| > there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist
>> Where's the straw man? Nobody argued "there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist." That's literally how straw men work. > makes these Zionist organisations all act in the same way I haven't seen this level of coherence. But I also haven't seen anyone argue this properly. Instead it's always this "I have secret knowledge" nonsense. > seems you don't know what Zionism is Quite possibly. I've read the Wikipedia and have discussed it with Egyptian, Jordanian and Israeli acquaintances in America and Europe. I haven't seen anything to suggest it can be considered a philosophically, methodologically or politically unified movement in anything but its aim of establishing a Jewish nation-state, a goal which isn't inherently fascist or religious supremacist (but which is, again, inherently segregationist, though so is arguably an nation-building exercise). Again, I think the analogy to folks who rail against Antifa as if it's a coherent ideology and organisation is apt. If you press any of those people for an explanation, you get similar 'you don't know what Antifa is' and 'you're probably Antifa' deflections. (Note: I'm not attacking you per se. I'm attacking the rhetoric. I'm engaging because I have a hint of a sense that you know something interesting that I'd like to learn.) |
You literally said "These aren't coherent organisations, just loose collections of aligned folks."
The Israeli government isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'
AIPAC isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'
Jewish National Fund isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'
> I haven't seen this. But I also haven't seen anyone argue this properly. Instead it's always this "I have secret knowledge" nonsense.
You might be out of your depth here, then. I'd suggest you do some reading before trying to argue your points here, because you're not doing a good job of it.
> in anything but its aim of establishing a Jewish nation-state
And what does it take for a peoples to establish their own 'Jewish nation-state' on a bit of land that had people living there already? Hint: you could quote David Ben-Gurion's own words. I'll start it off for you:
"The Arabs will need to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war" - David Ben-Gurion, writing to his son, 1937
"In internal discussions, in instructions to his people, the 'Old Man' demonstrated a clear stand: it was better that the smallest possible number of Arabs remain within the area of the state" - Michael Bar-Zohar, biographer of David Ben-Gurion
"I am for compulsory transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it." - David Ben-Gurion to the Jewish Agency Executive, June 1938.
"Every attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion." - David Ben-Gurion.
- -
"I don't understand your optimism," Ben-Gurion declared. "Why should the Arabs make peace? if I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out."
- The Jewish Paradox by Nahum Goldmann