Dannon's Journal: A conspiratorial question.

If you're sick and tired of hearing about the Middle East, you just might want to skip reading this Journal Entry. But I've got a question and much skepticism buzzing around in my head.

The question: Has anyone ever met a Zionist?

The question is on my mind now because of a talk with someone who is rather sure that much of the violence has been orchestrated by 'Zionists' who want to control all of Jerusalem and Israel, who want to push all non-Jews out. He's a good person, but being an ever-curious and ever-skeptical person, I want to know whether there's any solid backing to his claims.

Of course, I've met some Jews, and I've met some Muslims. I've never met a Zionist or a Jihadist face-to-face, to my knowledge. Since Jihadism isn't the same as mainstream Islam, it makes sense that Zionism, if it exists, it's not the same thing as mainstream Judaism.

I'm relatively certain that Jihadists exist. There's plenty of evidence. You can point at Bin Laden, and say he supports Jihad in the violent, infidel-killing sense of the word. He probably won't even disagree with you.

But then there's this Zionist movement. Do they exist? That's harder to say. I've never seen anyone in the news point specifically at another person and say, "He's a Zionist." I've read accusations that the White House or the American Government or the banks are under the influence of Zionists... but the Zionists who are doing the influencing are nameless, faceless, and invisible.

It's been pretty well-documented that the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion was written by a pre-Soviet Russian hoax-professional at the behest of the Czar. That's not to say Zionists can't possibly exist, it just means we need other proof. We have to rely on the evidence of current events.

So, the next thing is to take a good, hard look at Israel's government. Have they been killing Palestinians left and right, women and children and innocents included, like some have claimed? Jenin was supposed to be Big Proof that genocide was going on, and all the major newspapers carried the allegations of a major massacre on the front pages. But the story that the U.N. team had found no signs of a massacre, that it was found to be FUD, was tucked more towards the back pages. And I saw satellite photographs which were enough to convince me that this particular occasion had been over-hyped.

Sure, the Israeli army hasn't been filled with Nice Guys on every occasion, but every time they try to be Nice Guys and relax restrictions, the number of suicide bombings goes up. Statistically proven, no room for arguement. The fact that they aren't perfect saints doesn't prove that they're genocidal, or even minor racists.

So, again, no evidence. I'm stuck with two possibilities that I can see, only one of which may be true. One, these Zionists exist, and they're guilty of genocide as accused, but the evidence has been perfectly hidden. Following this theory out, you almost have to believe in a massive Conspiracy with a capital C. Or, if they do exist, it's not in any organized manner that can corrupt and influence democratically elected governments and cause wars to be waged. Under this theory, the Jews are, once again, history's scapegoats.

Using Occam's Razor, I'd say that the latter possibility is the most believable, at least until I see evidence that can challenge this conclusion.

What is a Zionist

[neocon]

Actually, you're friend is (probably unwittingly) making use of a rather offensive corruption of language which has been perpetrated by the anti-Israel left.

Is there such a thing as a Zionist? Sure, I'm one -- the term dates from the nineteenth century, and means nothing more than someone who believes in autonomy for the state of Israel. See, contrary to the claims the left likes to make, there have been Jews in Israel for thousands of years, and they have been the majority of the population of what is now Israel for pretty much all of this time. Indeed, according to the census carried out by the British when they were the mandate power in what is now Israel, Jews composed 80-85% of the population there in 1946.

However, from the time of the conquest of Israel by the Romans on, the Jews in this area had never again been self-governing. Zionism arose in the nineteenth century as a movement to seek a return to autonomy for this region, and gained strength after the second world war, when the revelation of the scope of the Holocaust turned what had been a desirable outcome into a matter of life and death.

In other words, the term Zionist (taken from Zion, the name of a mountain near the site of the old Temple in Jerusalem), means nothing more than one who does not wish to see Israel destroyed. This would be a primarily academic term were there not so many forces in the world today which do wish just such a destruction.

So, what is your friend on about? Well, central to the attacks on Israel from the European and American left is a mythology which has sprung up which has tried to portray the Israelis not as the continuation of a culture which has lived where it is now for thousands of years, but as recent invaders. Part of doing this has been to attempt to portray Zionism as some sort of imperialist movement, in an attempt to place it on the same moral plane as the Palestinian cries for the destruction of Israel.

This is nonsense, and to see that that is so, one need only look at the differences between the two sides. On the one hand, we have the PA, a dictatorship, ruled by Islamist extremists, which uses the mass-murder of civilians to attempt to further the end of destroying Israel. In the PA lands, no one has much freedom, but in particular, it is punishable by death to be Jewish, or to be even suspected of wanting peace with Israel.

On the other hand, we have Israel, a modern, liberal democracy, with equal rights for all races, religions, and so forth. Palestinians who are citizens of Israel have all the same rights as any other Israeli, and indeed there were 17 Palestinian members of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, the last time I checked. Opposition parties thrive, and even such matters as the national defense are the subject of vigorous debate and democratic process.

Zionism is the preference for the latter over the former. It's as simple as that.

See also...

[neocon]

Two great photo-essays on the subject can be found here [frontpagemag.com] and here [frontpagemag.com].

Re:See also...

[Dannon]

Very good! And thanks for the true history. I'd read bits and pieces of it elsewhere, and it fits much more cleanly with my existing knowledge than the ideas put forward by the anti-Israel propogandists. It's also good to have a reference handy, and I'll keep these links for that reason.

Neocon, you are a troll!

