So, what even is Zionism anyway? Sometimes I feel like every single person I ask ascribes a different meaning to the world — some define it as Jewish nationalism, some as the right of self-determination for world Jewry, some as Israeli imperialism, some as the continued existence of a Jewish state.
Is it possible to be both a Zionist and an anti-racist socialist? It seems like the Zionist movement was historically divided: some like Einstein supported a democratic socialist state for both Jews and Arabs in Palestine, while some like Stern supported a totalitarian ethnonationalist state for Jews only in Greater Israel. Did the latter win out in the end?
Zionism is jewish nationalism in the form of a creation of a state in the Levant. Outside of that is where you get into the trickey shit. There were loads of different strands of Zionism, since it being a nationalism it was not confined to one ideology. People tend to mistake it as a religious thing but it was a regular nationalism like the Czechs, Germans, Russians or anyone else. As such you see religious zionists, conservative zionists, fascist zionists (Stern Gang is an example), communist zionists, labour zionists and more. Since it is just a name for jewish nationalism to establish an Israeli state, IMO it is reasonable to call anyone who is an Israeli nationalist (although not merely saying it has a right to exist) a zionist. Now there's a question, first we must compartmentalise zionism between two periods: pre-Israel and Post-Israel. Secondly we have to lay out the four positions of jews prior to the creation of Israel: - Zionism (explained already) - Integrationism: this was the idea that jews should integrate into the societies where they lived; being indistinguishable from their fellow citizens. Think about jews in Weimar Germany, France, the UK ect. Opposed to zionism as they thought it would damage their attempts to integrate into western societies, although many were also non-zionists. - Diasporism: The concept that jews should remain in the diaspora, retain their culture and character and find themself a productive role in society as different, but recognised equals. Found among the Yiddish community mostly, think how jews were treated in the USSR (they were defined ethnically as yiddish, but had the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens). Against Zionism as it rejected their yiddish cultural identity in an attempt to create a unified jewish identity, also zionists were very big on hebrew as the main language, not yiddish. - Autonomism: Jewish communities in various counties should keep themselves separate from society, not asking anything from the counties they lived in but not demanding anything either. They would live a sheltered life away from the sins of the west, turning to god in their exile for when the true end of days came and they would return to zion properly. This is literally the hasidim, which have major communities in America and the UK today. They reject zionism because of religious reasons: only god can return them to Israel/Zion and any attempt to create it is merely creating another jewish kingdom of Judea, one bound for destruction and another exile. Now you can see there that there is a lot of diversity of opinion, and with that came diversity of political thought. To get to the point, yes. However it was also perfectly possible to be one of the most racist pieces of shit in history and be a zionist (I refer you again to the Stern Gang). Another point that must be made that those who also fell into the "zionist camp" were those open to a bi-national state in Israel-Palestine in 1947: Chomsky [sorry] remembers this position being well within the realms of zionism in 1947, however a decade later it was considered "destruction of the Israeli state". Zionism after the first arab-israeli war was v different to it prior to it. So could one be anti-racist and a zionist now? I would contest it with the inherent nature of ethno-nationalism zionism has come to embody, but I will talk about that in the next part. pt.1
Landon Jackson
No, however a right-wing zionism did win (the kind that rejects a two-state solution). You see like any nationalist movement, there was a broad ideological approach; as I mentioned with the kinds up there. The first kind of zionism to die was open fascist zionism for obvious reasons that I don't need to go into. So we are left with communist, labour, liberal, conservative and religious zionism. All found different places: communist with Mapai, labour with the Kibbutzim, liberal & conservative parties and religious with the settlements and later parties (not the same as autonomist jews, who actually also exist in Israel but are often not zionists and don't support the Israeli state). What happened is a few things, first Maki got its support from the USSR: and it cut off under Khruschjov (Stalin was supportive of Israel seeing it as a chance to found a workers' state, also beria pushed it). As such the communist party in Israel died, like many others would do in the 1990s when THEIR support was cut-off. As a result of this, anti-racism in Israel died under the waves of patriotism that would come with the various arab-israeli wars, so the overton window shifted more right and right. Then when neoliberalism itself came to Israel, the Kibbutz were desocialised and as such, labour zionism (which had been dying off regardless due to the political parties being branded "unpatriotic") had its final death nail. As you can see we now only have liberal, conservative and religious zionism is left: see how the political spectrum has become constrained like America's? As such, the politics of Israel became more and more right-wing in the same process America's had, and while there was an anti-zionist leftwing, they were relegated to obscurity. So when the only group that supports a two-state solution, the liberals, is so weak it is clear to see why Israel's current occupationist mentality came from politically. However things are changing, first is the rising movement both in Israel and the diaspora of "post-zionism": aka the concept that while the creation of Israel as a jewish home was justified, it is no longer needed. A bi-national one state solution would still provide a place the jews could run to in another holocaust, Another is just general resistance to the right-wing nature of Israel: rejection of conscription and restrictive politics generally builds dissent. Third is that Israel still faces a lot of the economic problems the rest of the world does; with a bloated MIC to match. Fourth is that Palestinians, between the river and the sea, are now for the first time since the first Arab-Israeli war a majority. This has MAJOR implications for the future of Israel, how can you be a jewish state when you aren't jewish? Now there are three likely solutions to this demographic problem. A) is a two-state solution, simple enough. b) is the creation of a bi-national state, which I actually think is the most likely option considering the high Palestinian population and the settlements. C) is, and I am not exaggerating here, Israeli apartheid. Now to say the last is extreme is not right: there are Israeli former ministers that have suggested annexing the West bank, making the Palestinians "Jordanian citizens" then denying them any right to vote in Israeli elections or have the same rights & duties of citizens without military service. However, Israeli apartheid could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, western states are starting to get more and more tied of a lot of the foreign policy actions of Israel and dissent is building locally. Now the last issue Israel faces today comes from an unexpected source: the religious right, specifically the autonomists I mentioned. They were/are (the law is currently in dispute) exempted from conscription and other things, but the right-wing Israeli government is trying to conscript them regardless because they realise demographics are against them. This is creating immense tensions and could break off the alliance between religious and conservative zionists that has prevailed under bibi Netanyahu. TL;DR: peace is inevitable, but actually existing apartheid may exist before it comes.
