Out of Europe, Out of Time

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By James Brooks
Online Journal Contributing Writer

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1678.shtml

<snip>

Like their present day descendants, early Zionist colonizers glorified Jewish separation from non-Jews. They set themselves apart from the people and dreamed openly of claiming all of Palestine for the Jews. Foreign intruders and a law unto themselves, they posed a self-declared threat to the lives and land of the indigenous population.

Political Zionism had grown up in the ethnic nationalist fervor that swept Europe for several decades before and after World War I. These movements, which still smolder today, tended to borrow from the self-idolizing annals of 19th century racialist science, which in turn were a product of Europe’s centuries of genocidal colonialism.

European ethnic nationalists held that a ‘people’ define a nation, which has the right to an independent state. By extension, residents of the state who not are not of the ‘people’ can be excluded from the affairs of the nation, if not expelled or exterminated. Nationalist movements in central and eastern Europe were often supported by Britain and France, to undercut Germany and the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires.

Zionists took ethnic nationalism a step further by claiming the right of statehood for a religion. By promoting a ‘Jewish race’ with its own speculative bi-racial history, they leveraged the notion that a ‘racial type’ can define a (nation-deserving) ‘people.’ With the other hand, they accepted a religious definition of Jewishness. In this way they were able to hijack Judaism to serve the purposes of their politics...

[The Magistrate]

1. Have You Looked At The Author's Site, Sir?

http://www.vtjp.org/

A particularly charming feature is its prominent home-page display of "This political cartoon by Moroccan artist Abdullah Dourkawi won first prize in the Holocaust cartoon contest at the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Arts." It is certainly worth a look....

[TomClash]

4. Not really worth a look

Ramallah is not exactly Treblinka.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. I've just now taken a brief look at his site...

...and saw the cartoon you're referencing. I'm not sure how it relates to the piece I posted in the OP.

I did note on the left side a link to a piece I posted here titled: "Israeli Lobby Trips and Tilts" by Alexander Cockburn about a week ago that just mysteriously disappeared without any explanation:

http://ramzybaroud.net/

It's an excellent piece. Cockburn talks about how the baseless attacks on President Carter over his book: "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid" have actually helped drive it toward the top of best the sellers list.

You're a moderator, perhaps you can answer this, is it standard practice in the I/P forum for the moderator to just delete an editorial without any explanation?

I have noted in my visits to this forum that it seems to be standard practice here to simply attack the source rather than take issue with the substantive content of an editorial and develop well researched counter arguments particularly where criticism of Israel is concerned.

[Shaktimaan]

9. I just read that article.

And I do think it is worth anyone taking a look at. It's a great example of how some folks will exploit any reason available to criticise supporters of Israel. His main argument is that the American pro-Israel lobby, while powerful, is stupid because (get this) any organization really adept at stifling debate on this subject would have been able to get this book deep sixed before it ever saw the light of day instead of discussing it out in the open like a bunch of (honest) schmucks.

This doesn’t prove the lobby has no power. It proves the lobby can be dumb. Adroit lobbying consists in preventing unpleasing material reaching the light of day. Lobbying thrives in furtive darkness: slipping language into a bill at the last moment, threatening to back a campaign opponent, making quiet phone calls to the Polish embassy. Pressure is now being exerted on Farrar, Straus and Giroux to abandon its impending publication of Mearsheimer and Walt’s attack on the lobby.

The Israel lobby retains its grip inside the Beltway, but it’s starting to lose its hold on the broader public debate. Why? You can’t brutalize the Palestinian people in the full light of day, decade after decade, without claims that Israel is a light among the nations getting more than a few serious dents. In the old days, Mearsheimer and Walt’s tract would have been deep-sixed by the University of Chicago and the Kennedy School long before it reached its final draft, and Farrar, Straus and Giroux wouldn’t have considered offering a six-figure advance for it. Simon & Schuster would have told President Carter that his manuscript had run into insurmountable objections from a distinguished board of internal reviewers.

