That speaks more to your own ignorance than anything else. Secular, Conservative*, and Chanbadnik Jews (the three groups I was exposed to growing up) all universally knew what Zionism was and found it important.
*Not, like, politically - Conservative is a branch of Judaism
Ignorance shared by some decent number of Americans I suspect, just a reality based on limited circles people travel in and what gets discussed how in those limited circles.
Pretty much everyone Jewish in America from the ‘50s on understood Zionism as a Jewish homeland and most felt it to be part of their identity. The word used in casual conversation talking about issues of the day though, probably not so much.
Among secular liberal Jews Zionism was commonly tied together with the Labor movement and I know of many who as kids went to Camp Tavor over summer - part of the Habonim Dror movement - a Zionist progressive Labor movement with socialism as one of its pillars. Much more cultural than religious identity. Zionism was a pillar of cultural Jewish identity but I don’t suspect many of those campers went to public school declaring Zionist as their identity to their Christian classmates, even in conversations about Israel.
That said I do suspect that many of them have as adults reacted like me, and when Zionism was used as a slur and defined by others as meaning something it is not, raised our hand and identified as a Zionist, which is completely compatible with, was learned along side with, working hard for social justice, peace, equality, and coexistence.
Maybe someday we can get back to where that is more the case than it is with Israel today? I’d like to reclaim the word.
Oh, for sure, the vast majority of them, if polls taken at protests are any indication. Not only are people who are uninvolved ignorant, the majority of people using the phrase “From the River to the Sea” didn’t even know which river and which sea were being discussed.
Yes, exactly right. And this also correlates with the reality of what Zionism is, so great job, secular liberal American Jews!
Certainly not - I doubt I ever used the word in a discussion with my American contemporaries once I moved here before Oct 7th - but that’s because it would be a little bit like a fish talking about being in water. Of course I believe in Jewish self determination, it’s not even a discussion to have.
For most Americans until relatively recently I’d expect it was really something they’d hardly hear about except, as a niche subject among people with a specific interest in Jewish culture , the history of modern Israel’s founding, or the general evolution of 19th/20th century nationalism.
But an appreciation of the history undercuts your simplistic anti-Zionist is antisemitic.
Again the early Reform stance was anti-Zionist, and in the context of my nostalgia for Progressive Labor Zionism I am recalling those of my grandfathers’ generation who were proud members of The Workmen’s Circle. There were many strongly anti-Zionism in that crowd from its roots in the Jewish Labor Bund. The idea was that the onus was for Jews to make where they are home. You could think of them as anti-Zionist cousins to the Progressive Labor Zionists. Also very strong on cultural not religious Judaism, Labor organizing, and rights for all, but against Zionism. Looking it up I am surprised to find they still exist!
I think you are conflating non-Zionist with anti-Zionist.
Jews who choose not to take part in the Zionist project are not anti-Zionist, they are non-Zionist. Even if they disagree with Zionist Jews or try to convince them to adopt other non-Zionist ideologies. Only Jews who actively oppose and seek to hinder the Zionist project are anti-Zionist.
The Workmen’s Circle has historically been non-Zionist but supportive of Israel, including forging ties with the Histadrut.
Non-Zionists may disagree with Zionists, they may take issue with what they view as an insistence by Zionists that Jewish life abroad is by its nature a temporary affair. But they don’t oppose the right of Zionist Jews to live in Israel.
Nah. The Bund strand was out and out anti-Zionist:
Over time, however, the Bund also sought recognition of Jewish national rights, though it remained unalterably opposed to Zionism. “[B]etween Zionist activity and Socialist activity,” declared Vladimir Medem, one of the Bund’s foremost ideological leaders, in 1920, “there is a fundamental and profound chasm. . . . A national home in Palestine would not end the Jewish exile. . . . All that would change would be the belief of Jewry in its future — the hope of the Jews in exile — the struggle for a better life would be snuffed out.” Indeed, the Bund articulated the principle of doikayt(“hereness”) — that is, the preservation of Jewish life and the struggle for liberation wherever Jews live — and advocated national-cultural autonomy for Jews within a multi-national state. This perspective was concisely summarized as “nationhood without statehood,” and differed sharply from the Zionist concept.
It was active opposition. True, Workmen’s Circle as an organization never officially went so far. But I gotta admit, had I been alive at the time doikayt would have likely had me in its corner. And I am very pessimistic about the future of Israel, mostly expecting its demise to be precipitated by the ultra Orthodox eventually driving the highly educated creative skilled more secular Jews out, a battle that is on hold while Bibi keeps active conflict with the outside going. Not the thread for that discussion though!
Because you’re a useless fat bastard, Cenk. Skip a fucking meal once in a while.
The Bund is dead and buried. Or perhaps cremated is a more appropriate term, unfortunately.
The Workmen’s Circle was very much not anti-Zionist; it was non-Zionist.
So? It was not antisemitic of them to actively believe that Zionism was a wrongheaded idea. FWIW now that I’ve discovered Workmen’s Circle still exists I have to appreciate their current position:
We vehemently reject the idea that if you express legitimate opposition to Israeli government policies, you are an anti-Semite. We recognize that there are occasions when opposition to Israeli policies and Zionism crosses the line into anti-Semitism. When that happens, we have and will continue to call out those statements for what they are. Broad resistance to the growth of inequality and oppression in Israel is now needed. This form of opposition is an overwhelmingly healthy development. That right-wing ideologues are branding it as anti-Semitic only serves as a means for them to avoid engaging in debate over this indefensible policy.
