Hmmm... since this started with my title (I just posted the video and am working on the Substack), I wanted to get clarification. You said Chomsky was a Zionist and I asked why. You said he was on a kibbutz when young (showing he's Jewish) and was against BDS. BeliTsari gave a quote from Chomsky that he was unequivocally refusing to appear in Israel because of his opposition to its occupation and denial of Palestinian human rights, and was supportive of the aims of BDS. So I'd like to know your definition of Zionist, that would fit Chomsky.
A Zionist is anybody who believes there should be a homeland for Jews. Yes, Chomsky opposes the most egregious violations of indigenous rights, as well as the settlements, but I've never heard him say Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. He knows that the "two state" solution is deader than a doorknob, but has he come out in favor of a unitary state? Does he support any sort of right to return?
Chomsky challenges Israel's "right to exist" because in his view no state has a "right to exist," but at the same time he says Israel has "the right to live in peace and security within its recognized international borders, understood to be the pre-June 1967 borders, with minor and mutual adjustments." He opposes BDS and calling Israel out as an apartheid state. Does he say anything about the discrimination against Palestinian citizens within those pre-1967 borders?
Thanks for your definition, A-R. I actually agree with you that Israel as a Jewish state, in which all Jews in the world have dual citizenship while Palestinians have none, has no right to exist. I agree that the two-state solution isn't one. I might even one-up you. I'm linking some of my old radio episodes that talk about my research into Jewish scriptures as a religious cover for racism and land grabs. Sorry, Asher.
But I also agree with Chomsky that no state has the right to exist (although I haven't heard him say that.) My 'solution' is based on small-scale sovereignty.
And I also agree with Asher that calling anyone who believes there should be a homeland for Jews a Zionist is making the word meaningless. Nearly everyone in the US and Europe would be a Zionist. If you use the word that broadly, we'd have no word left to describe the people who believe in Jewish supremacism, as Asher defines Zionism.
If curious, here are the links that include history on an alternative radical Judaism:
You may be interested in portions of this interview with Chomsky: https://chomsky.info/200309__/, in particular his attempts to walk a tightrope on right to exist, "On the matter of legitimacy and recognition, once the State of Israel was established in 1948, my feeling has been that it should have the rights of any state in the international system: no more, no less. That includes, specifically, the right to live in peace and security within its recognized international borders, understood to be the pre-June 1967 borders, with minor and mutual adjustments.... The US and Israel have demanded further that Palestinians not only recognize Israel’s rights as a state in the international system, but that they also recognize Israel’s abstract “right to exist,” a concept that has no place in international law or diplomacy, and a right claimed by no one. In effect, the US and Israel are demanding that Palestinians not only recognize Israel in the normal fashion of interstate relations, but also formally accept the legitimacy of their expulsion from their own land."
Chomsky draws a false equivalency between the US annexation of half of Mexico and the establishment of Israel in 1948. The US has in general (though with some unfortunate exceptions) accepted those descended from the Mexican population annexed in 1848 as Americans with equal rights, the 14th Amendment acknowledging those rights. There was never an attempt to systematically ethnically cleanse the southwest as there was in 1948 Israel, and Israel has never accepted the equal rights of Palestinians in either the 1948 state or the "occupied territories."
I disagree that I make the word "Zionism" meaningless by including those who insist "merely" on a "right" to make aliyah within the broad umbrella of Zionism. There are plenty of Jews who deny any such "right." I gave several examples in a previous post today. European Jews had no "right" to make aliyah in the late 19th and early 20th Century. Some Jewish immigration was accepted, even welcomed, by Palestinians until the advent to the British mandate after WW I, when the mainstream Zionist agenda of a Jewish state displacing the indigenous population became evident. At that point, the indigenous population had a right to control its own borders and block further aliyah. That right to self-determination was consistently violated by Britain. If, as you claim, nearly everyone in the US and Europe accepts such a "right," that's their misunderstanding of what nationhood, sovereignty and self-determination mean. Without border control, there is no nation-state. The distinctions among anti-Zionists, cultural Zionists and political Zionists still exist both theoretically and in the real world, though some groups are clearly larger than others. Political Zionists are further divided between Labor and Likud, which is the heir to the fascistic revisionism of Jabotinsky. Likud now dominates Jewish Israeli politics and culture, with the help of other parties even more extreme than Likud, but that doesn't mean there are no anti-Zionist Jews in the world or even within Israel itself.