This article is the first to tell it like it is. That Israel's supporters would love nothing more than for Carter's book to die in obscurity. Any means necessary would be justified in the fight against the do-gooder Carter and his despicable expose if it meant that our greatest fear, the truth, would be hidden from the public eye. Even if it only bought us a single year of leeway in being able to further terrorize the Palestinians in obscurity it would be worth it. If not for that meddling ex-president no one would ever have even known that any of this was happening! Now, thanks to him the harsh light of truth has finally awoken the masses to our evil scheme. We should have stuck to our original plan of silently ensuring that only views which further the goals of the Elders of Zion ever saw the floor of a Waldenbooks, as our forefathers have always done, but now it is too late. Curses! I knew this plan of publicly disagreeing with his viewpoints and offering reasoned, accurate explanations that highlight his biased reasoning and faulty logic was going to fail. But even I never realized that discussing the book would generate publicity for it. How could I have been so stupid? Now all is lost.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. Wow

"His main argument is that the American pro-Israel lobby, while powerful, is stupid because (get this) any organization really adept at stifling debate on this subject would have been able to get this book deep sixed before it ever saw the light of day instead of discussing it out in the open like a bunch of (honest) schmucks."

His main argument? You're joking right?

[Shaktimaan]

16. I even quoted it dude. It's right there.

They are not disputing the actual criticisms raised. They are disputing the act of making criticism itself. Both for being merely "ritual accusations" (I love the veiled anti-semitic reference in that phrase) as well as for being an ineffective attempt at discrediting the president.

Then they accuse the Israel Lobby of being behind a rally to war against Iran, swaying the President's judgement toward conflict, with Israel planting murmurings about possibly having to use nuclear weapons. (Suuuure Israel's doing that.) They end with the assesment...

as a ferryman across the Styx toward Armageddon the lobby is doing a competent job.

The International Jew, forever behind the scenes, using America as it's witless puppet to do its vulgar bidding! Or didn't you know that this is all classic anti-semitic prop?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Dude, how is this comment antisemitic?

I went to the article and found ONE reference to 'ritual accusations'. This is it in it's context: 'The New York Times featured a spectacularly disingenuous hatchet job by its deputy foreign editor, Ethan Bronner, and another assault by former Clinton-era Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross. The latter rolled out the ritual accusations about Arafat’s rejection of Clinton’s proposals in December 2000, which is nonsense, as Ross surely knows.'

So you might have to explain for us faaar less sensitive types exactly how saying that Dennis Ross rolled out the ritual accusations is antisemitic...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

21. Anti-Semitism behind every tree...

...It never gets tired does it?

[Violet_Crumble]

23. That's interesting. I just went and googled that 'veiled' term...

The only thing close to it I could find was the 'ritual murder accusation' to do with blood libel. So if the author had been saying that about Jews, then it would be antisemitic....

Just curious, but I take it you'd think that this is also antisemitic?

'Perhaps that sort of ritual accusation, taken with as little offence as among children in the playground, would be useful in the Commons as other ritual accusations and rituals, such as spying strangers; I can well imagine an Opposition spokesman rising and pronouncing gravely: "Madam Speaker, the honourable gentleman's pants are on fire."'

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000317/ai_n14282752

[Violet_Crumble]

15. That thin veneer of objectivity is slipping...

Now, thanks to him the harsh light of truth has finally awoken the masses to our evil scheme. We should have stuck to our original plan of silently ensuring that only views which further the goals of the Elders of Zion ever saw the floor of a Waldenbooks, as our forefathers have always done, but now it is too late.

Of course!! How did I not realise before now that anyone who admits there is an Israel lobby in the US that does work to try to ensure that only one perspective of the I/P conflict is heard in the mainstream of the US is an antisemite!!

A hint: try discussing things objectively without resorting to such complete nonsense as that comment...

[Shaktimaan]

17. did you read the article I'm talking about?

I'm not going to be baited into giving raw anti-semitic propoganda any credence just because you're annoyed at me. I am not coldly objective in the face of blatant racism. The issue you and I discuss has two sides. This does not.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Yes I did, which is why I said what I did...

