[whimsicalism]

There are plenty of non-zionist people who survived the Holocaust, it is disingenuous to paint caring about Israel as the natural, inevitable reaction to the Holocaust.

The whole concept of having a natural "homeland" because of your DNA/ethnicity/race is bullshit, land doesn't care what color your skin is or what religion you practice.

[dalbasal]

The majority were not zionist, including my family. The Holocaust changed that.

The premise of zionism was never "having a natural "homeland" because of your DNA." The premise of Zionism was that Jews could not stay in Europe, particularly in the age of nation states. Most commonly, this was referred to as "The Jewish Question."

The majority of secular Jews believed in emancipation. The majority of religious jews believed that only god could create the Jewish state. They were also skeptical of Zionism's desire for secular Jewish identity.

That said, my grandparents never referred to themselves as zionists. Before the war, zionism just meant "want a jewish state to exist." Foreign politicians (eg Churchill) were referred to as zionist for this reason. After the war, it generally meant exuberance about zionists political ideologies of the time. Founding Kibbutz, farming, hebrew language revival, etc. "Zionists" wanted to take hebrew names, for example. Today, "zionist" just means Israeli patriotism.

[whimsicalism]

The Holocaust definitely changed how the majority of people felt, but it doesn't mean that I can't be critical of that sentiment.

Bundism also continued to exist after the Holocaust, albeit in a diminished form.

"premise of Zionism was that Jews could not stay in Europe" -> the creation of a state where citizenship is granted explicitly on the basis of your ethnicity, in the form of a "right of return" is 100% the premise I suggested.

[dalbasal]

I don't think you can't be critical of that sentiment.

I do dispute that it was a a sentiment at all, at least in grandparents' case. It wasn't ideology either. It was just a fact. They couldn't stay in europe. A right of return to a Jewish State^ was the only practical way to survive, besides conversion. My grandfather considered that route, as an atheist, but his first wife dissented. He also looked very Jewish. That was their conclusion att. You are free to disagree.

The majority of post war immigration was non ideological. There wasn't much daylight between ideological and non-ideological zionism, for the most part.

It also (in my opinion, this time) proved true for 1.5 million people who found that they could not stay in Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, etc. The new world wasn't an option for them, as it had been for many europeans.

I might agree with you that nation states, or the common form of nation state, isn't ideal. It is quite terrible in its purist form. However, I don't see why this criticism is so often leveled at Zionism exclusively. I'm also Irish, and have never heard such a criticism of Irish Republicanism. Besides that, lots of countries' have rights of return, ethnonational symbolism, etc.

Meanwhile, most Israelis supported South Sudanese and Kurdish independence for similar reasons. Me included. I think that Kurds have been screwed since the fall of the Ottomans, because they ended up without a state. Lebanon was founded on this premise. Pakistan. Lots of examples

^Zionism originally called for a homeland, not necessarily a state, and hoped to achieve this as cultural autonomy and migration rights under Ottoman sovereignty. Nation States were not the norm, when zionism was first conceived.

+The downvotes are not from me.

[whimsicalism]

I don't know your grandparents, so really can't hope to prevail in any discussion about what their sentiments were.

I don't dispute that most of this immigration was non-ideological, I wasn't trying to suggest that it wasn't. Nor am I opposed in any way to Jewish immigration to Israel.

Moreover, racial & ethnic separatism is a very common and understandable reaction to oppression. But I still remain critical of it - just as I would be if Black people in the United States established a separate Black state in North America.

The crime, in my view, was the insurgency, bombings, and driving out of the British following their announcement that they planned to transition Palestine into an independent, multi-racial state with majority-rule. Fighting against that goal in order to form an ethno-state is, in my view, analogous to what the white minority in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia pulled after similar British announcements around their colonial state. The primary difference is that Israel remains, Rhodesia no longer does.

> I'm also Irish, and have never heard such a criticism of Irish Republicanism. Besides that, lots of countries' have rights of return, ethnonational symbolism, etc.

My understanding is that Irish republicanism is not based on the same principles as Zionism, namely there is no opposition for a multi-ethnic/racial state with majority democratic rule.

[dalbasal]

Re: Irish republicanism

There is quite a lot of similarity between the two movements, current antagonism aside. Language revival being the most commonly noted. IDK what you would consider "principles of," but they're both nation state ideologies of the time... as opposed to republican universalism (a la france) of previous centuries.

It is also true that ireland was segregated along religious/national lines, and that protestants in ROI (I am catholic-jewish-atheist, as the old joke goes) are nonexistent today. They were about 25% before independence. Driving out protestants is emphatically not a principle of irish republicanism. Many/most founders of Irish Republicanism were, in fact, protestant. Most emigrated, moved north or converted in the generation following independence. There is some dark, rarely mentioned parts of our history of that time.

I'll also note that driving out arabs is emphatically not a principle of zionism, never was. The coming of the nation state had other ideas. zionism started in the ottoman period, and aspired to cultural autonomy of a kind that was practiced there. A nation state goal was adopted after France and Germany decided this was the future of the region.

People seem to forget how mixed Europe was before the wars, before nation states. Poland was about 50% polish. Jews, Germans and other minorities made up the rest. Its now 99% Polish-catholic. My grandfather's region (now eastern Slovakia) were Slovaks, Jews, Czechs and Ukrainians in a "majority-minority" mix. Now 99% Slovak. All of mainland europe shares this history.

When the Ottoman empire fell, giving way to nation states, same. Greek & Turkish ethnic "exchange." The Syriac & Armenian genocide. Yugoslavia & multiethnic arab countries segregated more recently. India, despite Gandhi's efforts. Etc. Empires were more multicultural than the current states.

I'll note that the philosophical distinction between universalism and ethno nationalism is barely noticeable in actual history.

Re: racial & ethnic separatism

Seeing independence as synonymous with racial & ethnic separatism is a leap. But, as I said, but if it applies to Israel it applies to half the world. In Israeli law, now and since founding, there is no preference or limits on any citizen. The only preferential law is the right of return. Actual discrimination, especially during wars, is a real thing. It is a failure though, not an ideal.

Rhodesia practiced apartheid and only allowed whites to vote. Israel never practiced apartheid, and all citizens can vote.

During the 1948 war about >1m palestinians became refugees, most ending up in the Jordanian or Egyptian parts of Palestine. >1m european jewish refugees arrived from europe and >1m arab-jewish refugees who were forced out of various countries. Thats how the demographics came to be. There was never a time when israel, as an independent state, had a jewish minority.