Recently, I have become more aware of the presence of strong anti-Semitism in the world. However, I still find the ideal of a Jewish state - or any state created for the benefit of, or maintaining a special relationship with, one specific ethnic group - to be inescapably racist and therefore immoral. Particularly as an American, I can't help but find the concept of an ethnic state to be offensive to the founding principles of my country. We are taught, and believe, that it's wrong for our own government to show favoritism to any race or religion - yet that seems to be exactly what Zionism is all about. So I'm wondering if there is any redeeming argument in favor of Zionism that would allow me to reconcile it with my basic beliefs about democracy and civil rights.

Israel shouldnt have been created (anywhere bar out seizing land from Germany as reparations) but the reasons it was are understandable. Now its just a case of accepting that righting this wrong would cause more suffering than it would prevent.

But in general anything that makes a person define themselves on the basis of who their parents are is a very bad thing

quill wrote:Recently, I have become more aware of the presence of strong anti-Semitism in the world. However, I still find the ideal of a Jewish state - or any state created for the benefit of, or maintaining a special relationship with, one specific ethnic group - to be inescapably racist and therefore immoral. Particularly as an American, I can't help but find the concept of an ethnic state to be offensive to the founding principles of my country. We are taught, and believe, that it's wrong for our own government to show favoritism to any race or religion - yet that seems to be exactly what Zionism is all about. So I'm wondering if there is any redeeming argument in favor of Zionism that would allow me to reconcile it with my basic beliefs about democracy and civil rights.

I suppose the first question you should answer is why you're so offended by the idea of a Jewish state on a tiny sliver of land in the Eastern Mediterranean when the other 99% of the Middle East and North Africa are de facto Arab states, but seemingly do not arouse the same ire in you.

mrjonno wrote:Israel shouldnt have been created (anywhere bar out seizing land from Germany as reparations) but the reasons it was are understandable. Now its just a case of accepting that righting this wrong would cause more suffering than it would prevent.

But in general anything that makes a person define themselves on the basis of who their parents are is a very bad thing

I don't think Israel should be "un-created" (and anyway, it's pointless to debate the impossible) but is there a good reason it should continue to be a Jewish state, any reason that Israelis and others should continue to encourage Zionism as an ideal? That's the question.

Strontium Dog wrote:I suppose the first question you should answer is why you're so offended by the idea of a Jewish state on a tiny sliver of land in the Eastern Mediterranean when the other 99% of the Middle East and North Africa are de facto Arab states, but seemingly do not arouse the same ire in you.

Maybe you didn't read but I said in the OP that I'm offended by any nation-states, not just Israel.

However, while I don't know anyone who is an Arabian Nationalist, I do know some who are Zionists, including several here. So I'm asking the question. How do they (you?) reconcile their beliefs about democracy and civil rights with the concept of a Jewish state? Is there an argument in favor of Zionism that I've failed to consider?

Anyone can become a citizen of just about any other country in the world without changing their religion or 'race'. The exceptions really are places you wouldnt want to live . That's not to say there arent plenty of other restrictions often financial but not your religion

mrjonno wrote:Anyone can become a citizen of just about any other country in the world without changing their religion or 'race''.

Yes, but why should the laws make it be easier for members of a specific religion or race? Is there a morally defensible reason for that?

I ask because any such laws in the US would be ruled unconstitutional and widely condemned as racist, bigoted, etc., but when such laws are made in the name of Zionism, it becomes acceptable and many Americans who would condemn such laws in their own country even voice their support for it.

No its not morally acceptable, Israel is a racist state because it treats 'races' differently. It has your religion on your passport and ID papers that is racism regardless of how these 'races' get treated. Even some Israeli see that and try to get it removed from their papers.

quill wrote:Recently, I have become more aware of the presence of strong anti-Semitism in the world. However, I still find the ideal of a Jewish state - or any state created for the benefit of, or maintaining a special relationship with, one specific ethnic group - to be inescapably racist and therefore immoral. Particularly as an American, I can't help but find the concept of an ethnic state to be offensive to the founding principles of my country. We are taught, and believe, that it's wrong for our own government to show favoritism to any race or religion - yet that seems to be exactly what Zionism is all about. So I'm wondering if there is any redeeming argument in favor of Zionism that would allow me to reconcile it with my basic beliefs about democracy and civil rights.