You have yet to show where this 'raw anti-semitic propaganda is'. Also, there's no blatant racism in it either.

on edit: I just thought I'd check that yr talking about the article by Alexander Cockburn, coz I'm surprised to see charges of antisemitism being thrown at it when I just read it again and fail to see anything in there that's of an antisemitic nature...

[Shaktimaan]

36. yup the cockburn article

when I said racism I was lazily referring to the anti-semitism. I know its technically incorrect. But I'm not implying anything about a "jewish race" here, just using the word as an easy synonym for prejudice, although it is an incorrect usage.

The anti-semitism that I saw in the article is an example of something that I've seen more and more of lately, disturbingly mostly in left wing articles. There was a thread about it recently here but I think it was locked for being unrelated to I/P. Articles like this basically just take old, standard anti-semitic stereotypes and repackage them as being anti-zionist, usually framing the argument in terms of Pro-Palestinian solidarity thereby passing it off as speaking truth to power.

This whole article builds up the case that zionist agents are exerting enormous leverage and power in our media, (both to highlight their own propaganda and to stifle any sort of debate against it,) and in our halls of government. The way it is told here, Israel and the Zionists are acting as an invisible fifth column, surreptitiously controlling our legislators for their own nefarious purposes. He implies that despite the contrary desires of the voters our government heeds the will of the zionist lobby first and foremost. Then he goes on to suggest that Israel and Bush will team up and provoke a war with Iran to suit Israel's interests. He suggests that Zionist operatives are working against american interests to benefit Israel, leading us towards annihilation.

This is nothing but a rehash of propaganda that we've seen dating back to the protocols of the elders of zion. Jews are in your country behind the scenes, manipulating your government for their own needs, controlling everything you see and read, preventing you from learning the truth, etc, etc. Isn't it a coincidence that so much of this stuff is just spot on anti-semitic literature that has remained unchanged for hundreds of years, yet instead of attacking Jews it attacks the Zionists. Attacking Zionism has become an easy way to rebrand anti-semitism and I think that, on the left at least, people who are making legit criticisms of Israeli policy and who are not anti-semitic do not realize that a line is slowly being crossed. There is a huge difference between arguing against Israeli policy and making anti-semitic charges but it is a difference that seems to escape many as they drift into reinforcing anti-semitic stereotypes and propaganda in their zeal for justice over Palestine. If you doubt this at all, take a look over at stormfront and check out their arguments on this subject.

There's plenty of room for debate over Palestine without resorting to old hate propaganda. A common charge made against supporters of Israel is that they use the label of anti-semitism to stifle legitimate debate over Israel's policies, something that I've rarely seen happen in real life except maybe among right wing bloggers and radio hosts. I mostly hear about it when people accuse others of it. For instance, for all the accusations leveled at him, I don't think I ever saw Abe Foxman accuse Carter being anti-semitic. But I certainly saw plenty of people accuse Foxman of it and rip into him for it.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I suggest you try reading the article then...

And rather than reworking the article with 'The way it is told' 'suggests' 'implies' peppered throughout what you say, you tell me exactly where in that article those things were stated...

A common charge made against supporters of Israel is that they use the label of anti-semitism to stifle legitimate debate over Israel's policies, something that I've rarely seen happen in real life except maybe among right wing bloggers and radio hosts.

Having myself been on the recieving end of some 'supporters' of Israel online who do try to use the label of anti-semitism to stifle legitimate debate over Israel's policies, I suspect that you've rarely seen it coz yr choosing not to notice it when it happens...

[Violet_Crumble]

10. It doesn't relate at all to the piece you posted in the OP...

Maybe the Magistrate can actually comment on the OP itself, because as it stands, that was a very clumsy diversion tactic...

[oberliner]

27. I hope that point is made consistently

Because I have definitely noticed articles or postings that are dismissed out of hand because the source they come from is labelled as biased. (CAMERA, for instance)

Personally, I do not feel it is a "diversion tactic" to identify a source as being unreliable, hateful, or otherwise less than objective.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. No, you won't ever see The Magistrate doing that...

