How ‘Zionist’ became a slur on the US left

Submitted ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨BrikoX@lemmy.zip⁩ to ⁨globalnews@lemmy.zip⁩

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/12/how-zionist-became-a-slur-on-the-us-left

For many Jews, Zionism signifies a connection to Israel. But a large number of student protesters see the violence in Gaza as a logical conclusion of the late 19th century ideology

Archived version: archive.ph/d7IaR

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

Veraxus@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Became? Always was… even at the end of WW2. Taking away a native populace’s land and giving it over to outsiders has always been, and always will be, controversial.

source
- WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Stealing people’s land from underneath them and giving it to another people (especially based on religion or ethnicity) is both a crime against humanity and a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (created 6 months after establishing the state of Israel), but the west just accepted Zionism because the majority of jews were white Europeans, the colonialists who dominated the league of nations didn’t consider brown people to be people, and none of them wanted to allocate any of their own land due to their own antisemitism.
  
  Zionism has always been a crime. We were just lied to and told things were “complicated” by the same colonialist oligarchs who call the Islamic extremism their own historic crimes created and amplified “complicated”.
  
  source
  - johker216@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but there’s a reason why European Jews were in such ample supply. It’s hard to negatively judge early Jewish Zionism when many of the Jews in question were liberated from genocide and given their ancestral home back. The actions of the right wing government in Israel don’t speak towards the large number of Israelis that oppose the actions of the government or their particular view of Zionism. The term Zionism has been co-opted by various groups to the point where it no longer carries meaning but instead becomes caricature for a certain type of villain.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Blamemeta@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  The Jews were there first, even before Islam was a twinkle in the pedophile Mohamed’s eye.
  
  source
  - CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The settlers that currently take land from Palestinians on the west bank, those specific people, not some group centuries ago that those people might share some part of their identity with, were not there before the specific currently living people that they are taking that land from. People living now matter more than some vague historical claims. If the area had been invaded by Islam and the land taken from Isreal within living memory, then sure, it would be just that it be returned to those it was taken from, but taking the land from people who have been there generations to give to people that have not been there for that time and had established lives elsewhere, results in people being uprooted and forced from their homes needlessly. Any history along the lines of what religion was where first is irrelevant to that fact.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - BrikoX@lemmy.zip ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Your comment in “How ‘Zionist’ became a slur on the US left” posted in !globalnews@lemmy.zip was removed.
    Reason: Rule 4.
    
    Please read the community rules.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
psvrh@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Nationalism is almost always bad, why should Israeli Nationalism be any different?

Ask yourself: if it was any other country or ethnicity, would it be “good” nationalism? Would an American or Russian Nationalist worry you? How about a Rwandan or Serbian nationalist?

Chances are the answer is “yes” (unless you’re a fascist), so why does Israeli nationalism get a free pass?

source
- alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Like religion, you have to look at the context of nationalism, it can be a liberatory force in the context of oppression; look at the Viet Minh and the IRA.
  
  source
BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Zionism has always been highly controversial. It is a political movement but it’s proponents try and paint it as a central and indelible part of Jewish identity - trying to make it seem to attack zionism is to attack Judaism. This is of course utter bullshit.

It’s a common tactic of the zionist movement to try and equate anti-zionism with being anti-semetic. But zionism is a nationalist political ideology, not an ethnic identity.

It is not anti-semetic to attack zionism, just as it is not unamerican to attack the Republican Party.

source
D61@hexbear.net ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Student protesters say that their criticisms of Zionism are rooted in the state of Israel’s displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Pro-Israel activists have responded by defending the term

Defends the term, doesn’t deny the ethnic cleansing.

The Viennese journalist Theodor Herzl launched the First Zionist Congress in 1897. His project for a new homeland for Jews with self-rule came in reaction to the rampant, violent antisemitism in Europe and was shaped by political ideas of that time. He became committed to a Jewish state in Palestine, which he called “an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism”

uhh… The launcher of the First Zionist Congress just out and out being racist against the Palestinians right there.

Today, a generation of students emphasizes what they see as the settler-colonial nature of Herzl’s vision.

No, no… it literally was Herzl’s vision.

The shift in opinions on Zionism has been particularly confusing for many Jewish Americans… a small minority describe it as “privileging Jewish rights over non-Jewish rights in Israel” (10%).

Only 10% actually are correct.

