Why I'm a Zionist

[Judean Zealot]

Zionism, more than almost any other form of nationalism, has received a pretty bad rap for the past 40 years, in part due to leftists' characterisation of Zionism as an imperialist project. Nonetheless, I am a Zionist and remain proud of it, even as I cringe at the State of Israel's leaders and social dynamics.

First off, the definition. 'Zionism', in it's historical use, has signified support for the creation of a Jewish state, with it's current location implied though not necessitated. I am in favour of a Jewish state for 3 reasons.

1) Security. Everyone knows about the Holocaust, but considerably fewer know of the preceding millennium of systemic persecution of Jews in Christian Europe. Between blood libels, forced conversions, ghettoisation, expulsions, deprivation of livelihood, and ritual humiliation the Jews were in bad shape. Indeed, the only thing added by the Holocaust was the observation that as desperately as the Jews themselves tried to shed their Jewish identities, their gentile neighbours would not allow it. Resultant of that, we are pledged to never again be subservient to another nation, because it almost inevitably ends in disaster. Thus the need for a state through which we wield the sovereignty over ourselves.

2) The historical mission of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are sanctified with a mission to be a light unto the nations. Even discounting, as I do, claims of special revelation, we are sanctified by the course of history, by Providence, by our own acceptance of this sacred mandate. Our destiny is hallowed, not by any oracle or prophet, but by the blood of our own martyrs who were killed in it's cause. This mission of ours is one of leading by example, and while God knows we are currently doing a miserable job of it, I have not yet given up, and I support the continued existence of a Jewish state to bring this vision to fruition. I imagine this is the sort of nationalism Vlerchan will identify with - the state as a means of fulfilling the transcendent destiny of the Nation.

3) Jewish pride. This is the weakest of my reasons, but it's there. Even if the state serves no necessity other than to demonstrate that now we will finally defend ourselves and that Jewish blood is no longer cheap, that is sufficient reason.

Now, I see the placement of the Jewish state in Palestine as justified, for two reasons. First, if we're going to be establishing a state on someone's land, it may as well be on the land that we previously held. Additionally, the land was left in deplorable state by the empires who have held it for the past thousand years. It was neglected, unsuitable for agriculture, and malarial until the Jewish pioneers came and tamed it. Surely the landless nation that builds up a region with their own blood and toil has the right to take it from a people with a vast tract of land who apparently don't care much to develop or improve it.

---------------

For the record, I do not wish to see a suppression of Palestinian identity. I would ideally like to see a regional coalition of Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon, a goal which I still believe is a possibility.

[Bull]

I am in total agreement with this statement by Judean Zealot. I am not Jewish, but as an informed Christian, I understand the Biblical history of Israel and support Zionism.

[Jinglebottom]

Well honestly, and this may come off as a shock to some, but I have a lot of sympathy for the Jews. Minorities are prone to oppression everywhere, especially in the Middle East. I can relate to the Jews, my own ethno-religious group has always formed a tiny, persecuted (not so much in modern-day Lebanon though) minority in every single country it has settled in, sort of like the Jews before the creation of Israel. People need a state where they can feel safe, where they don't have to worry about their minority status, where they can be surrounded by their own kind. Of course, this sentiment won't be shared by the Muslim Arabs because they pretty much reign over the Middle East. They don't know what it feels like, they have 20 countries where they are the absolute majority (and where minorities are spat on but whatever). The Jews have one. Plenty of other peoples have none.

[sqishy]

For the record, I do not wish to see a suppression of Palestinian identity. I would ideally like to see a regional coalition of Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon, a goal which I still believe is a possibility.

I only respond to this part as I say in advance that we are best to agree to certainly not agree with the points all you said before this are on.

So yeah, some sort of mutual recognition and organisation would go well, but I don't see much being able to be done there with the geopolitical situation ongoing - even a coalition between Israel and Palestine is a huge aspiration, with many factors and consequences (USA as example).

[Judean Zealot]

So yeah, some sort of mutual recognition and organisation would go well, but I don't see much being able to be done there with the geopolitical situation ongoing - even a coalition between Israel and Palestine is a huge aspiration, with many factors and consequences (USA as example).

Obviously this is a far shot given the current regional instability and the corruption in both the Israeli and Palestinian governments. Nonetheless, it remains ideal in my conception of a Jewish state.

I believe temporarily increased American involvement in the region is the best framework for a lasting peace, considering as Israel is more or less an American satrapy as of yet. Nonetheless, such involvement must be temporary, as the destiny of the Nation cannot be brought to fruition without an absolute and uncompromised independence.

[Porpoise101]

I like Israel as a state. But not a wholesale Jewish one. Currently, Israel is multicultural, which is nice. But I hope the nation doesn't turn to the darker belief that "this land is our people's, and only our people's." I sympathise with the Palestinians also. They were essentially sold out by the rich landlords in Beirut and Damascus. Today, they still struggle because they cannot improve their situation easily. There are issues with water access and infrastructure in the Palestinian areas. This can be chalked up to corruption and excess of thought (basically emotional actions and radical actions) in my opinion though. The city of Jerusalem should not be ruled by Israel though. It should be an independent city, as should Mecca. It would be governed by the different religious communities.

[sqishy]

I believe temporarily increased American involvement in the region is the best framework for a lasting peace, considering as Israel is more or less an American satrapy as of yet. Nonetheless, such involvement must be temporary, as the destiny of the Nation cannot be brought to fruition without an absolute and uncompromised independence.

Taking this as happening, it would be much smoother if the US kept a neutral stance with respect to just acting as 'peacekeeping', rather than (as one example) many in the US wanting to see the end of Palestine, and others Israel. In other words, the US would either be neutral and just offering manpower in help overall, or it would be a huge influencing factor, with no middle ground. Avoiding anything other than neutrality probably be as hard as traveling to the nearest star, but nothing is impossible.

[Porpoise101]

the land was left in deplorable state by the empires who have held it for the past thousand years. It was neglected, unsuitable for agriculture, and malarial until the Jewish pioneers came and tamed it. Surely the landless nation that builds up a region with their own blood and toil has the right to take it from a people with a vast tract of land who apparently don't care much to develop or improve it.
This part of your justification I take issue with. Yes, the Ottoman Empire neglected this region, but not to the degree that you say. I should point out that this area wasn't neglected on purpose either. The main issue is that the area was a backwater of a backwater; at that point the Empire had been collapsing physically and financially for decades. They even tried to revitalize the area building infrastructure in the cities. Here is a good example of a project: http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160422/a00b7efea8ef7e9461dc3ad2768e5591.jpg
But WW1 came and finished the area off for good.

Another thing you said, about the area being unsuitable for agriculture, it's not completely true. The Jordan river was used as an irrigation source, but the Ottomans didn't have the means to control it. Even so, there were many orchards in the North and pastures in the South. The orange crop of Jaffa was even world renowned. So you can't say you found an empty inhospitable place, just one not up to it's potential.

I will credit the Jewish settlers though. They were initially sold bad patches of land. If I remember correctly, Tel Aviv was a sand dune. Now it's a massive metropolis. You guys have really built the whole place up. But you can't really blame the Palestinians. Those guys were just workers for the most part who were essentially serfs to the rich landlords in the big to be Syrian and Lebanese cities. The landlords made enough profit from oranges or olives, so they had no incentive to improve the land. But I'm sure if the actual people who lived there had control of their fate, they would try to make it better.

[Judean Zealot]

This part of your justification I take issue with. Yes, the Ottoman Empire neglected this region, but not to the degree that you say. I should point out that this area wasn't neglected on purpose either. The main issue is that the area was a backwater of a backwater; at that point the Empire had been collapsing physically and financially for decades. They even tried to revitalize the area building infrastructure in the cities. Here is a good example of a project: image (http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160422/a00b7efea8ef7e9461dc3ad2768e5591.jpg)
But WW1 came and finished the area off for good.

Another thing you said, about the area being unsuitable for agriculture, it's not completely true. The Jordan river was used as an irrigation source, but the Ottomans didn't have the means to control it. Even so, there were many orchards in the North and pastures in the South. The orange crop of Jaffa was even world renowned. So you can't say you found an empty inhospitable place, just one not up to it's potential.

I will credit the Jewish settlers though. They were initially sold bad patches of land. If I remember correctly, Tel Aviv was a sand dune. Now it's a massive metropolis. You guys have really built the whole place up. But you can't really blame the Palestinians. Those guys were just workers for the most part who were essentially serfs to the rich landlords in the big to be Syrian and Lebanese cities. The landlords made enough profit from oranges or olives, so they had no incentive to improve the land. But I'm sure if the actual people who lived there had control of their fate, they would try to make it better.

The Jaffa orchards were but a sliver of the land. Mark Twain wrote an entire book, Innocents Abroad, in which he records the desolation of the land. Regardless, my point isn't to blame the Arabs here. My point is that if the Jews were to take over some piece of territory for a national home (for the three reasons mentioned above), that territory should've ideally been largely undeveloped and scarcely populated, which Palestine was. That segment of my post was preemptively addressing the issue of "Why Palestine?"

Re: Jerusalem. I strongly disagree with your proposal. Turning Jerusalem into a city governed by the various factions would only serve to stoke tensions between the different religions, with each side being backed by their state. Jerusalem ought to be split, with West Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter becoming the de jure capital of Israel, and the rest of the Old City and East Jerusalem becoming the capital of Palestine.

[Porpoise101]

The Jaffa orchards were but a sliver of the land.

Re: Jerusalem. I strongly disagree with your proposal. Turning Jerusalem into a city governed by the various factions would only serve to stoke tensions between the different religions, with each side being backed by their state. Jerusalem ought to be split, with West Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter becoming the de jure capital of Israel, and the rest of the Old City and East Jerusalem becoming the capital of Palestine.
Fair enough about the land. But I feel a divided Jerusalem is terrible. The only way the Israelis and the Palestinians will work together are if they live together. By dividing up the city, the people will be divided. Each side will think they lay claim to the whole city. Politicians will take advantage of that sentiment and use it for all the worst reasons. Look at how Pakistanis and Indians are. You guys have a real chance to prevent that.

Maybe you are right about the religious factionalism. So instead, what if the city had a typical Western-style government and minority protections? I feel that way no group will oppress the others.

[phuckphace]

Why I'm a Zionist: huge wall + detention camps. advantages: troublemakers foiled, massive butt-devastation of leftoids.

The Goy In the Striped Pajamas