It's possible to have a democratic state with civil rights and still favour certain groups for immigration/citizenship purposes. Most of the European states do this - it's really only the settler colonies of the US, Canada, Australia, NZ etc. which currently don't due our history of wiping out the natives and establishing wholly immigrant states, thus resulting in no ethnic diaspora.

Two, of the many, problems in the Israel/Palestine deadlock is that both the Zionists and the vast majority of Muslims in the surrounding countries don't do separation of church (or equivalent) and state, hence on the Muslim side the popularity of Sharia Law, even though they might not be so keen once they get it! There is even more pressure on most Jews and Muslims to be seen within their societies to be religious than there is in Bible Belt USA. People on both sides no doubt feel strong pressure to preserve their patches as 'Jewish land' or 'Muslim land' because they feel threatened by the other side.

Sadly, I doubt enough religious Jews or Muslims are likely to decide to be at least somewhat less religious to begin a breakdown in these attitudes. Perhaps the best chances for change on the Muslim side are in Afghanistan and Iran, where they have experienced strict Sharia Law, and have a younger generation who can see the rest of the world via the internet.

quill wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Anyone can become a citizen of just about any other country in the world without changing their religion or 'race''.

Yes, but why should the laws make it be easier for members of a specific religion or race? Is there a morally defensible reason for that?

I ask because any such laws in the US would be ruled unconstitutional and widely condemned as racist, bigoted, etc., but when such laws are made in the name of Zionism, it becomes acceptable and many Americans who would condemn such laws in their own country even voice their support for it.

The Zionist movement was founded in the late 19th century by secular Jews, largely as a response by Ashkenazi Jews to rising antisemitism in Europe, exemplified by the Dreyfus Affair in France and the Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire. If Israel is assumed to be some sort of safe haven for Jews, maybe then there is - or at least there was - a moral justification to favor Jews for citizenship.

It's possible to have a democratic state with civil rights and still favour certain groups for immigration/citizenship purposes. Most of the European states do this - it's really only the settler colonies of the US, Canada, Australia, NZ etc. which currently don't due our history of wiping out the natives and establishing wholly immigrant states, thus resulting in no ethnic diaspora

No they don't there is no ethnic test to determine if you can become a citizen in UK, some countries have easier visiting and temporary working visa rights but if doesnt matter if you are a black/white/atheist/muslim/christian Australian and you want to visit here. Pretty sure that applies to all the other countries you mentioned as well.

We generally favour people with certain skills for immigration not religions or skin colours

quill wrote:Yes, but why should the laws make it be easier for members of a specific religion or race? Is there a morally defensible reason for that?

It's morally defensible when half the world has been trying to persecute these people for thousands of years, yeah. It's a rational response to that.

Now hopefully there will come a day when it's not necessary to provide a safe haven for people from a particular ethnic grouping, just as hopefully one day we won't have to operate special reserves for mountain gorillas to save them from extinction. But until that ideal world comes into being...

mrjonno wrote:

It's possible to have a democratic state with civil rights and still favour certain groups for immigration/citizenship purposes. Most of the European states do this - it's really only the settler colonies of the US, Canada, Australia, NZ etc. which currently don't due our history of wiping out the natives and establishing wholly immigrant states, thus resulting in no ethnic diaspora

No they don't there is no ethnic test to determine if you can become a citizen in UK, some countries have easier visiting and temporary working visa rights but if doesnt matter if you are a black/white/atheist/muslim/christian Australian and you want to visit here. Pretty sure that applies to all the other countries you mentioned as well.

We generally favour people with certain skills for immigration not religions or skin colours

I never said anything about the UK. I don't really consider Britain to be European so I wasn't even thinking about them when I posted.

quill wrote:Recently, I have become more aware of the presence of strong anti-Semitism in the world. However, I still find the ideal of a Jewish state - or any state created for the benefit of, or maintaining a special relationship with, one specific ethnic group - to be inescapably racist and therefore immoral. Particularly as an American, I can't help but find the concept of an ethnic state to be offensive to the founding principles of my country. We are taught, and believe, that it's wrong for our own government to show favoritism to any race or religion - yet that seems to be exactly what Zionism is all about. So I'm wondering if there is any redeeming argument in favor of Zionism that would allow me to reconcile it with my basic beliefs about democracy and civil rights.