Arguably for the first time, a Palestinian perspective on Zionism is taking center stage

No, its the Israeli AND the Palestinian perspective on Zionism.

source
InappropriateEmote@hexbear.net ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s not a slur any more than calling someone a Nazi is a slur. In both cases, the fascists chose the term for themselves and use it to self-identify. Leftists likewise use the terms with all the derision they deserve. Simple as. If I call a Nazi a Nazi, it’s not a slur just because I think Nazis are evil and disgusting and are in need of redacting. So too with Zionists.

If someone is using the term to describe themselves, but they (correctly) think that settler-colonialism is wrong and that the state of Israel is a genocidal ethnostate, then they are misusing the term, according to both the vast majority of Zionists as well as the people who oppose Zionism. As always, what is antisemitic is the equating of Zionism with Judaism, it is not antisemitic or saying a “slur” to accurately use the term Zionist as an epithet. It’s disgusting but unsurprising how the Zionists keep harping on this to try to make themselves out to be the ones being persecuted.

source
ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

“The painful truth is that the project to which liberal Zionists like myself have devoted ourselves for decades – a state for Palestinians separated from a state for Jews – has failed,” Peter Beinart wrote in 2020. “It is time for liberal Zionists to abandon the goal of Jewish–Palestinian separation and embrace the goal of Jewish–Palestinian equality.”

jewishcurrents.org/yavne-a-jewish-case-for-equali…

After reading this guy’s article it would be nice to see his current views given all that’s happened since 2020. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was basing his views on the political reality in Israel at the time. It seems unfortunate that the Guardian felt the need to use an article from four years ago to assert what should be done now with the current political reality in Israel in 2024.

In his article from 2020, he seems to have come to the conclusion that a multi-ethnic/multi-racial/multi-cultural/secular nation state is how Palestinians and Jews would be safe. I would say this is true about any ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group. Societies that include and protect the rights of all the people that live there is essential for the safety of all the people who live there. This is not in any way a zionist idea.

An inclusive, multi-ethnic state for Palestinians and Jews already living there should have been the goal from the beginning as opposed to an ethno-state for Jews. And colonization by foreign Jews should not have happened. In theory, the modern day Palestine and Israel could be one inclusive state or two separate inclusive states. The reason that we need two states right now, is that Israel is currently controlled by a far-right, fascist government. The current fascist government isn’t going to accept the current nation state of Israel being dissolved into a joint Palestinian-Israeli state.

In the absence of the ability to control Israel’s existence or actions, the UN needs to give Palestine full membership now. To make that happen, the US needs to stop waiting for Israel agree to allow Palestine to exist. The US needs to recognize Palestine’s current borders and stop using its veto to block the UN resolution. Israel is not negotiating in good faith right now and they will not do so as long as the government is controlled by fascists. The alternative is to allow the continued annexation of Gaza and the West Bank. Once annexation of a country is complete it becomes much easier for fascists to corral the out-group into death camps. At which point, only military intervention could help the Palestinians.

If people in Israel are motivated by the idea for a new joint Palestinian-Israeli state then by all means, encourage them to vote out the fascists in favor of candidates that will pursue this new nation state. However, I think the Palestinians deserve a solution now, that does not depend on Israelis wanting to dissolve their current nation state. Especially when Israelis voted in the current fascist government since he wrote his article and zionists still seem fixated on the notion that they need an ethno-state to be safe. Even as Israel is making all Jews less safe by committing genocide against the Palestinians. I think Palestinians gaining full control of their territory now, would not be a detriment to the creation of a joint state later. Palestinians shouldn’t have to wait for Israelis to embrace a joint state in order to enjoy human rights.

source
Rottcodd@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Gosh - who would’ve thought that people might have a negative view of an explicitly elitist and xenophobic ideology bent on the violent appropriation of land and the wholesale slaughter of any of the “filthy animals” currently living there who might dare to oppose them?

source
ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
1: They did a genocide

The end

source
SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The headline raises eyebrows, but the article itself is ok.

Here’s a contention I have with it, however. I find it really difficult to argue for a substantial difference between “hardline zionists” and “liberal zionists” when the latter have been blocking efforts for the recognition of rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people for decades, and even now that Israel have been killing civilians left and right, they drag their feet before they finally admit: “Yes, the US should do whatever is in its hands to put a stop to this” - IF they even get to admit it. There might be “zionists” who argue that Israelis and Palestinians should both have the right to coexist in peace in the same land, but when the majority of people defending that aren’t zionists, does that opinion really qualify you to call yourself one?

source
Dkarma@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Always has been…

source
chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
always been

source
gapedanus@lemmynsfw.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
snifferip.com/2My11

source