The Workers Circle does not support the Boycott Divest Sanction (“BDS”) movement. However, we reject the conflation of BDS’s anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
The line is not crossed at the ADL standard of “when they when they vilify and negate Zionism.” Especially since “Zionism” has taken on meaning other than the definition I have always had, to large degree imposed upon it by what Israel is doing in the name of Zionism that is inconsistent with that meaning.
Antisemites have always used “Zionist” as a slur. That is baseline and still exists. They conflate the word with “Jew” in general, and package their “antiZionism” with the usual antisemitic tropes. Israeli actions are responsible for the broader public definition shift though. Israeli government action and facilitation of settler actions are responsible for the definition shifting from meaning the right of a state with a Jewish character to exist, “self-determination”, into meaning support of ethnic cleansing and disregard of the rights and lives of others. And that definition, that they themselves bear great responsibility for, is something lots want to be “anti” …
Understood that you believe that the actions so many of us cannot see as anything other than ethnic cleansing and disregard for the value of the lives of others are “self defense” … but accept that fewer and fewer others agree with you, including fewer American Jews. When the major group left that does see it that way are American Evangelicals hoping for End Times, and those who pander to them, it may be time to take a reality check on your self assessment as the good guy.
QFT. Similarly, look at who’s on the same side in favor of the war with Iran. @Babale, are you really still with Trump and Hegseth on this dumb war?
So, I’m not particularly interested in their advice on how the Jewish people should go about ensuring our future survival.
That’s certainly debatable. At least some of the argument made against Jewish nationalist strike me as internalized anti-semitism.
Thing.Fish tangentially touched on some of this the other day in another thread:
That’s a pleasant enough spin on what is, when you get down to it, resigned acceptance of the anti-Semitic belief that the Jew is too weak and pathetic to have his own country, incapable of either the hard manual labor of agriculture or the task of defending his land.
I don’t want to make it into a compliment; I’d rather demonstrate that it is completely and laughably wrong.
This is SO on brand for Babale’s argument technique.
“I will demonstrate that I am right by reposting this four year old statement, which conclusively proves what all DSA members really think about this issue!”
As others have said, Zionism was originally a secular ideology that was actively hostile to religion. In the last few generations, however, “religious Zionism” has emerged, and your statement is now a sadly accurate summary of the views of a great many Zionists, possibly the majority.
Huh. I don’t know if you’re right or not. But it also gets complicated by that fact that the word apparently means different things even among Jewish Americans. A surprising number of American Jews who have an emotional connection to Israel and believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, would not self describe as being Zionist. Again actions taken in the name of Zionism have significant numbers of even those with those beliefs thinking that Zionism also means some pretty odious things.
71% of respondents felt an emotional connection to Israel and 88% believed Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. These figures are in the ballpark of other surveys.
The survey’s most interesting findings were about how respondents understand the meaning of term “Zionism.” There is a broad consensus that it means “the right of the Jewish people to have a Jewish state.” Most Anti-Zionists and Non-Zionists, however, defined Zionism as also meaning “Israel has a right to the West Bank and Gaza Strip”; “supporting whatever actions Israel takes”; and “believing Jews are superior to Palestinians.” Respondents who identified as Zionists tended not to identify with these additional statements. This suggests that the share of respondents who identify with Zionism depends on the understanding of the term as much or more than it does than on actual support for Jewish nationhood.
Not surprisingly, the youngest age group, 18-34 year olds, were the most likely to identify as Anti-Zionist (14%) or Non-Zionist (18%). This is the age cohort that came of age during a succession of right wing governments in Israel, and that has been most exposed to the pro-Palestinian movement which has made “anti-Zionism” its core ideological commitment.
And many American women wouldn’t describe themselves as feminists even though the portion that actually supports the law treating women as inferior to men is vanishingly low. But that’s because regressive troglodytes have successfully rebranded the word “feminist” in the public eye from the true definition of “someone who believes that women deserve equal rights” to some kind of “man hating blue haired lesbian cat lady” caricature. And that’s precisely what regressive troglodytes who pretend to be on the left have done to the term “Zionism”.
I’m not going to let either sort of regressive troglodyte stop me from identifying as both a feminist and a Zionist.
And I am certainly not saying you should change what you call yourself. But you cannot proscribe what the word means to others. In usage even many who strongly support what I consider Zionism to me to mean now believe the word means something else. That is the result of troglodytes to be sure, but the troglodytes most responsible are the ones in power in Israel and settlers empowered by them.
Again NOT necessarily antisemitic to be against the word as those in power in Israel have twisted its meaning into.
Many people on both sides of this issue are pointlessly hung up on shibboleths. AOC’s position on Israel/Palestine is practically indistinguishable from that of many folks who identify as anti-Zionist, yet Babale feels she’s kosher and they’re not just because she doesn’t use the magic word.
On the other hand, you can loudly denounce Israel for its ongoing systematic slaughter of innocent civilians in the service of ethic cleansing. All that Certain People will take from that is that you didn’t say “genocide” and therefore you’re basically Smotrich.
For example, I just got through dealing with someone who was trying to mislead people into thinking that all Israelis actually support the AfD’s win in Germany and their desire to exterminate Muslims. Antisemite masquerading as a progressive.
Gotta grant, quite the context to use the expression.