That's a very interesting history. When looking up 'the creation of Israel' I came on this site: https://ifamericansknew.org/history/realstory.html with Against Our Better Judgment: How the US Was Used to Create Israel. I think you would resonate with it, if you're not already familiar.
As I said, though, I don't disagree with you. Even if the UN Resolution was legitimate, which this article shows it never was, no one has the right to give away someone else's country. I argued with my kids' HS geography teacher (at open house) for why they memorized every country & their capital in the world ... except Palestine, which didn't exist. And I argued with neighbors who taught geography at the university for the same point. So we agree.
My point is a tactical one--why alienate those in partial agreement with you for not being in full agreement? It seems like the label Zionist isn't going to change anyone's mind.
I agree that there’s no scriptural basis for Zionism, if anything, it’s heretical to “force” “gods will”.
There was a ton of criticism of Zionism in the late 1800s when it formed from different sects such as the Sephardic Orthodox Jews at the time. Jews are supposed to return to Israel when the messiah comes and no sooner.
It’s the Christian zionists who are pushing this idea that it’s scripturally based because they want to hasten the second coming of Jesus and the end of the world. They’re fucking nuts.
Btw while I might be “entitled” to dual citizenship I’ll never apply for it until there is a peaceful resolution to this seemingly intractable conflict. As Israel stands now I want nothing to do with it, when I was a teenager I boycotted birthright - I was BDS’ing before I knew what BDS was. I was nearly excommunicated from my family for my antizionist “self hating Jew” views!
Good for you. I understand now that your views are different from Chomsky's, who it seems to me is a bit confused about the nature of Israel. You are not. I hope you are not deceived by him.
You are spot on about Christian dispensationalism and the Scofield Bible.
You’re grasping for straws. Christians have numerous countries, despite “freedom of religion” in the US in particular it is clearly a Christian state. Muslims have numerous countries, and depending on the country depends on their friendliness towards non Muslims. Why not jews, the longest persecuted minority in history? Why can’t they have a state?
And FYI, I am Jewish and antizionist. I’m strongly against the state of Israel which it stands now both for religious reasons and moral reasons and political reasons (like Chomsky, I too am an anarchist). But to smear him as a Zionist is ridiculous when he strongly disagrees with Zionism as it stands today (Jewish supremacism).
I can’t help but see your comment as thinly veiled antisemitism, equating all jews as zionists regardless of what they actually believe.
A country being majority Christian or majority Muslim is not the same as granting Christians or Muslims special privileges not enjoyed by others. The US is NOT a "Christian state" where Christians are given special privileges UNDER LAW, not enjoyed by Jews. Under the US Constitution and SCOTUS decisions, Jews are protected from discrimination.
You contradict yourself. In your first paragraph you justify a Jewish state on the basis that Muslims or Christians allegedly have "numerous countries." In the second paragraph, you claim to be an anarchist. This is similar to Chomsky's contradiction. He says no state has a "right to exist," yet he asserts Israels right to exist within its pre-1967 boundaries.
Much of the confusion arises from the old pre-1948 distinction between "cultural Zionism" and "political Zionism." "Cultural Zionists" like Einstein encouraged Jews to make aliyah, but claimed not to want a Jewish state. He and many others apparently did not realize that the entire movement had been surreptitiously taken over by political Zionists in 1898. For example, Herzl advocated for subtle discrimination against Palestinian labor that would force them to emigrate to neighboring countries. Thus, Histadrut excluded non-Jews from membership until well after 1948, and there remains extensive de jure discrimination against non-Jews today. Einstein was so confused about the distinction that he surreptitiously wrote a letter to Nehru lobbying for India to vote for the 1947 partition plan, then later criticized Israel for the ethnic cleansing that was essentially "baked into the cake." Chomsky apparently suffers from the same delusion about Israel and the "right" of European Jews to "make aliyah" without restriction, replacing the indigenous population. I do not conflate Jews with Zionists. There are plenty of Jews who are not Zionists. In the past, I made financial contributions to Jewish Voice for Peace, though I broke with them over Syria. Albert Lilienthal was an anti-Zionist Jew, and Nathan Birnbaum, a "cultural Zionist" who invented the term "Zionism," was alienated by the First Zionist Congress and later became anti-Zionist. He apparently became aware that "cultural Zionists" were being used as useful idiots. Jewish organizations that are anti-Zionist or support BDS include ijan.org, jewssayno.org, nkusa.org, jewishvoiceforpeace.org. Philip Weiss (Mondoweiss) supports BDS and has expressed puzzlement with Chomsky.
