was (are) zionism closely tied to facism and nazism?

We know for a fact that zionism was a creation of the late 1800’s - a time when nationalism and racism where far more accepted among scolars than today.

It’s also a pretty well-known fact that the zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky openly praised Italian fascism and regarded Mussolini as their ideological mentor. :confused:
according to Israel Shahak

http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/peace/sep01/msg00002.html

If your conclution is yes, an another question would be whether zionism have a significant portion of facism left in it’s core today ? :eek:

Sorry for the slight hijack, but I’ve noticed that there are several posters here who attach the numbers “88” to their screen names. If it’s not too personal, can you shed some insight into what the significance of those numebrs are? It seems strange that those particular digits would appear as often as they do.

Sigh.

I’ve noticed that the sort of people who ask “is Zionism closely tied to facism and Nazism” are the same sort of people who would ask “is being black closely tied to legal troubles and crime?” or “is being Irish closely tied with alcoholism?” :frowning:

Zev Steinhardt

H is the eighth letter of the alphabet. 88 is HH which is the abbreviation for a popular greeting among people of a certain political leaning.

as i have told earlier, it pretty undramatic. I chose a number, because “famous” names often already are taken. I then add a number so it becomes easier so get acceptance when I register.
I coose 88 bacause I’ve a fan of the 80’s (music, movies etc), and 1988 was in many ways my greatest year.
(88 is, among other numbers - like 84, 69 and 80 - figures that I often use in several occations)

I hope this satisfie your courisity

Huh. I just assumed that he was 16 years old.

In any case- Jabotinsky was never much of a leader of Israel: he ran a pretty big party, but was so outnumbered and outmanuevered by Ben Gurion that he was never more than a very small majority. If by Jabotinsky’s actions, Zionism was fascist, then by Sir Moseley’s actions, Britain was also fascist.

As for other actions- I think the thread made is not that the Zionists were fascists, but that they were opportunists. They were willing to deal with anyone in order to make their dream come true. Hell, they even were willing to deal with Hitler, offering to end the boycott of German goods in exchange for his allowing Jews to emigrate.

I’d also like to see any proof whatsoever for

That’s an extremely bald assertion, flying in the face of all historical records of how Jewish leaders reacted to Hitler’s control of Germany. If you can find me one Zionist paper or Zionist leader who celebrates it in anything other than a “now we can convince German Jews to finally leave Germany and come to Israel”, I’ll be quite surprised.

Assuming you want a serious answer, no, Zionism isn’t closely related to Fascism/Nazism. It’s nationalistic, but it’s roots are either socialist (in the case of Labour Zionism) or liberal (in the case of Revisionist Zionism). In fact, Jablotinsky, who you say, “openly praised Italian Fascism”, spent the last two years of his life trying to form a Jewish Army in WWII to fight the Axis (as he had in WWI, against the Central Powers, forming the Jewish Legion).

My first impression is that you have made a failed assumption due to the angry words of a scant few.

I think you may be confused. Can you cite this?

From The Revolt by Menachem Begin:

ther are many links between zionism and nazism

http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/atzmon.htm

The only real link between Zionism and Nazism was that neither Nazis or Zionists thought Jews should be in Germany. But lets look at some differences between Zionism and Nazism, ok?

Zionists don’t believe that one race is inherantly superior to all others, and that everyone else should be exterminated or enslaved. Nazis do.

Zionists don’t believe in conquering neighboring countries by force. Nazis do.

Zionists don’t believe that the goal of the individual is to serve the state. Nazis do.

Zionists don’t believe that the leader’s opinion is infallible and that the average person shouldn’t pick their leaders. Nazis do.

These are just a few minor differences between Zionism and Nazism. There are others too.

While hardly representative of zionism the Stern gang did offer a military alliance to Nazi Germany in 1940-1941 in which they stated “The NMO is closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in its ideology and structure” and offered to fight for German victory in exchange for German recognition of a Jewish state in Palestine. I imagine most other zionists were appalled at the proposed alliance but in the event the Germans did not respond to the offer.

Some background here

There may be many such links, but you have not provided any of them. Certainly these three quotations do nothing to support that contention.

Jabotinsky’s remarks could have been made by any number of people on the Left or the Right, classic Liberals, Conservatives, socialists, capialists, progressives, or any other group 100 years ago. The concepts of race and of blood were simply accepted by the overwhelming majority of people in European and European-colonized countries. It was a regular issue of discussion among scientists. (Check out the early chapters of Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man. Even people who disagree with Gould’s politics or later conclusions have to acknowledge that his depiction of nineteenth and early twentieth century science (especially among the ethnologists) is accurate.) It would be extraordinary to find someone writing in 1904 who did not believe that race and blood determined most people’s lives.

The Bialik quotation is so cryptic as to be meaningless. Bialik was a poet, not a politician. Was his quotation a repitition of the idea expressed in Jabotinsky’s quote, (an idea which had hardly become outdated in merely 30 years)? Or was it part of a larger text that agreed with small points that Hitler had made, the better to distance itself from the greater claims made by Hitler? This quotation tells us nothing.

Eichmann was running from the Israelis and trying to rationalize his actions against the Jews. His statement is purely self-serving nonsense in which he attempts to portray himself as being like one of the people he persecuted.

So, where are all these “many links”?

I have the same suspicions. That ‘love of the 80’s’ is B.S

I find it too much of a coincidence for you to post about Jews, Zionism, Nazism, Palestine and have 88 in your name.

wtf are you saying. zionism has nothing to do with nazi’s . Oh and it didn’t begin in the late 1800s it began in the 17th century the late 1800s was when it was brought to a wider audience.

Oh and there were some zionists that Hitler did try and debate with but there was never any serious alliances between them. It was because they wanted to lull the Jews into a false sense of security.

there ARE on the other hand many accounts of how Hitler and the arabs made military alliances with each other and about Hitler’s little-known deeds in arab countries.

John Mace - I’ve heard it explained on another board that “88” after a username meant that person was a Neo-nazi. According to that person (who had an 88 name), the 88 stood for Hitler/Himmler – “H” being the 8th letter in the alphabet.

Oh, I see. It’s just a coincidence that the only GD threads you have started are on the subject of Israel/Jews, arguing on the negative side:

are jewish fundamentalism the biggest threat in the Israel-Palestine conflict ?

The Expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948

and the current thread.

But to use your reasoning about understanding Palestinian suicide bombings, this just puts things “in context”, and doesn’t really address the issue at hand. Those more knowledgeable about this subject than I have already done a good job debunking your thesis.

Excusme? How about Jews being the Chosen People.

Ay least on one point you are wrong.
How about Jews being the Chosen People?

You posted the same thing [essentially] in this thread. If you’re going to accuse the guy of something, please do, but I don’t think hounding him is really going to do anything (of course, his answer in that thread was the same).

I’m surprised no one’s said, “skinheads like Doc Martins, Don Martin is close…”

The phrase “chosen people” has been understood by Jews for over 2,000 years (and by Christians for at least 1,900 years) to mean that the Jews are chosen by God to be an example of of righteous behavior to the other peoples of the world. It is an obligation with an understanding that fullfilling that obligation will bring blessings, not a claim that they will rule other peoples. There is no aspect of “superiority” connected with the phrase (which is taken directly from Scripture).

If one does not understand that basic fact, it is difficult to figure how one can even legitimately participate in this sort of discussion.