Zionism... or not?

Author: Critical-Tim

Posts

Total: 18
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
The point of this is to establish a well-rounded and informed view on the subject before choosing sides, so I have attempted to create the strongest case for each side while remaining concise.

Argument for Zionism: Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism that posits Jews are a nation and that Jews should receive national rights on the basis of this identity. Zionists believe that the location for these rights or sovereignty should be the Land of Israel, which religious Jewish tradition regarded as Jews’ ancient and ultimate homeland. Zionism is based on the following arguments:
  • Zionism is a legitimate and natural expression of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination and national liberation, as recognized by international law and human rights. Jews have a unique and special connection to the Land of Israel, which is their ancestral and historical homeland, and where they have maintained a continuous presence and culture for thousands of years. Jews have a natural and divine right to return to their land and to create a sovereign state there (Benziman & Mansour, 2012; Golan, 2011; Laqueur, 2003).
  • Zionism is a necessary and justified response to the centuries of persecution, oppression, and discrimination that Jews have faced in the diaspora, especially in Europe and the Middle East. Zionism emerged in the late 19th century as a reaction to the rise of antisemitism and nationalism in Europe, which threatened the security and the identity of the Jewish minority. Zionism also emerged as a reaction to the decline and collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which left the Jewish population in Palestine vulnerable and unprotected. Zionism sought to provide a safe haven and a homeland for the Jewish people, where they could live in dignity and freedom (Benziman & Mansour, 2012; Golan, 2011; Laqueur, 2003).
  • Zionism is supported by scientific evidence and research that confirms the genetic, cultural, and historical continuity of the Jewish people, and their link to the Land of Israel. Zionism is based on the idea that Jews are not only a religious group, but also a distinct ethnic and racial group, that originated in Palestine (ancient Canaan) and that shares a common ancestry and heritage. Zionism is also based on the idea that Jews have contributed to the development and civilization of the world, especially in the fields of science, art, and religion. Zionism is validated by various sources, such as the Bible, the archaeology, the history, and the genetics (Benziman & Mansour, 2012; Golan, 2011; Laqueur, 2003; Ostrer, 2012).
  • Zionism is a movement to restore the Jewish presence and sovereignty in Israel, the ancestral and historical homeland of the Jewish people. Zionism is fair because it fulfills the religious and national aspirations of the Jews, who have maintained a continuous and unbreakable connection to the land for thousands of years. Zionism is also fair because it offers refuge and protection to the Jews, who have faced persecution and genocide in many parts of the world. Zionism is based on justice, truth, and peace.
References:
  • Benziman, U., & Mansour, A. (2012). Haaretz e-books: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd.
  • Golan, A. (2011). Zionism and the origins of Israeli diplomacy. Cambridge University Press.
  • Laqueur, W. (2003). A history of Zionism. Schocken Books.
  • Ostrer, H. (2012). Legacy: A genetic history of the Jewish people. Oxford University Press.

Argument for anti-Zionism: Anti-Zionism is a political and ideological movement that opposes the existence and the legitimacy of the state of Israel, and the Zionist project of creating and maintaining a Jewish national state in Palestine. Anti-Zionists believe that Zionism is a form of colonialism, racism, and apartheid, that violates the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, and that threatens the peace and stability of the region and the world. Anti-Zionism is based on the following arguments:
  • Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, but a legitimate criticism of a political ideology and a state that violates the rights and dignity of the Palestinians. Anti-Zionism does not deny the existence or the history of the Jewish people, but challenges the claim that they have a superior or exclusive right to the land of Palestine. Anti-Zionism also recognizes the diversity and complexity of Jewish identity and opinion, and does not conflate them with the actions and policies of Israel (Abunimah, 2014; Chomsky, 2015; Finkelstein, 2003).
  • Zionism is a form of colonialism, racism, and apartheid, that displaces, oppresses, and discriminates against the indigenous people of Palestine. Zionism relies on the myths of a “land without a people” and a “chosen people” to justify the ethnic cleansing and the occupation of Palestine. Zionism also violates the principles of international law and human rights, and threatens the peace and stability of the region and the world (Abunimah, 2014; Chomsky, 2015; Finkelstein, 2003; Pappe, 2006).
  • Zionism is a self-defeating and unsustainable project, that undermines the security and the morality of the Jewish people. Zionism isolates and alienates Israel from the international community, and exposes it to constant violence and hostility. Zionism also corrupts and distorts the Jewish values and traditions, and makes them subservient to a nationalist and militarist agenda. Zionism also ignores the reality and the diversity of the Palestinian people, and denies them their legitimate aspirations and claims (Abunimah, 2014; Chomsky, 2015; Finkelstein, 2003; Pappe, 2006).
  • Zionism is a favoritist and immoral movement. Favoritism is the unfair preference for a group or individual over others. Zionism prefers the Jews over other nations and claims that they have a special right to Palestine. Zionism also imposes the Jewish culture, religion, and identity on the native Palestinians. Zionism is based on myths, lies, and violence . Immorality is the violation of justice and fairness in human relations. Zionism disregards the rights and dignity of the Palestinians and treats them as inferior or disposable. Zionism also contradicts the values and traditions of the Jewish people and makes them oppressors and killers of the Palestinians. Zionism is based on selfishness, greed, and hatred .
References:
  • Abunimah, A. (2014). The battle for justice in Palestine. Haymarket Books.
  • Chomsky, N. (2015). On Palestine. Penguin Books.
  • Finkelstein, N. G. (2003). Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Verso.
  • Pappe, I. (2006). The ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
Jews, Judaists, Zionists are not a separate species.

