[sine29]

Can't you pro-Zionists see that whichever way you look at it Zionism is an ideology that advocates the holding of territory for ONE body of people by ONE body of people therefore being Nationalism.

Therefore Communists (Internationalist) should support Zionism as much as they support Facism or Corporatism!

[Mycroft]

Can't you pro-Zionists see that whichever way you look at it Zionism is an ideology that advocates the holding of territory for ONE body of people by ONE body of people therefore being Nationalism.

If one agrees that nationalism is inherently bad, one must also admit that nationalism is not going away anytime soon, and that many things must change before the world is ready to be done with nationalism. To single out one specific form of nationalism among hundreds is very short sighted.

[Maoz Zur]

You might as well if the roles were reversed and a bunch of "surly Arabs" decided to create an enclave in territory you had controlled for thousands of years.

Did Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanonians and Syrians lived in Israel? Why no one told me?

Also, you say "controlled"- but in the long history of Palestine after the expell of the Jews, Palestinains never really controlled Palestine.

The topic is about whether Communists should support Zionism, and the fact is that the Internationalist nature of Communism will render any support for it null and void. Especially as the Israelis are backed up by big-brother America, and are rich while the Palestinians live in Ghettos

Communists should not support Zionism(though, in the 50's-60's-70's many Zionists supported Communism), nor Black nationalism, nor Arab nationalism, nor any other kind of nationalism- because this is hypocritic. By the way, Communists once supported the Zionists- befor the creation of Israel. But when the Jewish state was created, the Jews preferd Socialism- and then comunists put their bet on the Palestinians who embraced Communism.

Let's face it, only Jews, Israelis, and weird Christians who beleive the existence of an Israeli state as vital for the second coming support Zionism. Others just think its frankly ridiculous and the arguements you put forward are the same.

And the arguments of anti-Israelis are just as ridiculous and repeating as the Zionist ones. Actually, the Zionist arguments are more rational and logical then those of the opposers.

The fact is the Jews fled persecution in Europe and went to commit the same crimes in Palestine (all except the mass extermination).

Lol. And after that you say that Zionists are repeating themselves?!

The way you describe the Arabs leaves little to be desired,

Again you confusing between two different things: 1. Arab countries and the Palestinians attacked Israel with it's creation- and that's why I say "Arabs" in general when I talk about the war in 1948.
2. The problem now is with the Palestinians. And it is a fact that they didn't kept even one agreement on wich they signed for, while Israel gave them much more than one chance to settle this out peacefully. The answer for Rabin's call for peace and begining of negotiations was terror, the answer for Barak's offer, and in the day of the Refferendum in Likud's party about the disangagement plan- they made a bloody terract in wich they killed yong pregnant woman and 4 small girls.

and conflict and war rather than dialogue and agreement will never create a solution (perhaps the Israelis don't want one!)[/quote]

Of course! Israelis like to blow up when they take a bus or go to a restaurant! Think before you say something stupid.

[sine29]

Lol I am not here to discuss the merits or demerits of Zionism, I think its bad as is all nationalism...end of story.

The topic is related to the support of Zionists by Communists:

Moaz Zur:

Communists should not support Zionism(though, in the 50's-60's-70's many Zionists supported Communism)

Thanks for agreeing with me, it looks like the argument is settled!

Mycroft said:

If one agrees that nationalism is inherently bad, one must also admit that nationalism is not going away anytime soon, and that many things must change before the world is ready to be done with nationalism. To single out one specific form of nationalism among hundreds is very short sighted.

What are you talking about? Of course you can say Nationalism is inherently bad and still say it could end soon - it's all a matter of opinion surely? Also Zionism is still Nationalism and so the negative aspects of it are shared by all strands of Nationalism - how is this short-sighted?

[Mycroft]

What are you talking about? Of course you can say Nationalism is inherently bad and still say it could end soon - it's all a matter of opinion surely? Also Zionism is still Nationalism and so the negative aspects of it are shared by all strands of Nationalism - how is this short-sighted?