As to your antisemitism calumny, I quote Shulamit Aloni, "It's a trick; we always use it."
Actually, the US is well on its way to a Christian theocracy. Try building a mosque vs a Christian church and see the red tape involved - even in “liberal” places like NYC. Look at how Americans are treating Ukrainian refugees vs Syrian refugees. Look at how Americans only want *certain* people to immigrate aka white Christians. The same can likely be said about Europe, at least with the refugees, but I am American so my views are obviously biased in that way.
I do not agree with the concept of Jewish supremacy, which is what Zionism turned into. Jews shouldn’t have “special rights” above any other ethnic/religious group. As it stands now Israel is an apartheid state. That being said, until we can figure out how to turn anarchism from theory into practice I strongly believe Jews should have a state in which they are the dominant religious group, with protections for all other minorities and equal rights for all living there.
I apologize for accusing you of antisemitism, there is a very slippery slope on the Internet where legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism quickly becomes thinly veiled cover for an excuse to find fault with Jews in general.
As a Jew, my biggest gripe with Israel and Zionism in general is it makes the rest of the world more unsafe for Jews for this very reason (and that’s probably by design).
I agree with most of what you've written here, but I have one question. How does one establish a state with a dominant religious group without years of favoritism in immigration policy, especially when the indigenous population is opposed?
Lenin designated Евре́йская автоно́мная о́бласть (Yevreyskaya avtonomnaya oblast), about 125-150 miles north of Vladivostok, as an area for Jewish settlement, though at its height only about 50,000 residents were Jewish, about 25% of the population. It was never necessary to kick the Palestinians out of their homes just to accommodate European Gentile guilt and antisemitism. (Ie, let's get rid of them by encouraging them to go to Palestine.)
I do accept your apology. Yes, there is still a segment that wants to blame all the world's problems on Jews. OTOH, some people label any criticism of "court Jews," as Josh Reubner referred to Paul Wolfowitz, as either antisemitic or self-hating.
Hmmm... since this started with my title (I just posted the video and am working on the Substack), I wanted to get clarification. You said Chomsky was a Zionist and I asked why. You said he was on a kibbutz when young (showing he's Jewish) and was against BDS. BeliTsari gave a quote from Chomsky that he was unequivocally refusing to appear in Israel because of his opposition to its occupation and denial of Palestinian human rights, and was supportive of the aims of BDS. So I'd like to know your definition of Zionist, that would fit Chomsky.
A Zionist is anybody who believes there should be a homeland for Jews. Yes, Chomsky opposes the most egregious violations of indigenous rights, as well as the settlements, but I've never heard him say Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. He knows that the "two state" solution is deader than a doorknob, but has he come out in favor of a unitary state? Does he support any sort of right to return?
Chomsky challenges Israel's "right to exist" because in his view no state has a "right to exist," but at the same time he says Israel has "the right to live in peace and security within its recognized international borders, understood to be the pre-June 1967 borders, with minor and mutual adjustments." He opposes BDS and calling Israel out as an apartheid state. Does he say anything about the discrimination against Palestinian citizens within those pre-1967 borders?
Thanks for your definition, A-R. I actually agree with you that Israel as a Jewish state, in which all Jews in the world have dual citizenship while Palestinians have none, has no right to exist. I agree that the two-state solution isn't one. I might even one-up you. I'm linking some of my old radio episodes that talk about my research into Jewish scriptures as a religious cover for racism and land grabs. Sorry, Asher.
But I also agree with Chomsky that no state has the right to exist (although I haven't heard him say that.) My 'solution' is based on small-scale sovereignty.
And I also agree with Asher that calling anyone who believes there should be a homeland for Jews a Zionist is making the word meaningless. Nearly everyone in the US and Europe would be a Zionist. If you use the word that broadly, we'd have no word left to describe the people who believe in Jewish supremacism, as Asher defines Zionism.
