in which the Jews were also a nation struggling for their own nation-state. The only place that Jews felt they could be safe was in their ancestral homeland.

Many Jews’ enthusiastic participation in the nationalistic independence movements of many of the European peoples, such as the Serbs, Czechs, Croats, Romanians and Hungarians, was motivated by their expectation that they would achieve a level of equality in any new society that would be established. However after 1870, as these various peoples struggled for their national identity, the concept of 'national identity' changed from merely being a citizen of the nation to that of an organic bond between citizens which was typified by a shared history and culture I mentioned earlier.

Nationalist parties in these new emerging emphasized that a nation should be homogenous, with no foreign elements residing within. Once again Jewish communities and individuals found themselves on the outside. In Germany, which had become united under the leadership of Prussia, nationalistic romanticists stated that the true German spirit had been created in the Teutonic forests – and therefore a Jewish individual could not be part of this identity.

As well as nationalism, a racist ideology had taken root. This suggested that human beings were divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called races, which due to certain set physical characteristics, personality traits, intellect and morality are deemed to be either inferior or superior to other races. These ideas were combined with the concept of 'Social Darwinism' where humanity, like animals, were subject to a law of natural selection. By the late 19th century the adoption of these principles suggested that some people’s advances in scientific research as advances in social concepts, leading in turn to brand so-called “inferior races “ as having a scientific basis other than simply prejudice. This had the negative effect of hardening attitudes towards Jews, because if conversion to Christianity had previously allowed some acceptance of Jews into European society, Social Darwinism allowed anti-Semites to argue that the nature of Jews had already been determined by his race.

Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, had been affected by anti-Semitic attitudes throughout his travel to various European countries. As an assimilated secular Jew, Herzl had limited contact with Jews less assimilated than he was and this lack of contact may have helped him in coming to the realisation that the majority of Jews were assimilated and even then could not truly be part of the nations that they lived in due to rampant anti-Semitism. This was personified by the Dreyfus Affair and the rise to power of anti-Semitic demagogue Karl Leuger in Vienna. In 1895 Herzl wrote in his diary. “I recognised the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat Anti-Semitism”. Herzl felt the the only way Anti-Semitism could be dealt with was to avoid it and the only way to do that was by the establishment of a Jewish national state.”

He wrote: “We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted us. In vain are we loyal patriots, sometimes superloyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native lands in the arts and sciences, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country.”

Despite Herzl preferring Argentina as the place for a Jewish homeland, not surprisingly many Jews wanted at the very least part of Palestine as their homeland. The Zionists regarded Palestine as the birthplace of their people - indeed archaeology now suggests they were originally Canaanites - who have been in the area from at least 3,000 BC. They regard the Jews' spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped in the region. Here the Jewish people, culture and religion first attained to statehood (ancient Israel), created their cultural values (Jerusalem in Judea) and gave, at the very least, two religions, and had a heavy influence on a third - Islam.

Theodore Herzl approached Great Britain about possible Jewish settlement in that country's East African colonies, notably Uganda. That would also have resulted in the displacement of peoples. There was a far more sizeable Jewish population in Palestine than there was in East Africa, as well as some continuous Jewish settlement over two millennia. That's why the Zionist Congress eventually rejected Uganda in 1903, hoping for a return to their original homeland.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

But they haven't.

Zionism emerged as the Jewish national movement in the late 19th century with the ultimate aim of returning to their ancient homeland centered upon the city of Jerusalem and where the Jews could create a nation where Jews could be the majority, rather than the minority which they were in a variety of nations in the diaspora.

Due to a particular brand of romantic nationalism emerging in Europe at this time with peoples identifying themselves as a nation based on a shared history, culture, tradition and shared ancestors, Jews once again found themselves on the outer fringes, unable to relinquish their hereditary traits even if they relinquished their traditions. Traditionally the Jews had dealt with changes to their status in European countries, usually for the worse, by accepting their destiny with resignation. Gradually some Jews who had expected to participate as citizens in these merging nations came to the realization that they needed to recreate their own group or national identity, even though they were technically without a territory for that national identity. Zionism offered a solution to the problems that Jews faced in Europe.

And as European peoples were defining themselves based on that shared history, culture, tradition and shared ancestors, Zionists believed that they should do the same.

Zionism defined the Jews as a nation and advocated a Jewish national State, preferably based on the land that saw the origins of their history, culture and traditions.

