Home | One of the stronger arguments I have heard against zionism is the argument against nationalism: "I am not solely against zionism, but against all nationalisms whether Hebrew nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, Chinese nationalism, Lithuanian nationolism etc." Thus my question is, what are the moral benefits of nationalism as opposed to assmimilation?
Nationalism is an expression of patriotism. Things like loving your country, loving and cherishing your culture, loving your people. Abandoning nationalism means a destruction of culture, people, and country.
Who made these arguments against Zionism?Originally Posted by tzanchan
If they were Jews then they are rejecting the Torah, seeing as one of the main tenets of the Torah is that the Jews constitute a nation.
If they're non-Jews then they don't understand what Judaism is.
I was looking for a secular answer and support for secular zionism.
But the argument is that it is better for nations to assimilate. For example, for secularists like yourself and I, why is it better for north american Jews not to simply assimilate into north american culture, as opposed to excentuating their Jewishness?
I found this interesting debate about secular Zionism.
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=3257
I find the concept of secular Zionism difficult to fully comprehend. It seems like a contradiction in terms.
I don't suppose I view things the way someone in China does. I'm sure there are many points of similarity, but geography does seem to shape the way people think, even within one's own nation. I like the idea of different peoples being able to contribute to their own national experiments and offering to the world their perspective on the human condition, sharing their own cultural expressions etc...I view it as an opportunity for people to learn and grow from these different expressions and borrow from them, and I don't think you will ever get every person in the world to agree on a single human experiment. I'm thankful for a world filled with Swiss and German industrial design, Latin American dance, Middle Eastern hospitality, the French appreciation for life's pleasures and Jewish humor and intellectual achievements. If I could change something about the system, it would be to make it easier for people to switch experiments, but provided that they really were interested in contributing to the national experiment of their new nation. That does require assimilation to a large extent, though most nations do have enough room to accommodate the complexities of personal identity (the United States probably being the best example because it is an experiment based more on an idea rather than common history).
One world body for all to assimilate into like the Borg seems like the vision of Communism; a secular Messianic dream that when you boil it down is not that different from religious Messianic ideals. Granted, I'm not altogether against these ideals and I can even be romantic about leaving open the possibility that one of these national experiments will be the single most influential light to all other nations, but I'm against compulsion in religion and equally I don't want to take on the cultural obligations of living life like the Maori just because I am interested in fire dancing.
Interesting answer. Very helpful, thankyou for your post.
Why? ....To me secular Zionism is a perfectly rational and self consistent concept. It's very simple, it just advocates self determination for the Jewish people. It's not anti anything and it has room to encompass all the flavours of Judaism. It makes room for both religious and non religious Jews, it allows each person and group to make their own choice but the thing that's common to all Zionists (religious or secular) is that they want Jews to have an independent country called Israel.
To sum up, secular Zionism treats Jews as a people, not just as religion, although, as it happens, these people happen to have a common religious background but religion is only part of what's common to them. It's also about common culture, common traditions, common history and a desire to have a common destiny....I don't see any contradiction in that, am I missing someting?
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
There is a difference between what you consider to be nationalism - a sort of generic watered down definition - and what is the commonly accepted usage of the word/concept - which concernins a particular type of political and social platform. Furthmore one can distinguish pre-20th century concepts of such from the modern form which is a more narrow jingoistic expression of such.
Here is an OK (but not really do all and end all) discussion of/introduction to the subject -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
You might find this discusion of interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionist_Movement
BTW - you can read I assume...and I am assuming as you certainly haven;t shown much capacity for it...
Some exerpts:
many religious Jews were not enthusiastic about Zionism before the 1930s, and many religious organisations opposed it on the grounds that an attempt to re-establish Jewish rule in Israel by human agency is blasphemous, since only the Messiah can accomplish this. They considered it religiously forbidden to try to hasten salvation and the coming of the Messiah. They saw Zionism as an expression of disbelief in God's salvation and power, and therefore as a rebellion against God. (I know some very ultra-religious Ultra-Orthodox Jews who still feel this way...)
Another big problem of religious Jews with Zionism is that Zionists were largely secular Jews, and in some cases were atheist in their point of view. The atheism of the early Zionists was imported from Marxism by Socialist Zionism which saw Zionism as an avant-garde effort of building an advanced socialist society in the land of Israel, while solving the antisemitism problem. The Kibbutz is a good example of Socialist Zionism: it was a communal settlement set to fulfill national goals, in which no Jewish law was observed
Can you please explain what you mean by that comment?
Fair enough for now.
But I don't see secular Judaism as lasting for more than a generation or two because many secular Jews will be marrying out and assimilating or having Jewish children but not bringing them as particularly Jewish.
Can you give a source for this, because it makes sense? A kibbutz is not a capitalist construct. I can imagine the foundations of Israel as socialist. They were stuggling against the British and Marxism was still a positive idealism. But it begs the question of how Israel became so identified with the United States. Somewhere prior or during the Cold War it was the Arabs that became identified with Socialism and Israel seems to have put itself firmly on the side of Global Capitalism.
Political Islam is anti-capitalism and therefore will naturally gravitate towards socialism and Marxism. Moreso since the Russians took advantage of Western indifference and offered educations to many in the Middle East. In a way we are still fighting the Cold War with a different set of players.
The source is the wikipedia link quoted. I agree it doesn't make sense - kibbutzim are entirely socialist, just as you say.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks