Yeah except, that you are entire wrong because you just made that up. Zionism was absolutely founded on the idea of an inherent right to commit violence for the perception of something owed: specifically, Palestinian land.
Read that essay, The Iron Wall, 1923, by Zionist author Ze’ev Jabotinsky, considered to be a foundational document of political Zionism, and then lie to me again telling me that Zionism isn’t founded on political violence.
If you’ve read Jabotinsky, I assume you’ve also read the far better known Theodor Herzl, whose Old New Land envisions a multicultural Zionist nation of peaceful coexistence between Jews, Arabs and other peoples.
Zionism does not require violence. That’s like saying that liberalism requires violence because of the writings of the French revolution.
Herzl himself certainly did. Zionism is Settler Colonialism, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough needs to be ‘Transferred’ so that the demographic majority is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction
that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish
people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational
barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of Euro
pean imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for the
newcomers. The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find
a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on.
indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally
outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat. An
1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of
the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in
the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the
idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of
the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property
that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
Liberalism required violence because its built on the principal of a class segmentation. So I’m not sure your point is the point you think you are making.
Jabotinsky and Herzl are different schools of thought in Zionism, but its absolute historical revisionism to suggest that the advocate of violence wasn’t foundational to the formation of Zionist philosophy.
I’m not interested if you buy it or not. Liberal democracy, as in, Western liberal democracy was built directly on the back of an era of global colonialism (1500-1700). The decolonialisation of these democracies was a political afterthought, and where and when it occured, it was simply because the resources or people being abused were simply exhausted. And in the rare instances where a group of the colonized razed up against their (also) access to the keys of democracy, they were struck down. Take the example of the Haitian revolution, where a slave population broke the chains of their masters, and were required to effectively pay reparations for their own lives for literally generations. Fundamentally, liberal democracy as a modern philosophical paradigm is a direct extension of settler colonialism. The segmentation of a population into a apartheid state is fundamental to western democracy, where some populations in the system are afforded the liberties associated with liberalism, and other populations are other-ed, not considered to be worthy of liberty, and extracted from, and is a central aspect of all major western “liberal democracies”, even if they out-grew that period later in their history.
Its not something up for debate, so your dissent is irrelevant.
Anyone who thinks god gives them a right to kill is a bad person. Full stop.
Agreed. Good thing that Zionism doesn’t mean any of that.
Yeah except, that you are entire wrong because you just made that up. Zionism was absolutely founded on the idea of an inherent right to commit violence for the perception of something owed: specifically, Palestinian land.
https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf
Read that essay, The Iron Wall, 1923, by Zionist author Ze’ev Jabotinsky, considered to be a foundational document of political Zionism, and then lie to me again telling me that Zionism isn’t founded on political violence.
If you’ve read Jabotinsky, I assume you’ve also read the far better known Theodor Herzl, whose Old New Land envisions a multicultural Zionist nation of peaceful coexistence between Jews, Arabs and other peoples.
Zionism does not require violence. That’s like saying that liberalism requires violence because of the writings of the French revolution.
Herzl himself certainly did. Zionism is Settler Colonialism, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough needs to be ‘Transferred’ so that the demographic majority is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
Page 8, The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948
10 myths of Israel by Ilan Pappe, summerized and full book
Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.
Liberalism required violence because its built on the principal of a class segmentation. So I’m not sure your point is the point you think you are making.
Jabotinsky and Herzl are different schools of thought in Zionism, but its absolute historical revisionism to suggest that the advocate of violence wasn’t foundational to the formation of Zionist philosophy.
I’m sorry, but we are just not going to find common ground on that.
I’m not interested if you buy it or not. Liberal democracy, as in, Western liberal democracy was built directly on the back of an era of global colonialism (1500-1700). The decolonialisation of these democracies was a political afterthought, and where and when it occured, it was simply because the resources or people being abused were simply exhausted. And in the rare instances where a group of the colonized razed up against their (also) access to the keys of democracy, they were struck down. Take the example of the Haitian revolution, where a slave population broke the chains of their masters, and were required to effectively pay reparations for their own lives for literally generations. Fundamentally, liberal democracy as a modern philosophical paradigm is a direct extension of settler colonialism. The segmentation of a population into a apartheid state is fundamental to western democracy, where some populations in the system are afforded the liberties associated with liberalism, and other populations are other-ed, not considered to be worthy of liberty, and extracted from, and is a central aspect of all major western “liberal democracies”, even if they out-grew that period later in their history.
Its not something up for debate, so your dissent is irrelevant.
they need to read more history ig, great reply :D