Anti-Zionism is about correcting historical wrongs, not encouraging anti-Semitism
JVL Introduction
Writing as an anti-Zionist, Israel academic Ran Greenstein, who has lived in South Africa for many decades now, argues that we should not allow differences on the idea of a Jewish state to be “an obstacle to mobilizing around shared practical concerns: opposition to the 1967 occupation and settlement policies, equality for Palestinian citizens, and so on.”
He is adamant that: “The question of Zionism, as vital as it is, must not become a purity test that weakens solidarity where it can be built.”
“The rule of thumb here is to build a broad front based on what we have in common, while campaigning separately to different audiences on issues that divide us.
This article was originally published by +972 Magazine on Mon 23 Dec 2019. Read the original here.
Anti-Zionism is about correcting historical wrongs, not encouraging anti-Semitism
The debate around Zionism is vital, but also must not become a purity test that weakens solidarity where it can be built.
Loading article text…
The problem with Ran’s position is that without an explicit analysis of Zionist ideology and the Zionist project of colonisation it is impossible to understand the motivation and dynamics of the Israeli occupation and ongoing robbery of Palestinian land. The call to oppose the practice of Zionist colonisation without calling it by its true name risks being a call for action without real understanding.
The historical wrongs started in 1949 not 1967.
Further footnote : The historical wrongs go back to at least 1917 and the Balfour Declaration – a piece of colonial rhetoric actually arising from a culture of anti-semitism.
Perhaps an acid test of the validity of Zionist principles is the question :
“When, where, and how should concepts of Roma culture and nationhood find expression?”
Does Mr Hayward feel the historical wrongs began in 1882 with the arrival of the Bilu Group – normally regarded as the start of Modern Zionist immigration? Or would he prefer to go further back – to the biblical conquest of Canaan, say?
As to the Roma, I know little about them. Do they or many of them regard themselves as a nation? If so, do they regard their nationality as linked to any particular place – say Rajasthan (where or near to where it is believed they originated). And have they ever made any type of claim to any such place? I can see that if the Roma suddenly announced that they had previously had a state in this area and they now wanted to re-establish it, this might not go down well. But such a situation has only a very limited analogy to the Jewish case and little relevance to the validity of Zionist principles – which I am sure Mr Seymour in any event regards as quite invalid.
Philip Horowitz : The starting point of the current dispossession in Palestine, and its ideological roots can be debated. But it clearly has nothing to do with any rational notion of nationhood.
“As to the Roma, I know little about them”
A comment that speaks volumes. As a cultural group they actually suffered the largest relative degree of ethnic cleansing during the Holocaust. But I know of no claim of rights over territory : my precise point.
The point holds – whatever the desire of the Roma, cultural exceptionalism and colonialism based on mythology and involving the suppression of others has no place in the modern world. Bluntly – such concepts have a very dodgy pedigree.
Why should I claim a notional right to some location in Europe, based on my complicated Anglo-Saxon ancestry?
In answer to Philip Horowitz – Zionist immigration as a matter of individual choice isn’t the issue.
The issue is the colonial occupation of Palestine as policy. Any ‘starting point’ is a matter of selection – but the Balfour Declaration as an act of colonial dispossession is a reasonable break point.
The colonial imperative (and consequent subjugation of the indigenous people) continues in the form of Israel.
To Richard Hayward: thanks for your replies. They give me a great deal to think about.