His ire is solely reserved for posters and articles he deems antisemitic. My point is that thundering into a thread and urging everyone to look at something that I couldn't even see among all the links on the link in the OP, and especially about something that I've seen many mainstream media outlets report on (ie the winner of that Holocaust cartoon competition), all the while not taking the time to address anything in the OP itself, is of course a clumsy diversionary tactic...

[The Magistrate]

33. What, Exactly, Are You Defending Here, Ma'am?

"Enquiring minds want to know."

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I'm certainly not defending yr inconsistant standards...

And if you misread it that way, you have my sincere apologies...

If yr still in any doubt as to what I'm talking about, and fyi, none of what I say has anything to do with defending anything, I'm thinking of the contrast between yr reaction in this thread to something you think is antisemitism and yr reaction in another thread to this comment about Islam: ''nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself."'

Yr response?

'People are entitled, it seems to me, to hold an unfavorable view of any system of thought, and pattern of cultural practice, and to express it. The position that criticism must be rooted in bigotry is simply a shabby tool of debate, employed to distort and poison the course of discussion, by people who would prefer for various reasons to overlook elements of the matter that others find of great importance.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=148564&mesg_id=148764

[The Magistrate]

35. What You Are Doing, Ma'am

Is protesting my denouncing a writer capable of stating that Nazis viewed Zionists as fellow travelers in their quest for racial purity. Complaint over denunciation of the fellow as clearly moved by hatred suggests you find something of value in his remarks and views: if that is so, please state what you do find of value in his remarks, and if it is not, please consider this an invitation to make explicit your own views on the writer and his remarks. The fact is that it would be very hard to find so many errors stated about the entire topic of nationalist thought, European political theory in the nineteenth century, and the early development of Zionism compressed into such a small space as this wretch has provided.

If you wish to expand this into an examination of theologies within the Abrahamic tradition, including that of Islam, and the practical effects of these on history and present politics, and similar matters, that is possible as well, within constraints of time available to me, and with the warning that the topic is to me so cut and dried as to be extremely boring. My statement some months ago in another connection that you have quoted here is a defence of any person's right to disagree with the doctrines of a religion, or the cultural practices of a society, and to state those disagreements. An unfavoreable view of a thing is not evidence of prejudice against it or bigotry towards it; it may well be the result of examination of it and a reasonable conclusion drawn from same. Is it, Ma'am, your view that persons should be required to hold a favoreable view of all religious and cultural practices, or at least be required to refrain from expressing any unfavoreable view of any religious or cultural practice, if they cannot find it in their conscience to approve of it?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. No, I've Spelt Out Very Clearly What I'm Doing...

And I'm sure if I repeat it again, you'll opt to engage in yet another bout of telling me I'm doing something I'm not....

What You Are Doing, Is protesting my denouncing a writer capable of stating that Nazis viewed Zionists as fellow travelers in their quest for racial purity.

Now if the writer had said that Zionists viewed the Nazis as fellow travellers, I'd be thinking that'd be something worth denoucing. But while yr so busy denouncing this writer, I'll be waiting for you to start denouncing those wretches at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre for daring to publish such swill on their site:

'The relationship between Nazi Germany and the Palestine Question of the 1930s is widely misunderstood. Except for a few scholars here and there, this subject lends itself to a pervasive kind of misconception: we tend to read the Nazi policies of World War II back into the 1930s. The Nazis' "Final Solution of the Jewish Question," their pro-Arab attitudes, and their battle against Great Britain makes it difficult for most of us to imagine that before the war the Nazis, even the SS, aided the illegal immigration of Jews into Palestine, and that Hitler so feared British displeasure that he absolutely prohibited German support for the Arabs of the Palestine mandate. Yet this is exactly what Francis R. Nicosia has described and proved in his excellent scholarly study.

