I understand where they’re coming from, but as I said I don’t think it’s useful. Kosovo and Rwanda are two other cases where you could see racism at work in the foundation of the (modern) states, but where reducing it to “racism” as a label is unhelpful.
A way you could look at this is through the question of whether Britain acted in a racist way when it tried to limit Zionism by placing limits on the immigration of Jews in the dying days of the Mandate.
Considering it was the explicit intention of those jews to emigrate in order to overthrow the government and subjugate the citizenry then I’d call it a brief moment of clarity.
So, you think that a racist policy can be rational when the purpose is to preserve peace, it seems. I think this is more or less what I’m getting at in the case of Zionism.
Of course there were a range of intentions, then as now, which the label of Zionism encompasses, ranging up to “emigrate and overthrow” then (stay here and genocide, now) but including “emigrate and coexist.” (a peaceful two-state solution with full rights for Israeli Arabs and for Palestinians) I certainly take issue with the former, but the idea of wanting to migrate somewhere for a better life, somewhere perhaps you feel a historical connection to and where many people like you already live, and to participate in a democratic process there, is quite acceptable to me and I think can be properly called Zionism too.
The establishment of Israel was itself an act of genocide, involving first the instigation of race wars and the surreptitious purchase of property, then developing to forcible ethnic cleansing and exile. You could take it to the logical extremity and claim any solution involving the existence of Israel condones the genocide that birthed it.
FishFace@piefed.social 8 hours ago
I understand where they’re coming from, but as I said I don’t think it’s useful. Kosovo and Rwanda are two other cases where you could see racism at work in the foundation of the (modern) states, but where reducing it to “racism” as a label is unhelpful.
A way you could look at this is through the question of whether Britain acted in a racist way when it tried to limit Zionism by placing limits on the immigration of Jews in the dying days of the Mandate.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 8 hours ago
Considering it was the explicit intention of those jews to emigrate in order to overthrow the government and subjugate the citizenry then I’d call it a brief moment of clarity.
FishFace@piefed.social 7 hours ago
So, you think that a racist policy can be rational when the purpose is to preserve peace, it seems. I think this is more or less what I’m getting at in the case of Zionism.
Of course there were a range of intentions, then as now, which the label of Zionism encompasses, ranging up to “emigrate and overthrow” then (stay here and genocide, now) but including “emigrate and coexist.” (a peaceful two-state solution with full rights for Israeli Arabs and for Palestinians) I certainly take issue with the former, but the idea of wanting to migrate somewhere for a better life, somewhere perhaps you feel a historical connection to and where many people like you already live, and to participate in a democratic process there, is quite acceptable to me and I think can be properly called Zionism too.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 6 hours ago
The establishment of Israel was itself an act of genocide, involving first the instigation of race wars and the surreptitious purchase of property, then developing to forcible ethnic cleansing and exile. You could take it to the logical extremity and claim any solution involving the existence of Israel condones the genocide that birthed it.