If curious, here are the links that include history on an alternative radical Judaism:
A People's History of the Bible: http://thirdparadigm.org/3p_008.php
Josephus of the Multicolored Turncoat: http://thirdparadigm.org/3p_013.php
Nasty Noah & the Patriarchs: http://thirdparadigm.org/3p_016.php
What Would Judas Do?: http://thirdparadigm.org/3p_035.php
Zeitgeist Continued: http://thirdparadigm.org/3p_039.php
Biblical Blackwater: Sodom vs the Mercenaries: http://thirdparadigm.org/3p_053.php
You may be interested in portions of this interview with Chomsky: https://chomsky.info/200309__/, in particular his attempts to walk a tightrope on right to exist, "On the matter of legitimacy and recognition, once the State of Israel was established in 1948, my feeling has been that it should have the rights of any state in the international system: no more, no less. That includes, specifically, the right to live in peace and security within its recognized international borders, understood to be the pre-June 1967 borders, with minor and mutual adjustments.... The US and Israel have demanded further that Palestinians not only recognize Israel’s rights as a state in the international system, but that they also recognize Israel’s abstract “right to exist,” a concept that has no place in international law or diplomacy, and a right claimed by no one. In effect, the US and Israel are demanding that Palestinians not only recognize Israel in the normal fashion of interstate relations, but also formally accept the legitimacy of their expulsion from their own land."
Chomsky draws a false equivalency between the US annexation of half of Mexico and the establishment of Israel in 1948. The US has in general (though with some unfortunate exceptions) accepted those descended from the Mexican population annexed in 1848 as Americans with equal rights, the 14th Amendment acknowledging those rights. There was never an attempt to systematically ethnically cleanse the southwest as there was in 1948 Israel, and Israel has never accepted the equal rights of Palestinians in either the 1948 state or the "occupied territories."
I disagree that I make the word "Zionism" meaningless by including those who insist "merely" on a "right" to make aliyah within the broad umbrella of Zionism. There are plenty of Jews who deny any such "right." I gave several examples in a previous post today. European Jews had no "right" to make aliyah in the late 19th and early 20th Century. Some Jewish immigration was accepted, even welcomed, by Palestinians until the advent to the British mandate after WW I, when the mainstream Zionist agenda of a Jewish state displacing the indigenous population became evident. At that point, the indigenous population had a right to control its own borders and block further aliyah. That right to self-determination was consistently violated by Britain. If, as you claim, nearly everyone in the US and Europe accepts such a "right," that's their misunderstanding of what nationhood, sovereignty and self-determination mean. Without border control, there is no nation-state. The distinctions among anti-Zionists, cultural Zionists and political Zionists still exist both theoretically and in the real world, though some groups are clearly larger than others. Political Zionists are further divided between Labor and Likud, which is the heir to the fascistic revisionism of Jabotinsky. Likud now dominates Jewish Israeli politics and culture, with the help of other parties even more extreme than Likud, but that doesn't mean there are no anti-Zionist Jews in the world or even within Israel itself.
That's a very interesting history. When looking up 'the creation of Israel' I came on this site: https://ifamericansknew.org/history/realstory.html with Against Our Better Judgment: How the US Was Used to Create Israel. I think you would resonate with it, if you're not already familiar.
As I said, though, I don't disagree with you. Even if the UN Resolution was legitimate, which this article shows it never was, no one has the right to give away someone else's country. I argued with my kids' HS geography teacher (at open house) for why they memorized every country & their capital in the world ... except Palestine, which didn't exist. And I argued with neighbors who taught geography at the university for the same point. So we agree.
My point is a tactical one--why alienate those in partial agreement with you for not being in full agreement? It seems like the label Zionist isn't going to change anyone's mind.
I agree that there’s no scriptural basis for Zionism, if anything, it’s heretical to “force” “gods will”.
There was a ton of criticism of Zionism in the late 1800s when it formed from different sects such as the Sephardic Orthodox Jews at the time. Jews are supposed to return to Israel when the messiah comes and no sooner.
It’s the Christian zionists who are pushing this idea that it’s scripturally based because they want to hasten the second coming of Jesus and the end of the world. They’re fucking nuts.
Btw while I might be “entitled” to dual citizenship I’ll never apply for it until there is a peaceful resolution to this seemingly intractable conflict. As Israel stands now I want nothing to do with it, when I was a teenager I boycotted birthright - I was BDS’ing before I knew what BDS was. I was nearly excommunicated from my family for my antizionist “self hating Jew” views!
Good for you. I understand now that your views are different from Chomsky's, who it seems to me is a bit confused about the nature of Israel. You are not. I hope you are not deceived by him.
You are spot on about Christian dispensationalism and the Scofield Bible.
You’re grasping for straws. Christians have numerous countries, despite “freedom of religion” in the US in particular it is clearly a Christian state. Muslims have numerous countries, and depending on the country depends on their friendliness towards non Muslims. Why not jews, the longest persecuted minority in history? Why can’t they have a state?
