There were a few. That’s the reason for the name of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia, which despite it’s name is only 0.6% ethnically Jewish today.
IIRC at one point the Brits were offering Uganda. I’m sure that would have worked out much better…
Good point, thank you for the clarification. In between those two events, Kristallnacht in 1938 is generally regarded as the start of the serious Nazi pogrom against the Jews. Wikipedia tells me that the first “Jewish ghetto” was established the following year, and then two years later as you say the first extermination camps.
A movement by and for Jews was entirely secular? More absurdity. How does that in any way apply to the OP?
It doesn’t matter who considered who to be European although I will stick to the definition any rational person uses. It doesn’t matter why Jews wanted to move to Israel and establish a homeland either. That has nothing to do with the assertion in the OP. I’m sure you can find plenty more excuses to ignore the subject.
You said:
The “religious right” part is, generally speaking, factually false.
When you’re in a hole, you should stop digging. Yes, many of the Jewish people involved in early Zionism were secular, even athiestic. They were Jewish people who fully bought into secular Enlightenment ideas (and later, socialism) but realized that because of rampant anti-semetism the liberal or socialist states supposedly being built in Europe were never truly going to include them. So they left.
If the powers that be in Eruope were not rational, their definition matters much more than yours.
And you’ve reached the point where there’s no way to discuss this with you outside the Pit. Good day, sir.
What does that mean? And again, what does that have to do with your argument? You are trying to use some narrow definition of colonialism to suit your argument. The effects of colonialism were broad and includes the creation of the United States. It started with England using Ireland as a colony and then ended by distribution of the lands they had retained control of including the sub-continent that includes India and the Middle Eastern countries. None of the many different individual and collective reasons behind the creation of Israel change that. And just because anybody says Israel was created for this reason or another is also largely pointless anyway. For every reason to given to support or deny Israel’s right to exist there is some counter from the other side. The Israelis are there now and aren’t going to leave voluntarily. No backstory is going to change anyone’s mind once they’ve chosen a side.
I’m not even sure what you’re disputing. You said something false and it was called out. The vast majority of the Jews who created Israel did so for reasons of survival, not faith.
I didn’t say they all did. I don’t care how many did based on faith, and it doesn’t matter because some did. I’m calling you out on your argument and you’re just off with the others in every direction you can think of to ignore the subject you raised.
Which part are you calling me out? Please quote the portions you think are incorrect, and why.
It is fairly morally straightforward and defensible to give a nation to people who already live on their land. This is nothing like giving Palestine to a population of European residents who hadn’t lived there for a thousand years, purely based on the claims of religious texts, pretending like the people who already lived there weren’t even people who mattered.
But that didn’t happen. Jews had always been there in some numbers, and pogroms and attempted genocides drove them by the thousands to settle there from Europe since the 1800s (since there was, quite literally, no safe place for Jews on Earth). And after the Holocaust, the Jews that had settled there (and the ones that had always been there) declared the country.
Where should they have gone? What should they have done? Just accepted annihilation?
What kind of sorcery did England use to create Tel Aviv years before they controlled the region?
I think it’s more that they should have done what they always did - gone back to quietly living on the fringes of society until the next pogroms. Their great crime was saying “yes” it that unprecedented moment of international guilt, when the great powers all agreed that the Jews should be made somebody else’s problem.
Right, that’s exactly the fate that anti-Zionism prescribes to the Jewish people. I say, fuck that - never again. That’s why anti-Zionism is anti-Semetism. It condemns the Jewish people to the same shitty existence we’ve had for the last 2,000 years. Or extinction.
Fuck.
That.
There’s an awful lot of misinformation about what Zionism actually is. To many critics, it means necessarily mistreating Palestinians, or necessarily encroaching on Palestinian lands, etc. And unfortunately, that’s what it seems to mean to some right wing assholes who claim to be Zionist.
My point is that not all who claim to be anti Zionist are necessarily anti Semitic. They may just be misinformed.
I agree, but anti-semites have a long history of harnessing ignorance and using it to direct hatred at Jewish people.
Agreed.
This is the appeal to consequences fallacy. It doesn’t make anything right. No matter how many consequences you throw at this, you cannot square the circle that who hadn’t lived in Palestine for a thousand years decided to go back and form a country on the backs of people who had been living there a thousand years.
Especially not by suggesting that any of this can be justified by the fact that there was like a 1-2% surviving Jewish presence in Palestine. Society shouldn’t encourage people to take land simply because somebody lives there who has the same religion and might be their 63rd cousin.