Anti-Semitism Rising Among Israeli Youth

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


And we'll just ignore that they'd been trying to create it before the Holocaust happened and that had the Holocaust not happened, Israel still would have been created.

theyd been trying in response to the accelerating antisemitism in eastern europe from 1880 on, which many of them expected to culminate in something much worse. Look at Herzl's reaction to the Eastern European Jews rejection of the Uganda - he expected mass murder imminently (this was right after the Kishinev pogrom), and wanted someplace, anyplace, as a refuge, fast, even though it set more than half his movemnent against him, and he died heartbroken.

Whether it still would have been created is a complex what if. It certainly would have taken longer.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


In essence, they wanted to be "normal", to be able to discriminate against the "other" just like everyone else. What a glorious, wonderful aim.

Herzl envisoned a normal liberal state - one which would exist to advance the survival of a particular people, but which would extend human rights and benefits to minorities as well. He also saw a Jewish state as saving liberalism IN Europe, where liberalism was endangered by antisemitism.

I recommend Carl Schorske on Herzl. Really quite illuminating.

Note also - the above applies to Herzl and the General Zionists. Labour Zionists did not want just a normal state, but a model of social democracy. Some Labour Zionists, like AD Gordon, saw this as the fullest expression of Jewish values = Ahad HaAm had already said that Zionism must put Jewish ethical values first (he did not mean religion - he was not at all religious)

The response by General Zionists to Labour Zionists and Cultural Zionists (like Ahad haam) who wanted to transform the people first, to make them ready for settlement, was the urgency of the task given the deteriorating situation in Europe. There was also in General Zionism a distaste for the utopian schemes of the Labour Zionists, and a greater acceptance of the people as it was. Revisionist Zionism was a right wing break off from General Zionism.

[Arrian]

LotM,

Isn't there an inherent conflict between the idea of a liberal democracy and a uniquely Jewish state? The state must, at some point, either exclude (not very liberal democratic) or cease to be Jewish.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
LotM,

Isn't there an inherent conflict between the idea of a liberal democracy and a uniquely Jewish state? The state must, at some point, either exclude (not very liberal democratic) or cease to be Jewish.

-Arrian

No more so than a French state, or an Italian state. Liberalism in the 19th century was still pronationalist. The universalism you see displayed in this thread was the property of Marxists and other radicals, not liberals.

Herzl expected the state to be secular however.

[Arrian]

Israel's demographic issues are somewhat different than France's, though.

edit: to expand... you say "no more so than..." Well, I say there is inherent conflict for France, Italy, etc, as well. It's just that they don't run smack into the problem like Israel does, b/c their specific situations are different.

-Arrian

[Seeker]

"Liberalism in the 19th century was still pronationalist"

more accurately there was no other tenable mainstream position for Classical Liberals. Not too mention that most Classical Liberals were still burdered with many non liberal ideas like racial superiority, and so couldn't quite bring themselves to express the real universalist implications of Adam Smith et al.

But isn't it time Israel moved out of the 19th century?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Israel's demographic issues are somewhat different than France's, though.

edit: to expand... you say "no more so than..." Well, I say there is inherent conflict for France, Italy, etc, as well. It's just that they don't run smack into the problem like Israel does, b/c their specific situations are different.

-Arrian

well if youve bought off on the idea that nationalism and liberalism are incompatible, then I cant convince you that Zionism was a liberal movement. It was of course, quite frankly, a nationalist movement. I still think that liberalism and nationalism are quite naturally connected, and that universalist movements have inherent dangers for liberal democracy. But thats not too fashionable these days, I guess.

I suggest you read the following: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../herzogsp.html

Also Howard Sachar is good on the history of Israel and Zionism, Walter Laquer on Zionism in particular, and again Carl Schorske on a very interesting view of Herzl and his relation to European liberalism.

[Arrian]

Nationalism isn't a big favorite of mine, no. Particularly when the concept of the nation is based on race or religion.

I very much prefer the nation that is based upon shared ideals. In that sense, I suppose I'm a flag-waving American. Go figure.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Nationalism isn't a big favorite of mine, no. Particularly when the concept of the nation is based on race or religion.

I very much prefer the nation that is based upon shared ideals. In that sense, I suppose I'm a flag-waving American. Go figure.

-Arrian

Being an American has always involved more than political ideals, however much we pretend otherwise. Its based on a shared culture. Perhaps as someone whose ancestors never had to learn English, or adjust to anglo saxon cultural norms, its easier to overlook that. For me it took a trip to Israel to realize fully how "american" I was in terms of some basic cultural things.