They are just a separatist group based upon religious and historical assumptions.

Probably closely related to Palestinians and other regional tribes.

Hey, the downside of intelligence is stupidity though.

Sort of a Yin and Yang thing.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you mean by the downside of intelligence is stupidity, and how do you believe it relates?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,550
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

Are you saying if you aren't intelligent, you are stupid?

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
@Critical-Tim
I generalise.

That as a species, we possess enhanced intelligence which could result in a peaceful collaborative global  society.

But.....Would you say that our intelligent endeavours have resulted in a peaceful collaborative global society?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,550
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

.Would you say that our intelligent endeavours have resulted in a peaceful collaborative global society?

Allahu Akbar !
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
I would say that intelligence has benefited our ability to problem solve, but it hasn't inhibited our emotional and primitive drives.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Agree entirely.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Amen.

8 days later

rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
those definitions are skewed in particular ways. Because Zionism actually refers to a wide variety of different manifestations and even ideologies, using it as an umbrella term becomes cumbersome. The "anti" material is also focused on a narrow part of that attitude, ignoring a lot of other stuff. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
Always the way, in a divided World.

As it will be for a long time to come.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@rosends
Do you have a better definition? It was the strongest argument I could pose for each side, including the most reliable and accurate definitions I could find.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Zionism is simply the wish for Jewish autonomy. For many, it is centered around the geographical/biblical notion of a nation of Israel in the land now called Israel. But that's a really broad thumbnail sketch. There are so many sub-genres including religious Zionism, political Zionism, messianic Zionism, Christian Zionism, theological Zionism, and others.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@rosends
I think it's true to say that many subgenres exist but considering what that means Is everyone means something different when they say the same thing. Essentially, it's refusal to cooperate with an agreed upon definition. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a most broadly accepted definition which by definition would be the correct definition, since no word has the definition except by acceptance, and no word can have multiple definitions, indicating that the most accepted definition is the only correct definition. I don't claim to know which definition is the most acceptable, but I do believe that relying on official resources is a safe way to start, rather than considering abstract sub-genre and personal definitions.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
The broadest definition, though, would not be practical and useful since in its application, it would never be agreed upon. Consider one person for whom "Zionism" means "theological Zionism" (self-rule under the structure of a religious government, fulfilling biblical religious functions) and another person believes in Political Zioniasm which embraces a secular government.

Never the twain shall meet. So even though both are pursuing an autonomy (as per the definition), its iteration would be exclusive to its variety and a conversation between each of them and a third party about "Zionism" would be very different from each other, often saying opposite things.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@rosends
I do understand your point but just because there is no universally agreed definition does not mean that the whole of people is unable to communicate practically. Let's say that 50% of people have an agreed upon definition, and there are many other definitions with fewer percentages of agreement. This does not stop people from being able to use the most agreed upon definition, it only excludes the people who refuse to use it. Your example that one person may use the correct definition, and another use their own personal definition, well, so goes the same for anyone who chooses to define anything by their own personal definition, they are excluded from community dialog.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
All true, but that means that when engaging in any conversation, it is essential that the participants define terms and come to agreement about linguistic ground rules. For the word "Zionism" people don't do that, and even worse, many are unaware of any other meaning/subgroup and assume not that their understanding is the right one, but is the only one.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@rosends
I don't think it's just the word Zionism but most words that people have their subtle distinct definitions that lead to a majority of disputes in debates. I see it happening all the time when people discuss gender, religion, morality. If you pay attention to the way that someone uses a word you can almost always discover what they meant by it, but yes, people almost never seek to understand what I call, " the communication breakdown". I believe it is the source of all logically founded disputes. Of course, emotional disputes arise from personal feelings, which are to be expected, but logical disputes are always the result of a communication breakdown.