Zionism why is it different then other forms of nationalism
#11
I think there's a good dose of Zionist propaganda to be found at that source.

The quote from Sykes, used by Ruth Gledhill, comes from The Times which is a central plank of one of the most Zionist-orientated publishing groups in Britain. Colonel Sir Mark Sykes, who is quoted, played, according to his Wikipedia entry, a role in the successful implementation of the Balfour Declaration.

I came across a book whilst googling Pope Benedict XV and Zionism that flatly contradicts the Zionist spin put on it by Sykes and claims that:
The Vatican and Zionism: Conflict in the Holy Land
http://www.amazon.com/Vatican-Zionism-Co...0195058925
Quote:
Drawing on many unpublished documents from diplomatic archives, Minerbi brings to light the little-known role of the Vatican in relation both to the Great Powers and the Zionists in the early years of the twentieth century... In 1917 Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV, received a later Zionist leader, Nahum Sokolow, with more courtesy, but displayed an equally sturdy refusal to support a Jewish state.

In another book (large extracts online) the same author writes, referencing his research in the book linked to above, that:
pp 98-99
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t2AjlkSlMa8C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=benedict+xv+zionism&source=web&ots=U0qZ6C6esW&sig=agg_q4mPTlJO46j5cfsQyrHVkUc&hl =en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA99,M1
Quote:
On May 4th, 1917, Pope Benedict XV, who stressed the importance of the Holy Places, received Sokolow in a private audience and added that appropriate arrangements would be made "between the Church and the Great Powers". Then, on December 18th, Cardinal Gasparri told the Belgian envoy, Jules van den Heuvel, "the transformation of Palestine into a Jewish State would not only endanger the Holy Places and damage the feelings of all Christians, it would also be very harmful for the country itself." A few days later, on December 28th, the pope himself expressed his fear to the British representative, John de Salis, that Great Britain "might agree to forgo direct control over affairs [in Palestine] and hand it over to the Jews to the detriment of Christian interests." The Vatican's concern continued. In January 1919, whilst the Peace Conference was opening at Versailles, Cardinal Gasparri told the Belgian envoy: "Britain has apparently assumed an obligation towards the Jews, to whom they will hand over part of the administration in Palestine... It seems the British politicians fail to appreciate the dangers of this solution for Christian interests in the Holy Land."
 
There are many more examples of the Holy See's declared worry about a Zionist "invasion" of Palestine. In his Consistorial speech of March 10th, 1919, Benedict XV included this sentence: "For surely it would be a terrible grief for Us and for all the Christian faithful if infidels were placed in a privileged and prominent position; much more if those holy sanctuaries of the Christian religion were given into the charge of non-Christians." A few days later Gasparri said: "The danger we most fear is the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine." On June 13th, 1921, the pope again stated that the Jews "must in no way be put above the just rights of the Christians."

The Holy See pursued its struggle against Zionists in Palestine as far as sending an official protest to the Council of the League of Nations, on May 15th, 1922, with the purpose of delaying or possibly canceling approval for the League's British mandate over Palestine. The Holy See, Gasparri wrote, could not agree to "the jews being given a privileged and preponderant position in Palestine vis-a-vis other confessions." Eventually the mandate was approved but the Holy See's hostility towards Zionism did not relent.

* I broke the link, by adding a space, as it deforms the page otherwise. *

Reply
#12
Interesting ... I wonder if any official statements were made by subsequent popes (prior to John Paul II) on the subject of Zionism and the State of Israel?

Reply
#13
devotedknuckles Wrote:Why is Zionism look at and argued over with a different tone then other nationalism? whats the difference?


Though parts are nationalistic, deals less with nation in the civil sense than DNA/genetics which in hands of some zionists turns into racism......

Then again, some trad Catholics have bought into media-fed "hate the towel headed arabs" mentalitiy too, which turns often toward bigotry.....
Reply
#14
Cambrensis Wrote:Interesting ... I wonder if any official statements were made by subsequent popes (prior to John Paul II) on the subject of Zionism and the State of Israel?


Yup, Church is new Israel, not a secular state carved out of British controlled mandate, w/o regards to those living there and their opinions (and property). A state that has homos, abortion, prostitution and general hatred of non-genetic Jews........
Reply
#15
"Belloc" Wrote:Church is new Israel, not a secular state carved out of British controlled mandate, w/o regards to those living there and their opinions (and property). A state that has homos, abortion, prostitution and general hatred of non-genetic Jews........

Yes, the Church is the true Israel, the Jews no longer enjoy the status of the Chosen People and so there can be no religious justification for Zionism. No arguments. (Although it's only fair to mention that some religious Jews - who believe they are still God's Chosen - also reject a religious justification for Zionism.)

However, as you rightly point out, the "State of Israel" is officially a secular state. Most apologists for this "Israel" don't try to justify its existence on religious grounds but simply assert the Jewish people's right to a national homeland. I don't think anyone here would claim the Jews still have the right to call themselves Israelites, but do they have the right to call themselves Israelis?


Regarding the original question, I would hazard a guess that devotedknuckles had anti-Zionists in mind and whether there is something unique about Zionism that prompts the continuing vehemence of their opposition.