[Interrobang]

There is no 'left' conspiracy against Israel. In fact, there is probably no conspiracy against Israel anywhere (suggest if you want to start looking for anti-Semites, you look at some of these same folks -- right-wingers, I might add, who seem to have such problems with black and brown people, like Lott, Thurmond, Helms, and others!).

As I understand the term (and I get my definition from my Jewish fiance and his family, so notice), a Zionist is simply a person who believes that there should be an autonomous state called "Israel," and, by extension, you might say an "ethnic homeland" for Jews (in the same sense that, say, Japanese people have an "ethnic homeland"). (Note that my definition is subtly but substantially different from neocon's.) This impulse arises (quite naturally) out of several centuries of Diasporas, and probably climaxed after WWII and the Holocaust.

The term "Zionist" was used first around the turn of the 20th Century, and came to the fore at the first Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897. (You can read more about it at http://www.wzo.org.il/home/movement/first.htm [wzo.org.il], if you like. Their definition was:

Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz-Israel secured under public law.

You can probably tell already that the term really has nothing to do with the dreadful Protocols.

As to where we all stand on the matter, my fiance identifies as a Zionist (using the definition I gave above, not neocon's definition or the definition of the WZO), as does all his family. I would say I vaguely fall under that category, but I will qualify that by saying that I can also see the merits of the arguments on some of the other sides (I have no patience for reactionaries of any stripe)...but I also believe there could be an amicable solution [slashdot.org] in the abscense of so much agendism -- on both sides.

On a related note

[redfiche]

I watched part (missed the beginning) of a great PBS special on Muslims last night. It gave details of Mohammed's life, and testimony from many practicing Muslims in America, many of whom converted to Islam because they saw it as a peaceful, inclusive, and tolerant religion. They were universally dismayed that extremists have given them and their religion a black eye. Furthermore, for them Jihad was a personal struggle to devote their own lives to god, and they consider it a desecration of the word to use it in the context of a holy war. So, like most peaceful Jews would say, yes, in the proper context, I am a Zionist, peaceful Muslims would profess to being jihadis.

Every group, and especially religious groups, has its extremists. It's important not to identify the entire group by the actions of a loud and troublesome minority. It's also important to take great care with the language you use to describe a group, as the connotation of the words you choose can differ greatly from the denotation, depending on your audience.

Ah, enlightenment.

[Dannon]

Neocon, Interrobang, Redfiche, thanks for all of your information. Three different viewpoints, with some overlap and some difference.

Now, to examine these viewpoints against each other and against what I know, and try to find a conclusive, complete, truthful and non-self-contradictory conclusion.

Redfiche, I'll start with your points. For one thing, I want to specify that when I use the term Jihadist, I mean one who believes that Jews are related to pigs and monkeys, that Jews use the blood of Christians and Muslims in baking their Passover bread, and that Allah will grant reward for killing of infidels. I'm not referring to those who believe jihad is a personal struggle. Just as all those who believe in the value of Society are not Socialists. I believe it's an important distininction to make, and that unless we make that distinction, we give undue insult to those who follow Islam in search of peace, and undeserved merit to those who use it to justify murder. Linguistic clarity and precision is very important.

Interrobang, thanks for the incredibly informative link. I've been navigating through that history of the region, and it's the most comprehensive I've read. It fits with other stuff I've read [wnd.com].

Neocon's definition of Zionism: One who favors the existance of a Nation of Israel, which has existed in the region for 3000 years. Interrobang's: One who favors the existance of a sovereign State of Israel, which was established in 1948.

In political science terminology, a Nation and a State are not the same thing. A nation is a group of people having a common origin, tradition, language, and usually geography. A state is a politically organized body of people occupying a definite territory. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to say that both Interrobang and neocon are right. The nation's been around 3000 years, and the state for about 54. A shame that most students in the U.S. don't learn the nuances of these meanings unless they elect to take an International Relations course in a four-year College (or have a close relative with a Ph.D. in political science, as I do).

And the difference between neocon's Zionists and Interrobang's strikes me as similar to the difference between libertarians-as-in-philosophy and Libertarians-as-in-Party. Similar principles, the big question being how yous stand with The Movement.

So, a Zionist movement was organized in the late 1800's... Nice to know the solid truth on that. And the goals of this movement have largely been met: That is, the sovereign state of Israel exists. Mission accomplished... except that, according to neocon's evidence, there are organizations who want Israel not to exist. The maps, textbook references, and quotes from Arafat, as well as the history of the region from 1928 onward [wzo.org.il], fit with this view. As does the fact that every time the United Nations holds a conference on Racism, Zionism gets scapegoated [wnd.com].

Next question: Have the Zionists stayed 'lawful' in their struggle against those who wish to end their existance? Quoting Redfiche: Every group, and especially religious groups, has its extremists. A logical assertion, knowing human nature, and the history of both Islam and Christianity... but can you back it up with fact? Can you point me to a Jew who has either committed or called for the wholesale murder of non-Jews? Can you point me to anyone who has crossed the boundary of lawfulness and been rewarded for it the way Arabic leaders have rewarded the families of suicide bombers? Honest questions, seeking an honest answer. I haven't seen it, but until I do, I'll hold with the Zionists.

So, the only conflict remaining between neocon and Interrobang's viewpoints seems to be in whether or not there are efforts outside of the Middle East to distort the truth, and if so, who's doing it. I can say with certainty that the quality of history education in the States, like most Education down here, is shameful. One could say that it could only get this shameful by design, but one would be called upon to back such an accusation very well. Personally, I hold both parties (plus the phonics-unfriendly National Education Association) guilty for backing rotten educational legislation.

Anyway, again, thanks to all three of you for helping me in this short quest for increased truth, knowledge, and wisdom. :)