Nicosia clearly shows in his impressive introductory chapter that Germany's policy on Palestine remained unchanged from the late Empire through the Weimar Republic. German policy makers supported Zionist efforts because they recognized that Zionism could be an effective instrument of German foreign policy. During the 1930s, the Nazis continued this traditional policy because they wanted to use Zionism and please the British.

Nicosia wants "to provide a comprehensive analysis of National Socialist attitudes towards Zionism from the early years of the movement to World War II (p. 17). To do so, Nicosia had to examine the formative years of the Nazi movement, where ideological hostility toward the creation of a Jewish state (derived from the conspiratorial vision of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) clashed with the ideological commitment to promote Jewish emigration for the creation of a judenreines Germany. This conflict between different aspects of the same Nazi ideology existed for about two decades, from the founding of the movement in the early 1920s until the beginning of World War II.

In the summer of 1933, soon after assuming power, Hitler's government signed the Haavara Transfer Agreement with Zionist representatives. It reflected Germany's battle against unemployment and depressed agricultural prices as well as the Nazi party's goal of forcing the Jews to leave the country. The agreement made possible the emigration of large numbers of Jews, and it also opened Palestine and the Middle East to German exports. Large-scale immigration of Jews to Palestine and the development of the country by the Zionists made this British mandate a likely candidate for German industrial goods; at the same time the agreement would undermine the worldwide boycott against German goods.'

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395105

If that's not enough for you, when I was studying WWII, I read books from reputable Holocaust scholars (eg people like Hannah Arendt and Yehuda Bauer) which discussed Nazi attitudes towards Zionists. Their attitude towards Zionists was favourable, especially compared towards their attitude towards German Jews who weren't interested in Zionism, but in assimilating into German society...

My statement some months ago in another connection that you have quoted here is a defence of any person's right to disagree with the doctrines of a religion, or the cultural practices of a society, and to state those disagreements. An unfavoreable view of a thing is not evidence of prejudice against it or bigotry towards it; it may well be the result of examination of it and a reasonable conclusion drawn from same.

That's bullshit. Yr own words were: ''People are entitled, it seems to me, to hold an unfavorable view of any system of thought, and pattern of cultural practice, and to express it.'

As for bigotry, while you clearly don't find anything wrong with a comment stating that most diaspora Muslims refuse to share a common set of values with non-Muslims, most people would and for very understandable reasons. That go far beyond yr attempt to paint it as a mere discussion of religion, but is a negative generalisation of a group of people....

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. very interesting article from the Simon-Wiesenthal Center

"Germany's Palestine policy between 1933 and 1940 was based on a fundamental acceptance of the post-World War I status quo in the Middle East. For different reasons, the Hitler regime continued in the footsteps of the various Weimar governments by identifying German interests with the postwar settlement in Palestine. That settlement embodied a growing Jewish presence and homeland in Palestine, as well as the establishment of British imperial power over Palestine and the Middle East. It also represented a denial of Arab claims to national self-determination and independence in Palestine and throughout the Middle East. Between 1933 and 1940, German policy encouraged and actively promoted Jewish emigration to Palestine, recognized and respected Britain's imperial interests throughout the Middle East and remained largely indifferent to the ideals and aims of Arab nationalism. (p. 201)"

link:

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395105

Palestine and Nazi Germany
by Sara Reguer

Francis R. Nicosia. The Third Reich and the Palestine Question. Austin: Texas University Press, 1985. xiv, 319 pages.
_____________

I think it should be noted that German Nazi government support for the Zionist project in Palestine from 1933 to 1940 was a continuation of earlier established German government policy. It was based on realpolitik considerations both domestically and internationally; certainly not on ideology other than the desire to welcome the departure of Jewish people for Germany.


.

[The Magistrate]

26. The Reason Sources Are Attacked, Sir

Is that in some cases the articles linked to are expressons of the bigotry and race hate of their authors, and bigots consumed by race hate have no place in the discussion of this matter, and can contribute nothing of value to it.