I phrased that poorly. The way I wrote it, it seemed as though I was saying that these other thoughts were a natural result of believing that nationalism was bad. I meant to say that a reasonable person would agree that nationalism would not go away soon, and that singleing out Zionism among the hundreds of other types of nationalism was short sighted. If one truly wants to end nationalism, one should first start with areas where the populations have the least to lose.

[sine29]

Point taken, however you must admit that Zionism is a particularly strong form of Nationalism which has manifested itself in the theft of land from innocent Arabs (that CANNOT be denied).

Of course the entire situation is immensley complex and so I sympathise somewhat with both sides.

Perhaps we should start a new thread on the merits and demerits of Zionism and an Israeli state!

[Mycroft]

Point taken, however you must admit that Zionism is a particularly strong form of Nationalism which has manifested itself in the theft of land from innocent Arabs (that CANNOT be denied).

It's precisely because it is a strong form of nationalism that I suggest it be among the last targets of anti-nationalists. A more successful approach would be to promote anti-nationalism in regions where nationalism is not so strong. Then, if successful, the idea is more likely to spread.

Also, it’s important to look at what purpose any particular nationalism serves, and to judge it in that context.

And yes, I would take issue with the characterization that Zionism has manifested in theft of land from Arabs. Prior to Israeli independence, Zionists acquired land through legal purchase.

During the war of Independence, many Arabs were displaced, many voluntarily and some involuntarily. This is what is often characterized as the “theft” of the Zionists, but in my opinion it is wrong to characterize some 120 years of history with the events of one year, and that one year must be judged in the context of the war.

It is often said that in declaring independence, Israel took over a region where the land was 90% Arab, but that is a misnomer. The vast majority of those lands were public land, and can not rightfully be called “Arab” unless one subscribes to a competing Arabic nationalist ideology. Much of the remaining Arab lands remained under the ownership of the Arabs that stayed, becoming the Israeli-Arab citizens of today.

Of course the entire situation is immensley complex and so I sympathise somewhat with both sides.

Perhaps we should start a new thread on the merits and demerits of Zionism and an Israeli state!

I also sympathize with both sides, and think such a thread might be fascinating.

[Dark_Stalin]

Israel has no right to exist, the argument of history is useless, as then Manchuria would now be Korean, America = Native Land, etc... Its all the zionists fault, (first of all zionists at first were not a religious organization) they made uncalled for attemps to gain their own country that sent the whole region into turmoil.

[Mycroft]

Israel has no right to exist, the argument of history is useless, as then Manchuria would now be Korean, America = Native Land, etc... Its all the zionists fault, (first of all zionists at first were not a religious organization) they made uncalled for attemps to gain their own country that sent the whole region into turmoil.

It is true that the Zionist movement was mostly a secular and not a religious movement, but I am puzzled how you see that as a criticism. I see it as an asset.

The twentieth century saw the most violent political and economic upheavals in history, many of which had a powerful effect on the Middle East. If you really believe the turmoil of the Middle East really depends on the fate of this tiny strip of land with few natural resources, then I think you should also take a close look at why this should be so.

[Faceless]

It's precisely because it is a strong form of nationalism that I suggest it be among the last targets of anti-nationalists. A more successful approach would be to promote anti-nationalism in regions where nationalism is not so strong. Then, if successful, the idea is more likely to spread.

Also, it’s important to look at what purpose any particular nationalism serves, and to judge it in that context.

Communists fight nationalism everywhere. From petty Patriotism to Zionism and full scale Jingoistic Imperialism. It is interesting that you should say that nationalism can serve a purpose. There is no doubt that Zionism was caused by the oppression, in some form, of the Jewish race. It is a reaction. I can empathise with Zionists but I can also empathise with black seperatists. Black Nationalism though also has strands which include seperationism (retaining of the black community and some autonomy, not to be confused with seperatism) and integrationism. These two do not call for a seperate black nation unlike Zionism. I have more sympathy for the two nation solution (that is, Palestinian nationalism) because it has more respect for the rights of the two peoples than simple Jewish rule with perhaps the exclusion of Arabs to the so-called "Arab states" if they aren't happy. No Communist or even humane person can justify seperation along racial (or religious) lines as in the Zionist entity. It is my fear that the only solution will be the one state under an entirely different economic (ie Socialist) and political system. I do not hold Zionists wholly responsible for the state of modern Israel but Israel will not unilaterally give rights to Palestine so long as it is divided along class lines. Two states (in itself an act againts Zionism) is already a compromise made by Communists. Only the Palestinians can free themselves through fighting their fight. The Israeli political elite will not do so out of choice.