And FYI, I am Jewish and antizionist. I’m strongly against the state of Israel which it stands now both for religious reasons and moral reasons and political reasons (like Chomsky, I too am an anarchist). But to smear him as a Zionist is ridiculous when he strongly disagrees with Zionism as it stands today (Jewish supremacism).
I can’t help but see your comment as thinly veiled antisemitism, equating all jews as zionists regardless of what they actually believe.
A country being majority Christian or majority Muslim is not the same as granting Christians or Muslims special privileges not enjoyed by others. The US is NOT a "Christian state" where Christians are given special privileges UNDER LAW, not enjoyed by Jews. Under the US Constitution and SCOTUS decisions, Jews are protected from discrimination.
You contradict yourself. In your first paragraph you justify a Jewish state on the basis that Muslims or Christians allegedly have "numerous countries." In the second paragraph, you claim to be an anarchist. This is similar to Chomsky's contradiction. He says no state has a "right to exist," yet he asserts Israels right to exist within its pre-1967 boundaries.
Much of the confusion arises from the old pre-1948 distinction between "cultural Zionism" and "political Zionism." "Cultural Zionists" like Einstein encouraged Jews to make aliyah, but claimed not to want a Jewish state. He and many others apparently did not realize that the entire movement had been surreptitiously taken over by political Zionists in 1898. For example, Herzl advocated for subtle discrimination against Palestinian labor that would force them to emigrate to neighboring countries. Thus, Histadrut excluded non-Jews from membership until well after 1948, and there remains extensive de jure discrimination against non-Jews today. Einstein was so confused about the distinction that he surreptitiously wrote a letter to Nehru lobbying for India to vote for the 1947 partition plan, then later criticized Israel for the ethnic cleansing that was essentially "baked into the cake." Chomsky apparently suffers from the same delusion about Israel and the "right" of European Jews to "make aliyah" without restriction, replacing the indigenous population. I do not conflate Jews with Zionists. There are plenty of Jews who are not Zionists. In the past, I made financial contributions to Jewish Voice for Peace, though I broke with them over Syria. Albert Lilienthal was an anti-Zionist Jew, and Nathan Birnbaum, a "cultural Zionist" who invented the term "Zionism," was alienated by the First Zionist Congress and later became anti-Zionist. He apparently became aware that "cultural Zionists" were being used as useful idiots. Jewish organizations that are anti-Zionist or support BDS include ijan.org, jewssayno.org, nkusa.org, jewishvoiceforpeace.org. Philip Weiss (Mondoweiss) supports BDS and has expressed puzzlement with Chomsky.
As to your antisemitism calumny, I quote Shulamit Aloni, "It's a trick; we always use it."
Actually, the US is well on its way to a Christian theocracy. Try building a mosque vs a Christian church and see the red tape involved - even in “liberal” places like NYC. Look at how Americans are treating Ukrainian refugees vs Syrian refugees. Look at how Americans only want *certain* people to immigrate aka white Christians. The same can likely be said about Europe, at least with the refugees, but I am American so my views are obviously biased in that way.
I do not agree with the concept of Jewish supremacy, which is what Zionism turned into. Jews shouldn’t have “special rights” above any other ethnic/religious group. As it stands now Israel is an apartheid state. That being said, until we can figure out how to turn anarchism from theory into practice I strongly believe Jews should have a state in which they are the dominant religious group, with protections for all other minorities and equal rights for all living there.
I apologize for accusing you of antisemitism, there is a very slippery slope on the Internet where legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism quickly becomes thinly veiled cover for an excuse to find fault with Jews in general.
As a Jew, my biggest gripe with Israel and Zionism in general is it makes the rest of the world more unsafe for Jews for this very reason (and that’s probably by design).
I agree with most of what you've written here, but I have one question. How does one establish a state with a dominant religious group without years of favoritism in immigration policy, especially when the indigenous population is opposed?
Lenin designated Евре́йская автоно́мная о́бласть (Yevreyskaya avtonomnaya oblast), about 125-150 miles north of Vladivostok, as an area for Jewish settlement, though at its height only about 50,000 residents were Jewish, about 25% of the population. It was never necessary to kick the Palestinians out of their homes just to accommodate European Gentile guilt and antisemitism. (Ie, let's get rid of them by encouraging them to go to Palestine.)
I do accept your apology. Yes, there is still a segment that wants to blame all the world's problems on Jews. OTOH, some people label any criticism of "court Jews," as Josh Reubner referred to Paul Wolfowitz, as either antisemitic or self-hating.