The article you have cited in commencing this thread strikes me as an example of this. His discussion of the origins of Zionism is too deliberately wrong-headed to be the product of anything but unreasoning hatred. No one honestly inquiring into the matter could possibly have gotten it so wrong, or expressed conclusions so foully. That the man chooses to display prominently the winning entry in a contest pitched to reward essentially the best exercise in Anti-Semitic cartooning that could be collected by a regime that has made Holocaust denial a plank of its government policy is simply the cherry on top that removes all room for doubt about his character. Persons like this are not engaged in debate; they are scraped off a shoe, and the hands washed thoroughly afterwards....

[Violet_Crumble]

30. That's not what you said about Wafa Sultan, who is a bigot...

Enough said...

[Violet_Crumble]

32. I just reread the OP...

While I disagree with some of what the author wrote, I fail to see how it's antisemitic.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

41. You spew this same "attack the source as a bigot" rhetoric...

...every time harsh truths about Israel are put forth in an editorial posted in I/P and it DOES NOT pass for reasoned argument.

[Shaktimaan]

2. If anyone is wondering when anti-zionism crosses the line into anti-semitism...

look no further.

According to this guy Zionism has its roots in glorifying seperating Jews from non-Jews in a period of ethnic nationalism that swept through europe. From the assertion that the concept of Jews as a seperate race was invented by Zionists to the implication that Zionism inspired the philosophy of ethnic purity which led to the holocaust (going to far as saying that the nazis saw the zionists as "fellow travelers") this is one heck of an anti-semitic piece of revisionist history propoganda. According to this guy Zionism has its roots in glorifying seperating Jews from non-Jews in a period of ethnic nationalism that swept through europe.

I'm not going to bother refuting anything here. If anyone wants to believe this kind of stuff then nothing I say will dissuade them.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. "I'm not going to bother refuting anything here. "

Then why bother posting at all? You felt the need to let us know you disagree with the author but can't be bothered to take issue with specifics of his editorial and develop your own counter arguments. Is that supposed to pass for a worthy contribution?

[Andromeda]

3. Not even interesting fiction.

:thumbsdown:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Please enlighten us...

...What parts of the editorial do you disagree with? Please feel free to make your case.

[pelsar]

8. I'll explain....

Zionists took ethnic nationalism a step further by claiming the right of statehood for a religion. By promoting a ‘Jewish race’ with its own speculative bi-racial history, they leveraged the notion that a ‘racial type’ can define a (nation-deserving) ‘people.’

the history of the jewish people, is one that the states they were living in declared the jews "seperate" and defined them with a multitude of anti semetic laws as well as actions....not the opposite. The Zionists simple accepted that notion (something the german jews rejected in the 1930s-40s)


for the rest?....you should probably open some history books about jewish history.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. You begin with "I'll explain"...

...and then to proceed to explain nothing.

Brooks doesn't suggest anywhere in his piece that European Jews were not targets of anti Semitic laws and actions. He's writing about the roots of Zionism and relating it to Israel today. You seem to have somehow missed that.

[pelsar]

12. the roots of zionism....

IS from anti semitism....thats what its all about. Ignore that and you out there in fantasy land..which is where the article is

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

18. Huh, so you disagree?

You don't think that the roots of zionism are a reaction to anti-semitism? This should be good. Go on, make your case.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. with all due respect

everything I have read coming from sources including non-Zionist Jewish scholars such as Professor Illan Pappe of Haifa University or modern Palestinian scholars such as the late Edward W. Said or Rasheed Khalidi are clearly and unmistakably convinced that the by far the prime roots of modern secular Zionism was anti-Semitism.

In fact when Theodor Herzl from Vienna wrote Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State)in 1896 the interest by this otherwise secular and worldly Jewish thinker and playwright was largely motivated by the Dreyfus Affair in Paris in 1895.* It was in 1897 that the first Zionist Congress lead by Dr. Herzl met in Basil, Switzerland and basically (this is over simplifying it) set out to establish the Zionist project in Palestine.