Angel Thompson
thanks fam
Cameron Wright
This is a very good explanation and I couldn't have said it any better. To add to your point about the three solutions, it's similar to something David Ben-Gurion supposedly said (can't find source): Zionists want Israel to be 1) liberal and democratic 2) a Jewish state 3) include all of Israel (the former mandate) However, in an Arab-majority Palestine it is only possible to have any TWO of these things at once.
Two-state gives Israel 1) and 2), but gives up some territory to a Palestinian state. Binational one-state is democratic and territorially complete, but is no longer a Jewish-majority country. And finally there's the conquest solution, where Jews either ethnically cleanse Palestine to gain a majority, or rule over the Arab majority as an elite caste. This is the de-facto situation at the moment and where things are heading on their current trajectory.
Robert Taylor
Thanks, been reading up a lot on the history of zionism with the entire Corbyn stuff: wanted to make sure I was watertight. Also if anyone wants a good documentary, Louis Theroux's "Meet the Ultra Zionists" is pretty fucking good, it will make your blood boil but it is good.
Cameron Ortiz
All I know is that I got banned from r/fullcommunism for saying a 2 state solution is the only realistic goal.
Ethan Gray
It's jewish fascism. Anyone who unironically supports zionism in a pre-revolutionary capitalist state should be expelled from all left wing organizations and openly mocked until dead. Under revolutionary conditions they should be oppressed until they can be properly disposed of.
Christian Price
Two-state solution is attractive, but has a lot of problems. First, viability: Israel claims to be working for it but has been acting in bad faith since the '90s by supporting settlements. So now you have these settlers who have in some cases been there for more than a generation and many of whom will never leave except by forcible expulsion. So you have proposals for land-swapping, which could leave Palestine as a horrific swiss-cheese bantustan (pic related). In particular, even "liberal" governments have refused to give up the WB's water-rich areas, which they totally control. Palestine would also probably not be allowed any significant military (and a scattering of pockets would be totally indefensible anyway) and would be something like a glorified viceroyalty. Furthermore, the Israel and the West Bank have highly connected infrastructure and economies, and would likely need an economic union. If this union did not include labor rights for Palestinians it would mean a continuation of the current guest-worker system, and Palestine would be totally dependent economically (and therefore at the mercy of) Israel.
Second, desirability: two-state does not address the problem of Palestinian refugees from modern-day Israel. Part of the reason why Gaza is such a disaster is that it is incredibly overcrowded. 70% of its population are refugees and there is simply no room for them. Some of these families have been in Gaza for 70 years and still have to live in fucking TENTS (pic related). WB is better but not much. Two-state won't fix this or allow Palestinians to return to their ancestral homes as the UN says they have the right to. They might not even be able to visit their friends and relatives who are Israeli citizens.
Of course, one-state has serious obstacles too. The majority of Palestinians do NOT want to live in the same country as Israelis if they can avoid it, and vice versa. It would basically be a Frankenstein state composed of two groups who absolutely hate, fear, and resent each other. There would likely be extreme terrorist groups on both sides. This need not be permanent of course, but it might take many years to overcome. There's also a pretty significant number of Muslim Palestinians that want an Islamist regime/Sharia, which would obviously be unacceptable for Jews, Christians, and Druze. If you take the polls literally it's a majority that want this (you shouldn't take the polls literally).
It's a shitty situation where every fair solution will take a lot of effort and probably external pressure. I personally lean towards one-state being better and more viable at this point, but it's not an easy call.
Are you referring to the broad support for Hamas? That's more because the general Palestinian populace (both Muslim and Christian) perceive (correctly so) that the secular parties are not the way forward; Fatah is corrupt and subservient to Israeli interests and the other parties (e.g. PFLP) are powerless. I think in general Arab nationalism is still more popular in Palestine (and throughout the Arab World). Anyway, a One-State solution is really the only workable (and ethically justifiable imo) one. Unfortunately, for obvious reasons Israel will never willingly acquiesce to this.