Zionism was also a reaction to modern anti-semitism’s definitions and applications of blood, race and genetics. Like other nationalities struggling to emerge for subjugation to other nationalities, likewise Zionism was a political reaction in which the Jews were also a nation struggling for their own nation-state. The only place that Jews felt they could be safe was in their ancestral homeland.

Many Jews’ enthusiastic participation in the nationalistic independence movements of many of the European peoples, such as the Serbs, Czechs, Croats, Romanians and Hungarians, was motivated by their expectation that they would achieve a level of equality in any new society that would be established. However after 1870, as these various peoples struggled for their national identity, the concept of 'national identity' changed from merely being a citizen of the nation to that of an organic bond between citizens which was typified by a shared history and culture I mentioned earlier.

Nationalist parties in these new emerging emphasized that a nation should be homogenous, with no foreign elements residing within. Once again Jewish communities and individuals found themselves on the outside. In Germany, which had become united under the leadership of Prussia, nationalistic romanticists stated that the true German spirit had been created in the Teutonic forests – and therefore a Jewish individual could not be part of this identity.

As well as nationalism, a racist ideology had taken root. This suggested that human beings were divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called races, which due to certain set physical characteristics, personality traits, intellect and morality are deemed to be either inferior or superior to other races. These ideas were combined with the concept of 'Social Darwinism' where humanity, like animals, were subject to a law of natural selection. By the late 19th century the adoption of these principles suggested that some people’s advances in scientific research as advances in social concepts, leading in turn to brand so-called “inferior races “ as having a scientific basis other than simply prejudice. This had the negative effect of hardening attitudes towards Jews, because if conversion to Christianity had previously allowed some acceptance of Jews into European society, Social Darwinism allowed anti-Semites to argue that the nature of Jews had already been determined by his race.

Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, had been affected by anti-Semitic attitudes throughout his travel to various European countries. As an assimilated secular Jew, Herzl had limited contact with Jews less assimilated than he was and this lack of contact may have helped him in coming to the realisation that the majority of Jews were assimilated and even then could not truly be part of the nations that they lived in due to rampant anti-Semitism. This was personified by the Dreyfus Affair and the rise to power of anti-Semitic demagogue Karl Leuger in Vienna. In 1895 Herzl wrote in his diary. “I recognised the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat Anti-Semitism”. Herzl felt the the only way Anti-Semitism could be dealt with was to avoid it and the only way to do that was by the establishment of a Jewish national state.”

He wrote: “We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted us. In vain are we loyal patriots, sometimes superloyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native lands in the arts and sciences, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country.”

Despite Herzl preferring Argentina as the place for a Jewish homeland, not surprisingly many Jews wanted at the very least part of Palestine as their homeland. The Zionists regarded Palestine as the birthplace of their people - indeed archaeology now suggests they were originally Canaanites - who have been in the area from at least 3,000 BC. They regard the Jews' spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped in the region. Here the Jewish people, culture and religion first attained to statehood (ancient Israel), created their cultural values (Jerusalem in Judea) and gave, at the very least, two religions, and had a heavy influence on a third - Islam.

Theodore Herzl approached Great Britain about possible Jewish settlement in that country's East African colonies, notably Uganda. That would also have resulted in the displacement of peoples. There was a far more sizeable Jewish population in Palestine than there was in East Africa, as well as some continuous Jewish settlement over two millennia. That's why the Zionist Congress eventually rejected Uganda in 1903, hoping for a return to their original homeland.

Believe me, I sympathise with the Jewish history of persecution. Many wrongs have been inflicted upon them as both a faith and an ethnicity and I don't think any of it has been deserved. The fact that they felt they needed a homeland in which to feel safe is a crying shame and an indictment on all those who would not share space with them.

Wanting to move beyond the concept of ethno-separatist homelands to that of shared multicultural nations is still more pipe dream than reality unfortunately and I do admit that, but still... I see ethnostates as an affront to our collective humanity. Their existence means that part of humanity has given up on the rest, and will no longer see things in terms of equality.

No matter how a people arrive at that stage, it is wrong.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Many ultra orthodox jewish groups are strongly anti Zionist.

 

[Marcel Proust]

But they haven't.

Zionism emerged as the Jewish national movement in the late 19th century with the ultimate aim of returning to their ancient homeland centered upon the city of Jerusalem and where the Jews could create a nation where Jews could be the majority, rather than the minority which they were in a variety of nations in the diaspora.