I'll give it a try. The biggest argument in favor of Zionism is looking at the history. It wasn't a bunch of Jews charging into Palestine with armies and tanks and saying "get out, it's ours."

Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Zionism wasn't necessarily about an independent state (eta: they'd have liked one eventually, but it wasn't on the immediate to-do list). Immigration to Palestine was accomplished through the purchase of land and movement to those lands. There were quite a few immigrants, because even then Jews were looking for a refuge from anti-semitic persecution in places like Russia.

At this point the area was governed by the Ottomans, so choosing Palestine as a location to shelter from persecution isn't quite as wacky as it seems given today's political climate. Although there was plenty of violence with the local Muslims, it was kept in check by the Ottoman government and the fact that Jews weren't operating from their usual position of total powerlessness.

Even though there started to be a significant minority of Jews in the area, there wasn't a serious thought that they could claim their own state. To the extent there was a plan to make it into the Jewish homeland, it was by buying as much land as possible and encouraging immigration.

Then WWI happened. The British were at war with the Ottomans and made conflicting promises to both the Jews and Arabs that if they helped against the Ottomans they'd get claims to the land they were living on.

When the British won, they governed the region under the British mandate which provided for an Arab state with a Zionist homeland. There were mixed reactions to that from all sides. Some zionists saw it as a good start, some arabs saw it as much too far, etc.

Immigration increased. Arabs didn't like that and violence from them intensified. Britain eventually clamped immigration restrictions and that sparked violence from Lehi against Britain, although the mainstream still supported Britain.

Fastforward a few years...

After WWII and the holocaust, a refuge for Jews seemed very justified to most people. The United Nations set up a partition plan that recognized the zionist government as legitimate government in part of palestine and the arabs in another.

The Jews said "hooray" and declared that they were a state now, the Arabs said "Fuck no" and that's when we really got into the military back-and-forth we're still dealing with today.

The Jews tended to win the wars against the Arabs who came to kick them out, leading to an expansion of their territory into areas not originally envisioned, and it's an arguable point how much of those they should keep vs give back. I'm personally of the opinion that if you fight a defensive war and end up capturing territory from the aggressor, it's an issue of pragmatism.

While that's arguable, zionism and the formation of isreal is pretty defensible. A persecuted ethnic group legally immigrated to its traditional homeland ruled by an indifferent government to escape that persecution, and after the collapse of that government and various political wranglings is recognized as it's own state.

Being anti-Isreal does not make one anti-semetic.

HughMcB wrote:Being anti-Isreal does not make one anti-semetic.

Random thought or connected to something said earlier?

The OP refers to increasing anti-semitism, but he's clearly talking about people being increasingly anti-Isreal. They are two separate things.

HughMcB wrote:The OP refers to increasing anti-semitism, but he's clearly talking about people being increasingly anti-Isreal.

Clearly.....

quixotecoyote wrote:

quill wrote:Recently, I have become more aware of the presence of strong anti-Semitism in the world. However, I still find the ideal of a Jewish state - or any state created for the benefit of, or maintaining a special relationship with, one specific ethnic group - to be inescapably racist and therefore immoral. Particularly as an American, I can't help but find the concept of an ethnic state to be offensive to the founding principles of my country. We are taught, and believe, that it's wrong for our own government to show favoritism to any race or religion - yet that seems to be exactly what Zionism is all about. So I'm wondering if there is any redeeming argument in favor of Zionism that would allow me to reconcile it with my basic beliefs about democracy and civil rights.

I'll give it a try. The biggest argument in favor of Zionism is looking at the history. It wasn't a bunch of Jews charging into Palestine with armies and tanks and saying "get out, it's ours."

Except in 1949, 1956, and 1967.

quixotecoyote wrote:
Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Zionism wasn't necessarily about an independent state (eta: they'd have liked one eventually, but it wasn't on the immediate to-do list). Immigration to Palestine was accomplished through the purchase of land and movement to those lands. There were quite a few immigrants, because even then Jews were looking for a refuge from anti-semitic persecution in places like Russia.

At this point the area was governed by the Ottomans, so choosing Palestine as a location to shelter from persecution isn't quite as wacky as it seems given today's political climate. Although there was plenty of violence with the local Muslims, it was kept in check by the Ottoman government and the fact that Jews weren't operating from their usual position of total powerlessness.

