You're viewing a single thread.
We need to stop calling them "zionists" and start calling them "violent land grabbing fascists with no qualms about genocide".
Replace "Zion" with "the third Reich" and you can't tell if a quote is from a modern day Israel supporter or a fucking nazi
The idea that Jews need their own state "to be safe" feels anti-Semitic to me. It's like admitting that antisemitism exists everywhere and instead of fighting it we just move the Jewish people somewhere else so it won't be a problem.
Because it was...
The Allies didn't fight WW2 to save the Jewish people.
Only half of the Holocaust victims were because they were Jewish, WW2 was about Germany invading everyone.
So after the war, the reason for creating Israel wasn't some kind of reparation, it was because even the Allies were incredibly bigoted and still didn't want Jewish populations in their countries. So England picked some occupied land they controlled in the Middle East, kicked out the inhabitants and "gave" it to a religion. Which has literally never resulted in peace in all of human history.
They 100% knew this would create more problems. But it ensured those problems would happen far away from Europe.
If you want to understand why Europe didn't like Jewish populations, it's because for centuries Christianity didn't allow charging another Christian interest.
Rich Christians stopped loaning money since they couldn't make money from it. And Jewish citizens filled that role. Even after Christianity got rid of that rule, Jewish lenders were already established.
The hatred people had with Jewish citizens, was really just hatred of capitalism. It's just the only time they interacted with Jewish people was taking out loans and other financial stuff.
It's just most people only know the incredibly simplified fairy tale version they learned in history class decades ago.
If you want to understand why Europe didn’t like Jewish populations, it’s because for centuries Christianity didn’t allow charging another Christian interest.
The lords would borrow money from Jewish lenders to pay for wars since Christians couldn't loan with interest, and when the lenders wanted repayment the lords would declare a pogrom.
Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" goes into this in a bit of detail about 2/3 of the way through.
Wipe out your debt with this one weird trick!
That's a book I recommend to people, "Debt: The First 5,000 Years”. 👍 https://bookwyrm.social/book/106743/s/debt-tenth-anniversary-edition
The lords would borrow money from Jewish lenders to pay for wars since Christians wouldn’t loan without interest,
Literally the opposite....
The taking of interest was forbidden to clerics from AD 314. It was strictly forbidden for laymen in 1179. The beginning of the end as far as the total ban on interest was concerned came in the sixteenth century.
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-1030,00.html
That's what I said, the Christians wouldn't loan because they couldn't charge interest.
Christians wouldn’t loan without interest,
You used a double negative dawg...
What you said was:
Christians would loan with interest
That might not be what you meant to type, but that's what was typed.
Or you could have said:
since Christians wouldn’t loan because they couldn't loan without interest,
My bad. Thanks for the correction.
No worries
While that statement could be interpreted either way, I thought the context made it pretty clear what they meant
Actually the creation of israel began much earlier that after WW2. England announced it's Support for a jewish state in 1917, with the Balfour Declaration (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration). I think it was to gain the support of their jewish population in the war.
Later in they were not so eager to create a jewish state anymore, because tensions in the region were already high. But they lost their colonial mandate for palestine in 1948 and the US began to support the idea of a jewish state a little before this.
The Zionist movement is older than world war 2. It has always been a product of European colonialism as well as racism.
I can't speak to the rights of subjects under the Ottoman empire, and indeed the residents in the area were shipped off to trenches in WW1, but Jews and Muslims and Christians all lived in the area before the Zion movement.
but Jews and Muslims and Christians all lived in the area before the Zion movement.
Yes...
Before England made a religious ethnostate, people of all religions coexisted in the land that is now called Israel.
Separating people based on race/religion/sexuality/whatever just makes violence between the groups more likely.
It would be like an American Senator trying to prevent school busing in the 1960s...
Integration is how we solve bigotry, not "separate but equal".
"The idea that the jewish people deserve self determination after suffering from millenia of discrimiation and going through the most industrious genocide in history feels anti-semitic to me."
yeah, an absolutely wild take. You're not helping Palestinians by denying the jewish people's right for self-determination.
By that logic we should give Manhattan back to the Lenape, since they also suffered a genocide a hundreds of years of discrimination.
yes, you're getting it! America is indigenous Land. Europeans stole it.
Reality is a bit more complex obviously, but yes, indigenous people have the same right to self determination as the jewsh do.
So if I'm a Native American and convert to Judaism, do I get two houses? And what about hall of famer Rod Carew? (He converted.)
Also, wouldn't it be better if people could live wherever they want and still get self-determination?
excuse me, what are you referring to?
You said the Jewish people need self-determination, just like Native Americans, and I agree.
But since you can convert to Judaism, does that mean anyone who converts gets to have a spot in Israel? And if a Native American converts to Judaism, do they get a house in Manhattan and Israel?
I have no idea what you're trying to get at. I am talking about the jewish as a people, not as a religion. So you don't just 'convert'. Jewish is an identity that goes beyond religion.
How many generations of observing Jewish religious practices does it take before one can claim that identity? Do the children of a Jewish person and a non-Jew only get to have a spare bedroom? What about someone with Jewish grandparents? Is a convert who follows religious doctrine strictly less worthy of a free house than my Jewish friend in high school who loved bacon cheeseburgers?
What I'm getting at is this sort of thing is exactly the problem: Thinking of Jewish people as "other" and "separate" is a precondition to discrimination. Acknowledging that they live everywhere and are part of the religious tapestry of a multi-ethnic nation is better and safer.
tl;dr - Adam Sandler's Hannukah Song has a powerful antisemitic message.
Thinking of Jewish people as "other" and "separate" is a precondition to discrimination.
Jewish identity has been formed because of the discimitation and segregation they have been subjected to. Their aspirations to have their own safe environment is a reaction to that. Antisemitism predates Zionism.
Also, wouldn't it be better if people could live wherever they want and still get self-determination?
Well, obviously. And neither Europeans nor Arabs granted this to the jewish. Which made Zionism necessary.
It would be cool if Israel would stop self-determining itself to be just in carrying out a genocide and stealing land.
Israel can't do this, and it would be super neat if someone stepped in and showed them how to be respectable. Unfortunately killing civilians won't spread that message.
Also, Palestine AND Israel should be returned to Rome.
you can get your point across without suggesting that the existence of a jewish state is somehow anti-semitic.