As for race and religion, we're back to seekers assertion that he doesnt care about how Jews define themselves. Appparently you do. Ive tried to explain some of the difficulties involved in teasing descent (NOT race - Jews - even Jews by descent - come in all colors) and religion out of the Jewish national identity. I hope you can read them with sympathy.

Again a close reading of modern Jewish history would help. Some of these questions simply did not arise when Zionism was young - the Jews of eastern europe were clearly distinctive by language and culture and identity - there was no one (AFAIK) who wanted to join the Jewish people but was prevented by definitions - the children of intermarriage (itself rare in eastern europe) generally wanted to become gentiles, and escape from Jewishness.

Even in 1949, when the law of return was passed, the issue was limited to a few intermarried folks and their children among the DP's, and was pretty much academic even among them. The Arab conflict did not make it more cogent, as few Arabs wanted to become Hebrew speaking secular "jews" - a traditional definition was adopted because of the need for INTERNAL unity among the Jewish people.

It has become a larger issue only in recent years because 1. The Soviet Aliyah, and the high incomes that have actually made Israel a desirable place to live for folks other than Jews fleeing persecution or seeking a national homeland. 2. The way the law or return has been used by people of ill will to claim that Israel is a racist state, despite the realities of Israeli society.


Now there almost certainly need to be changes to the Law of Return. Hopefully changes that will address some of the anomalies within Israeli society. However I doubt whether any feasible changes, changes that meet the needs of Israel and the Jewish people, will satisfy those on the outside who fundamentally lack sympathy for Israel, (or for definitions of nationality and religion that differ from Western ones)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Nationalism isn't a big favorite of mine, no. Particularly when the concept of the nation is based on race or religion.

I very much prefer the nation that is based upon shared ideals. In that sense, I suppose I'm a flag-waving American.

So if someone is born in Chicago, but espouses Leninism, say, that person is no longer an American?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
. Particularly when the concept of the nation is based on race or religion.

I very much prefer the nation that is based upon shared ideals. -Arrian

Shared Ideals + the word "God" = religion

[Arrian]

Perhaps as someone whose ancestors never had to learn English, or adjust to anglo saxon cultural norms, its easier to overlook that.

To be fair, my mother's background is a bunch of Sicilian immigrants. My Dad is the Englishman.

Shared Ideals + the word "God" = religion

Heh, you might have me there. Touche.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

So if someone is born in Chicago, but espouses Leninism, say, that person is no longer an American?

American "nationality" isn't tailored to a narrow ideology, but IMO consists of our basic ideas about freedom and pluralism (i.e. the Bill of Rights). So if said Leninist wanted to lock up everyone who disagreed with him, it could be legitimately said that he is unAmerican.

Being an American has always involved more than political ideals, however much we pretend otherwise. Its based on a shared culture. Perhaps as someone whose ancestors never had to learn English, or adjust to anglo saxon cultural norms, its easier to overlook that.

Is America the nation that listens to Britney Spears, watches Survivor, reads Dan Brown, and eats at McDonalds? The guy from Chicago who doesn't do that isn't American?

Being American isn't just who we are, but who we aspire to be.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



No more so than a French state, or an Italian state. Liberalism in the 19th century was still pronationalist. The universalism you see displayed in this thread was the property of Marxists and other radicals, not liberals.

And the Italian state turned to be the home of Fascism, and France had its own radical rightwing strains.

Herzl expected the state to be secular however.

Fascism is a secular ideology. Jablonski was essentially a Jewish fascist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Herzl envisoned a normal liberal state - one which would exist to advance the survival of a particular people, but which would extend human rights and benefits to minorities as well. He also saw a Jewish state as saving liberalism IN Europe, where liberalism was endangered by antisemitism.

Herzl was also nuts enough to think Israel would extend to the Euphrates, and never once dealt with the reality of what was to happen to the vast numbers of people who already called those lands home.

Note also - the above applies to Herzl and the General Zionists. Labour Zionists did not want just a normal state, but a model of social democracy. Some Labour Zionists, like AD Gordon, saw this as the fullest expression of Jewish values = Ahad HaAm had already said that Zionism must put Jewish ethical values first (he did not mean religion - he was not at all religious)

The response by General Zionists to Labour Zionists and Cultural Zionists (like Ahad haam) who wanted to transform the people first, to make them ready for settlement, was the urgency of the task given the deteriorating situation in Europe. There was also in General Zionism a distaste for the utopian schemes of the Labour Zionists, and a greater acceptance of the people as it was. Revisionist Zionism was a right wing break off from General Zionism.

HOw does any of that deal with the basic incompability of Liberal notions of individual values with the notion of collective national rights?