[Mycroft]

Communists fight nationalism everywhere.

Why is communism opposed to nationalism? If you want to impliment communism, wouldn't it be natural to do so under some form of nationalism?

[sine29]

Why is communism opposed to nationalism? If you want to impliment communism, wouldn't it be natural to do so under some form of nationalism?

How can the Workers of the world unite if they are Nationalist? The best way to deal with a potentially powerful enemy is to divide and then conquer them.

The proletariat around the world share a common struggle and should therefore share a common cause (Internationalist movement).

[Mycroft]

Why is communism opposed to nationalism? If you want to impliment communism, wouldn't it be natural to do so under some form of nationalism?

How can the Workers of the world unite if they are Nationalist? The best way to deal with a potentially powerful enemy is to divide and then conquer them.

The proletariat around the world share a common struggle and should therefore share a common cause (Internationalist movement).

I suppose my confusion is in picturing how the workers of the world are supposed to unite. I can't see it happening in every country at once. I see it happening on one country, and then those workers demonstrating by example that their system can work well, and expressing solidarity and kinship with workers in other countries.

Extreme nationalism would certainly be a problem, but the more common nationalism , simply identifying youself as being a citizen of the country you reside in, doesn't seem to me to be an obstical at all.

[sine29]

I suppose my confusion is in picturing how the workers of the world are supposed to unite. I can't see it happening in every country at once. I see it happening on one country, and then those workers demonstrating by example that their system can work well, and expressing solidarity and kinship with workers in other countries.

Since, as you say the workers have solidarity and kinship, this would be Internationalism and not Nationalism.

Of course the Workers of the World could not unite and simultaneously seize power at the same time.

I imagine the scenario you described would be close to the reality if and when it happens.

[Mycroft]

I imagine the scenario you described would be close to the reality if and when it happens.

Which is why I don't really understand communist opposition to nationalism. Sure, in the long run if communism spreads through the world then nationalism goes away, but in the short term nationalism creates small areas defined by political boundaries where the movement can get a start before spreading.

[sine29]

Sure, in the long run if communism spreads through the world then nationalism goes away, but in the short term nationalism creates small areas defined by political boundaries where the movement can get a start before spreading.

What are you are describing here is not Nationalism. Nationalism is the beleif that acting independently (rather than collectively) is better for a society.

Just because the movement develops in one country before another does not make it nationalism. As you said yourself the proletariat have kinship, and are willing to work together in order to promote worldwide revolution. This is Internationalist thinking since it transcends national borders.

Nationalism does not create the revolution, the international desire of the workers to overthrow the system does. German workers would not co-operate with French workers, if they were Nationalist, because they would see there own nations interests as being paramount.

[Faceless]

For something to take place inside national boundaries is not nationalism. The revolution may take the initial form of the Proletariat fighting their nation's bourgiosie. This isn't the inevitable form though. The 1848 revolutions across Europe proved this. Where a revolution succeeds nationally the workers must fight for permanent revolution. If it does not it will fail a la the Soviet Union (although I could write an entire essay as to the other reasons that this historical curiosity failed). Communists want one nation in Israel-Palestine but this may disguise the full story because we want one great International federation. As we see Palestine as having the greatest concentration of Proletarians, working for Israel, this is where the revolution must start in this part of the world. It is easy to mistake it with Arab nationalism. As said earlier though, when a revolution succeeds it must fight to spread itself, even when this would seem to jeopardise diplomatic relations with the surrounding bourgeois dictatorship.

[Graphic]

Promethus

Negro

I highly resent that word.