Due to a particular brand of romantic nationalism emerging in Europe at this time with peoples identifying themselves as a nation based on a shared history, culture, tradition and shared ancestors, Jews once again found themselves on the outer fringes, unable to relinquish their hereditary traits even if they relinquished their traditions. Traditionally the Jews had dealt with changes to their status in European countries, usually for the worse, by accepting their destiny with resignation. Gradually some Jews who had expected to participate as citizens in these merging nations came to the realization that they needed to recreate their own group or national identity, even though they were technically without a territory for that national identity. Zionism offered a solution to the problems that Jews faced in Europe.

And as European peoples were defining themselves based on that shared history, culture, tradition and shared ancestors, Zionists believed that they should do the same.

Zionism defined the Jews as a nation and advocated a Jewish national State, preferably based on the land that saw the origins of their history, culture and traditions.

Zionism was also a reaction to modern anti-semitism’s definitions and applications of blood, race and genetics. Like other nationalities struggling to emerge for subjugation to other nationalities, likewise Zionism was a political reaction in which the Jews were also a nation struggling for their own nation-state. The only place that Jews felt they could be safe was in their ancestral homeland.

Many Jews’ enthusiastic participation in the nationalistic independence movements of many of the European peoples, such as the Serbs, Czechs, Croats, Romanians and Hungarians, was motivated by their expectation that they would achieve a level of equality in any new society that would be established. However after 1870, as these various peoples struggled for their national identity, the concept of 'national identity' changed from merely being a citizen of the nation to that of an organic bond between citizens which was typified by a shared history and culture I mentioned earlier.

Nationalist parties in these new emerging emphasized that a nation should be homogenous, with no foreign elements residing within. Once again Jewish communities and individuals found themselves on the outside. In Germany, which had become united under the leadership of Prussia, nationalistic romanticists stated that the true German spirit had been created in the Teutonic forests – and therefore a Jewish individual could not be part of this identity.

As well as nationalism, a racist ideology had taken root. This suggested that human beings were divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called races, which due to certain set physical characteristics, personality traits, intellect and morality are deemed to be either inferior or superior to other races. These ideas were combined with the concept of 'Social Darwinism' where humanity, like animals, were subject to a law of natural selection. By the late 19th century the adoption of these principles suggested that some people’s advances in scientific research as advances in social concepts, leading in turn to brand so-called “inferior races “ as having a scientific basis other than simply prejudice. This had the negative effect of hardening attitudes towards Jews, because if conversion to Christianity had previously allowed some acceptance of Jews into European society, Social Darwinism allowed anti-Semites to argue that the nature of Jews had already been determined by his race.

Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, had been affected by anti-Semitic attitudes throughout his travel to various European countries. As an assimilated secular Jew, Herzl had limited contact with Jews less assimilated than he was and this lack of contact may have helped him in coming to the realisation that the majority of Jews were assimilated and even then could not truly be part of the nations that they lived in due to rampant anti-Semitism. This was personified by the Dreyfus Affair and the rise to power of anti-Semitic demagogue Karl Leuger in Vienna. In 1895 Herzl wrote in his diary. “I recognised the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat Anti-Semitism”. Herzl felt the the only way Anti-Semitism could be dealt with was to avoid it and the only way to do that was by the establishment of a Jewish national state.”

He wrote: “We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted us. In vain are we loyal patriots, sometimes superloyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native lands in the arts and sciences, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country.”

Despite Herzl preferring Argentina as the place for a Jewish homeland, not surprisingly many Jews wanted at the very least part of Palestine as their homeland. The Zionists regarded Palestine as the birthplace of their people - indeed archaeology now suggests they were originally Canaanites - who have been in the area from at least 3,000 BC. They regard the Jews' spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped in the region. Here the Jewish people, culture and religion first attained to statehood (ancient Israel), created their cultural values (Jerusalem in Judea) and gave, at the very least, two religions, and had a heavy influence on a third - Islam.

Theodore Herzl approached Great Britain about possible Jewish settlement in that country's East African colonies, notably Uganda. That would also have resulted in the displacement of peoples. There was a far more sizeable Jewish population in Palestine than there was in East Africa, as well as some continuous Jewish settlement over two millennia. That's why the Zionist Congress eventually rejected Uganda in 1903, hoping for a return to their original homeland.

The UN reckon there are about 6 million displaced palestinians registered.

Several during the early wars too