Even though there started to be a significant minority of Jews in the area, there wasn't a serious thought that they could claim their own state. To the extent there was a plan to make it into the Jewish homeland, it was by buying as much land as possible and encouraging immigration.

It was serious enough that both sides had formed paramilitary militias for self defense by the early 1900's, such was the level of conflict between the two sides.

quixotecoyote wrote:[
Then WWI happened. The British were at war with the Ottomans and made conflicting promises to both the Jews and Arabs that if they helped against the Ottomans they'd get claims to the land they were living on.

Zionists saw the Balfour Declaration as carte Blanche to take Palestine as a future Israel. Arab opposition was already massive by the 1920's.

quixotecoyote wrote:[
When the British won, they governed the region under the British mandate which provided for an Arab state with a Zionist homeland. There were mixed reactions to that from all sides. Some zionists saw it as a good start, some arabs saw it as much too far, etc.

Immigration increased. Arabs didn't like that and violence from them intensified. Britain eventually clamped immigration restrictions and that sparked violence from Lehi against Britain, although the mainstream still supported Britain.

Zionists fought a war against British military forces, which included acts of terrorism against civilians.

quixotecoyote wrote:[
Fastforward a few years...

After WWII and the holocaust, a refuge for Jews seemed very justified to most people. The United Nations set up a partition plan that recognized the zionist government as legitimate government in part of palestine and the arabs in another.

The Jews said "hooray" and declared that they were a state now, the Arabs said "Fuck no" and that's when we really got into the military back-and-forth we're still dealing with today.

Jews were already evicting Arabs before the independence declaration, and continued to do so with enthusiasm through 1949. They ended up with much more than the UN had set aside for them

quixotecoyote wrote:[
The Jews tended to win the wars against the Arabs who came to kick them out, leading to an expansion of their territory into areas not originally envisioned, and it's an arguable point how much of those they should keep vs give back. I'm personally of the opinion that if you fight a defensive war and end up capturing territory from the aggressor, it's an issue of pragmatism.

Some on the far right did indeed envision taking this territory, and today readily admit it. In the view of the UN, and just about the entire rest of the world, there is no argument- the Israeli occupation is illegal and wrong. It is also debatable whether the '67 war was defensive or offensive.

quixotecoyote wrote:[
While that's arguable, zionism and the formation of isreal is pretty defensible. A persecuted ethnic group legally immigrated to its traditional homeland ruled by an indifferent government to escape that persecution, and after the collapse of that government and various political wranglings is recognized as it's own state.

Many groups have been horribly persecuted over the years. Go and take a look around Cambodia for a small example.

As for homelands, where is yours? DNA evidence says mine is Norway, within the time frame we are talking about. Do you think I should get a slice of some of their oil revenue?

Father O Rielly wrote:

quixotecoyote wrote:

quill wrote:Recently, I have become more aware of the presence of strong anti-Semitism in the world. However, I still find the ideal of a Jewish state - or any state created for the benefit of, or maintaining a special relationship with, one specific ethnic group - to be inescapably racist and therefore immoral. Particularly as an American, I can't help but find the concept of an ethnic state to be offensive to the founding principles of my country. We are taught, and believe, that it's wrong for our own government to show favoritism to any race or religion - yet that seems to be exactly what Zionism is all about. So I'm wondering if there is any redeeming argument in favor of Zionism that would allow me to reconcile it with my basic beliefs about democracy and civil rights.

I'll give it a try. The biggest argument in favor of Zionism is looking at the history. It wasn't a bunch of Jews charging into Palestine with armies and tanks and saying "get out, it's ours."

Except in 1949, 1956, and 1967.

1949 - The end of the 1948 war where Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq tried to destroy Israel as soon it became independent and lost territory in the process.

1956 - The Suez Crisis, where Egypt closed the Suez Canal to Isreali shipping in violation of the 1949 armistice, and Israel withdrew after passage rights were guaranteed.

1967 - Where the Arab states massed armies on the border of Israel, and Israel struck first before they could invade.

Yeah, if you're seriously going to call those events "a bunch of Jews charging into Palestine with armies and tanks and saying "get out, it's ours." " I don't think I care to discuss this further with you.