RD:>>I can't say I keep up with Zionist arguments since 1967. There have been a number of arguments for over a century to bolster the obviously shaky arguments for the colonization of a patch of desert that had no live connection with the European Jews of the 19th century. <<
There are connections however. Religious Jews (radicals) moved to Palestine under Ottoman rule and helped in the development of this part of the Ottoman realm. I'm not an expert on these movements, but they most likely wanted to get away from Europe, not just its anti-Semitism but its secularism and assimilation to secular culture (which is still Christian--European Christian Secularism, a sort of worldview that reaches its post-mo apotheosis with people like Christopher Hitchens). So the fact that religious Jews were in Palestine and then Israel even if they weren't for Zionist Israel made it possible for all sorts of religious Jews to come to accept Zionist Israel (with some holdout groups in places like NYC). >>How much weight those arguments were given depended heavily on the actual >>situation of European Jews, and of course there were weighty counter-arguments as well. Now if there were no connection whatever between contemporaneous Jews of a century ago and ancient Judaea, meaning that ancient Judaea never existed, or that there was no component of its inhabitants that made its way to Europe ever, then I suppose the argument for Palestine as opposed to Uganda, Argentina, or Nevada may have never gotten anywhere, though you never know.<< I take a different tack. If we want arguments based on re-asserted property rights that are supposed to go back to where the bulk of Jewry was located in the classical world, then why not modern-day Iraq? The interesting shift over 2000 years was from Mesopotamia hosting the largest number of Jews to Poland, Russia and then the US being the population centers of world Jewry by the early 20th century. That would account for 90% plus of the population. >>However, for the sake of argument, suppose that modern day Jews could be connected to the ancient Israelites, and assume also that a huge percentage of moder Jews got that way via conversion rather than a bloodline to ancient Israel. So what difference does that make? I remember from 45-50 years the argument that Israel is the homeland of the Jews, but I never heard even once any argument for racial or ethnic purity and I can't see what damned difference it would make one way or the other, any more than I ever heard any arguments based on the Bible or the notion of the chosen people. Of course, people may well have harbored those ideas and I missed the memo. The point remains, the only argument I ever heard, at least one I can remember that stuck in my head, was the argument from the history of anti-semitism all over the world, and the argument from the Holocaust. As far as I know, these were the only arguments anyone cared about, but apparently I was wrong.<< That is the beauty of a discussion list over a personal blog or homepage. We are not circumscribed by the memos you missed over the years. You do have a point--that the strongest --most often made-- argument was some sort of emotional response to the Holocaust (German Nazis slaughtered the Jews, so the survivors should return to Palestine, and if God won't see to it, by goddamnitalltohell, the US and the UN will). The Zionists often harness contradictory arguments depending on which audience of rulers they wish to manipulate. We have seen all sorts of arguments: 1. Holocaust, never again. 2. Palestine the desert, the Jews made the desert bloom. 3. The Grand Mufti was a Nazi and perpetrator of the genocide against Jews. 4. Jews are the original inhabitants of Palestine, before it was Palestine. 5. Modern day Palestinians are the descendants of Muslims who conquered the place. 6. Genetic evidence shows that Jews never intermarried with N. Africans, Europeans or other ME people. 7. The Arabs are responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. RD>>would at least grant a more convincing perspective than the simple-minded propaganda of Stalinists and third world nationalists, which turns out to be a less effective ideological tool in combatting Israel's actions than they fancy.<< I'm not sure who the Stalinists are. You seem to use the term the way Zionists use the term 'anti-Semite'. Palestine resists, some of us will not forget al-Nakba, whether you miss the memo or not. CJ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
