this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
75 points (93.1% liked)
World News
32321 readers
1193 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's probably a mix. To my knowledge, there are three broad categories we can place Israeli citizens in regarding Netanyahu and Zionism:
To be clear for anyone else reading this: Zionism is the idea that there needs to be an ethno-state in the occupied territories with Jewish supremacy. Anyone that believes in a single state where everyone has equal rights even if it means that Palestinians become a majority is not a Zionist. If this was not the case, Zionists would not have been systematically expelling Palestinians to ensure a Jewish majority and supremacy.
Group #1 and group #2 make up the majority of Israeli citizens. Group #3 is a minority that is often branded traitorous. Just because Netanyahu killed democracy in some aspects, it does not mean that he is going against what the majority of Israeli citizens want with regards to Palestinians because they are either Zionists or indifferent. They might not want the Palestinians to be violently bombed and instead might opt for control or slow silent deaths through starvation or occupation. What they definitely do not want is for 5 million Palestinians to join them and become citizens with equal rights.
I'm a left wing zionist and I don't agree with Israel controlling the occupied territories. Zionism is the idea that the jewish people have (as every other nationality has) the right to self-determine in their homeland.
A few questions:
Does that mean that democratic countries like America and Ireland are Zionist in principle because everyone has equal rights and an equal say in the government, including Jews?
What do you mean by homeland? Are you referring to any general location on the planet or are you specifically referring to Israel which was formed by ethnically cleansing the local indigenous population into a minority?
Ireland is the self-determination of the Irish people, it doesn't make it less democratic, but it still is a cultural product of Irish people. The same question regarding the United States is more complex, as it was a mix of immigrants from differents parts of Europe in the beginning, that rebelled against England, which I think can be seen as a self-determination for them, and in some ways an act of creation of a new peoplehood. But quite different from traditional peoplehood, because it's a peoplehood founded by new immigrants which have less in common, probably making it more volatile and/or open to change?
Therefore no to the first question, as these selfdeterminations are of other peoplehoods, and they aren't cultural products of the jewish people.
By homeland I refer to the land where the jewish people was born and is attached to, so yes I'm referring to Israel. Some zionists in the beginning were willing to forgo Israel and make a "temporary" state/autonomous region in some other place, in order to create a safe heaven for jews that were escapign persecutions (as this at the time was an impelling need), and that would politically fight for them at the geopolitical level. But forgoing Israel was never really accepted by the majority of the zionist movement, because it was the only place for which the jewish people would band togheter, and actually manage to self-determine.
I think that the way that the state of Israel was born was also (and not only) due to the Arab and Palestinian unwillingness to accept the jewish population, which in the beginning didn't even want a state. Actually the zionist current of Netanyauh comes from here and it's called Revisionist Zionism, it was a minority of the zionist movement. It was founded by Jabotinsky (not an admirable individual by many metrics, but some statments are worringly moderate if compared to Netanyauh), they wanted the creation of the state to be a main focus of zionism and for the state to be on both banks of Jordan, later expansionism became less of a focus. The idea of a state later did became more central to zionism because of growing tensions with the Arab populations and the inability of jewish and palestinian leaderships to find a way to coexist.