Incidents such as the Dreyfus Affair and the general rise of fanatical anti-Semitism in Europe has more to do with the rise of modern Zionism than all other factors put together such as the rise of nationalism. Although I suppose there is evidence that the rise of nation-state nationalisms in Europe did contribute to the rise of anti-Semitism. And the rise of nation-state nationalism did likely contribute to the concept of the Jewish State. Still Jewish reaction to anti-Semitism was undoubtedly the chief driving factor. And I have read this from a variety of scholarly sources who clearly do not view favorably either Zionism or the Zionist project in Palestine.

* "Dreyfus Affair, a notorious anti-Semitic incident in France in which a French Jewish army captain was falsely convicted of spying for Germany. Herzl had been covering the trial of Dreyfus for an Austro-Hungarian newspaper. He also witnessed mass rallies in Paris right after the Dreyfus trial where many chanted "Death To The Jews!"; this apparently convinced him that it was futile to try to "combat" anti-Semitism. In June, 1895, in his diary, he wrote: "In Paris, as I have said, I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism."
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Yeah, I'm in agreement with that...

Incidents such as the Dreyfus Affair and the general rise of fanatical anti-Semitism in Europe has more to do with the rise of modern Zionism than all other factors put together such as the rise of nationalism. Although I suppose there is evidence that the rise of nation-state nationalisms in Europe did contribute to the rise of anti-Semitism. And the rise of nation-state nationalism did likely contribute to the concept of the Jewish State. Still Jewish reaction to anti-Semitism was undoubtedly the chief driving factor. And I have read this from a variety of scholarly sources who clearly do not view favorably either Zionism or the Zionist project in Palestine.

The way I understand it is that antisemitism in Europe was the driving factor for the rise of modern Zionism. The rise of nationalism wasn't, as without the antisemitism that Herzl witnessed, he would never have come up with the concept of a Jewish state. If there had been no antisemitism, it's not at all likely that he would have looked at the European nation-state system and decided to create the idea of a Jewish state based on it....

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

31. no...it was as a good summary

period......all the additional crap that you added is simply an attempt to make a straightforward reaction to 2,000 year of anti semetism in to some form of evilness (we have a word for that as well)

[Lurking Dem]

25. That you seem unable to realize

that this article is, on its face, antisemitic frankly scares the shit out of me.

This is liberalism?

This is progressive philosophy?

This is bullshit.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

40. I can't help but notice you chose not to offer any argument...

...in support of your charge, and while I suppose this does make you fit right in here in the I/P forum, please feel free to break from tradition and actually cite specifics from the editorial and make your case.

Liberalism and progressive philosophy mean different things to different people. What do they mean to you? Do you consider Israel's forty year, brutally oppressive, and often murderous occupation of Palestine a good example of a well intentioned, liberal government motivated by their progressive philosophy toward the world? -- Or, that while the occupation may not be indicative of a liberal or progressive government, it can somehow be justified by security needs? If so, YOU scare the shit out of me.

[Lurking Dem]

42. boo.

[rinsd]

43. "Liberalism and progressive philosophy mean different things to different people."

They certainly don't mean things that people from Stormfront would applaud.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

44. I presume this is yet another shot at...

...smearing James Brooks as a bigot? Let me guess -- you dug up a known racist website that posted a link to something Mr. Brooks has written thereby proving by association that Brooks must himself be a bigoted racist? Feel free to share the details, I'm sure they're very compelling.

Here's an editorial he wrote from '03:

In Reverse? Check Your Mirrors!
by James Brooks

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0430-11.htm

The author info appended to the end of this editorial:

James Brooks of Worcester, Vermont, is a writer, webmaster, and former business owner. His recent articles have been published by several Web sites covering the Middle East, investigative journalism and alternative politics. Currently Brooks serves as webmaster for Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel (www.vtjp.org) and publishes News Links, a free, once-daily (Mon-Sat) e-mail digest of in-depth Middle East news and commentary.

That's everything I know about James Brooks. If you know more, please feel free to share it.

[Lithos]

45. Locking

After review, it appears there are serious biased undertones to this person's writing and content usage; given his lack of specific "gravitas" to the subject, I am disinclined towards posting his material.

Lithos
DU Moderator