Much of Zionism adds to that statement, “…and it should be in our ancient homeland of Israel,” right? The first statement isn’t a statement of why a specific patch of land should belong to a specific group, but the second is; and it’s the second part that I find unpersuasive.
Stating, “So this is where we are now, and making us leave would be terrible” gets more into the sort of personal experience territory that I do find persuasive.
This is how i feel. Despite having read “next year in Jerusalem” all my life, my connection is much stronger to where i live, and the nation i was born into.
There is a long and complex history to this question.
Originally, when Jewish emancipation first came up as a realistic topic, there were two major schools of thought, exemplified by Bundist and Zionist groups (at this early stage almost all examples of both ideologies were labor movements).
Bundism was the idea that Jewish emancipation and some degree of Jewish self determination could be achieved whereever the Jewish people happened to live.
Zionism was the idea that in order to be safe and successful, the Jewish people need a homeland. Whether that homeland needs to be in Israel or not was a topic of some debate in early Zionist circles.
Take Hertzel, for example. He is an interesting case because he kinda came up with Zionism independently of the rest of the Zionist movement. He came from a relatively priviliged background and wasn’t very in touch with the preexisting proto-Zionist movement when he first had his political awakening. So he said things like, “maybe the language of the Jewish nation should be German, because Hebrew is extinct and German is a good modern language for our modern way of life” - which would have been a fine argument to make had the revival of Hebrew not already been underway when he made it - a fact he may not have been aware of until later.
So when Hertzel went to the British and they offered him to set the Jews up in East Africa, he was actually on board, and went before the other Zionists to convince them. The reason he failed was similar to his oversight on Hebrew - he didn’t take into account the fact that there was already a Jewish presence in Israel, both from the Old Yishuv and from proto-Zionists who had been trickling in whenever the authorities in the region allowed it (or were distracted).
Maybe if there was truly no preexisting Jewish presence in Israel, Zionism would have taken a different path. As noted, the overwhelming majority of Zionists were secular and socialist. But proponents of alternate locations for the Jewish homeland were never able to contend with that fact.
Too late to ETA: If you want to know more (or about Jewish history in general, especially the post-Roman-pre-Zionist stuff that doesn’tget much press), I can again recommend this channel:
It’s hard to recommend a specific place to start, but maybe the 1882 video onwards “Zionism Before Hertzel” is decent for this conversation.
At this point the Jews living in Israel very often have parents and grandparents who lived there also; and a significant number have great grandparents and much further back who lived either in the current Israel or in other Middle Eastern countries Jews have been unable to live in for 75 years.
Both groups have multigenerational claims to that land. Plenty of “living memory” on both sides.
How about the descendents of those 1800’s settlers, some of whose families have been there ever since? Should we make them all move out, in order to return the area to Mexico? Should we return the area to Mexico if the likeliest outcome of doing so is that many of them will be slaughtered and the rest made refugees?
And does anybody think that there’s the faintest chance of the United States doing that; or is there any international demand for the USA to do so?
In which case, you need to prioritize Israel’s claim; with the exception of the recent West Bank settlements. The time between 1870 and 1930 is 60 years. The time between 1948 and and 2024 is 76 years – almost an additional generation.
I don’t prioritize any nation’s claim, but I do prioritize the emotions of people who are living there and have for a generation–which in most of the land in question is Israeli citizens.
Oh yeah, I agree that now the millions of Israelis over multiple generations that were born in Israel have a right to be there just by that virtue.
Israel, with the aid of the US, is a young government in the process of defining it’s borders. The process is similar to that used by the US - purchase and conquest. This is justified by origin myths and propaganda. While fact inspired, the justification is largely nonsense. The US imposed western European culture on a large land mass to allow commercial development by ruling elites. We know the truth, but we enjoy the movies.
Only some of the Jewish diaspora were there against their will. What proportion are instead descended from willing emigrants isn’t something that can be easily untangled, but the narrative you’re pushing here that all diaspora Jews were exiles is very self-serving for Zionists, yet ahistorical.
As a counterexample, my mother received a warm and gracious welcome from her distant cousins in County Armagh when she visited there and looked them up. But then Armagh is still in Irlanda irredenta.
this isn’t a point of contention. nobody is asking for Jewish people to leave. regardless, expansions of Israeli settler activities are forbidden activities under international law.
the ideal would be a land where Jews, Muslims, Christians, everyone can co-exist. That is not possible under Israel’s laws. Israel has attempted to deny Palestine statehood by any means necessary during its existence. But if Palestine isn’t a state, then Israel has been operating a concentration camp and apartheid society entirely within its own borders. Neither is a defensible position, which is why Israelis pushing this war have to zero on in this being some sort of existential Jewish conflict. Conflating the existence of a Jewish supremacy state with the existence of the religion shackles other Jewish people who don’t believe that to this horrible conflict.
On its face, this is a ludicrous statement.
Comrade Stalin created a Jewish homeland in Siberia. It has never exactly caught on. But they do have a notable giant menorah.
To clarify- She’s not joking. Stalin created ‘the Jewish autonomous region’ and asked all Soviet Jews to move there. It’s possible that Stalin would have left the region alone so long as they stayed in their borders and paid taxes. But everybody feared it was the first step in a Final Solution to the Soviet Jews and nobody moved there.
The second step being freezing to death?
I meant in the context of these protests (and these boards, and anyone reasonable). so yes, devoid of context, it is a ludicrous statement.
Some of the protests do seem to include supporters of Hamas, from what I can tell. Certainly not a majority, but a vocal minority.
Go fuck yourself, you Nazi piece of shit.
We know the truth that you are a scum-sucking fuckwad.
Thanks for the responses. In future please strive for relevance.
Crane