"GregPotemkin" Wrote:Well, Zionism is a form of racial nationalism – i.e.- a nationalism based on the concept of establishing a state for the exclusive benefit of a particular racial/ethnic group (in the case of Zionism for the Jews)
"Belloc" Wrote:Though parts are nationalistic, deals less with nation in the civil sense than DNA/genetics which in hands of some zionists turns into racism......

GregPotemkin & Belloc's point about Zionism being a form of racial nationalism certainly has something to do with it. Clearly racial chauvinism is indefensible, let alone acts of 'ethnic cleansing'.

Having said that, isn't some degree of ethnic homogeneity a necessary basis for any nation to exist? (An empire is obviously a different kettle of fish.) I wonder if a European could become officially recognised as a citizen of Japan -- and if so, would he ever be regarded as a true Japanese by the native population?

The worst sort of liberals are hostile to Jewish nationalism because they oppose all racial nationalism on principle, except when it's wedded to some form of socialism and/or anti-colonial liberation movement. So left-wing Scottish and Welsh nationalists are OK, but English nationalists are beyond the pale. On this principle, the national aspirations of the oppressed Palestinian Arabs get more sympathy than those of their Israeli oppressors.

If left-liberal coolness to Zionism has become more outspoken in recent years, it's probably due to the rise of militant Islam, because left-liberals are desperate to flatter and appease the Muslims, whom they fear.

More interesting is the hostility towards Zionist nationalism from other racial nationalists. I get the impression that many modern nationalists are not so much supremacist as separatist. They believe individual nations should be allowed to express their ethnic identities free from both globalist meddling and other nations' aggression. (From this perspective, Hitler could be condemned for not being a true white nationalist but merely a German supremacist whose militaristic policies brought suffering to other European nations.)

So opposition to Zionism from this quarter probably stems in part from instinctive sympathy for the sufferings of the Palestinian nation resulting from the belligerent actions of the Israeli nation. But I don't think that alone fully explains the fierceness of nationalists' opposition to Israel. Why single out the Israeli oppression of Palestinians rather than, say, the Chinese oppression of the Tibetan people?

Probably because of the persistent, widespread and probably correct perception that Jews exercise a disproportionate influence in the affairs of Western nations. Apart from being undesirable in itself, this situation risks entangling Western nations in Israel's quarrels -- at its starkest, Western soldiers fighting and dying in wars fought for Israel's benefit.


Reply
#16
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:I don't think there is a worldwide agreement on the definition of "nationalism." One man's "nationalism" can be another man's "fascism" or another man's "patriotism" or another man's "ethnocentrism", etc. Yes, it does need elaboration. I think we can all agree that most "nationalists" consider their nation supreme over other nations. But what that entails, or how it manifests itself, is another story.  Zionists believe that Jews have a divine right to the nation of Israel; that it is the land promised to them and their ancestors by God (and they have Old Testament scripture to support their beliefs). Americanism (as defined and condemned by the Church) means promoting the principles of America over Catholic teaching... such as religious freedom over religious tolerance, a complete separation of church and state, individualism, etc. which are basically Protestant/liberal in thought. Also, a heightened sense of patriotism; "my country, right or wrong" and the like, can fall under the "Nationalist" umbrella.  I have to ask... is Zionism officially condemned by the Church?  - Lisa
Define "supreme" in that statement.
If putting your nations interests over the global and "world " community interests, then I agree.(which is exactly what Israel does and is doing)

If considering your self a superior people and using every resource you have to control and manipulate the global and "world" community to serve as a means to do your bidding or dominate other nations interests in their own lands, then I disagree.( Which is exactly what Israel does and is doing)


Many worldviews or "ism's" in order to justify their actions in their cause believe they have a "divine right" and by default, the moral high ground.


Having said that , I don't believe Jesus was a Nationalist or Zionist.



Reply
#17
alaric Wrote:
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:I don't think there is a worldwide agreement on the definition of "nationalism." One man's "nationalism" can be another man's "fascism" or another man's "patriotism" or another man's "ethnocentrism", etc. Yes, it does need elaboration. I think we can all agree that most "nationalists" consider their nation supreme over other nations. But what that entails, or how it manifests itself, is another story.
 Define "supreme" in that statement.
 I can't.. because as I said in my post.. I don't know what it entails, or how it manifests itself. Nationalists have their own definitions of supremacy.  - Lisa
Reply
#18
I think that there's a key difference between nationalism and the slippery slope argument that implies that nationalism leads to Germany circa 1939 and superiority, etc.  That is an issue of other debate for which I feel that some nations can be independently judged to be better than others - pride in this fact is not wrong and indeed is necessary.

As to the original question, the difference between Zionism is that Zionism is attached to a religion, at least in some forms.  However, the modern Jew is not necessarily religious, thus it may be an unfair designation.

It should be noted that the term "Zionist" is considered fairly insulting in international relations.  It refers to an extremist view and thus calling someone a "Zionist" is like calling someone an extremist (which I'm sure all of us have been called at one point or another... [Image: laff.gif]). 

Bottom line, in a dictionary-political sense, "Zionism" is the term that refers to a belief that Israel should be restored to its maximum Biblical boundaries because God gave the Jewish people that land.  Needless to say, many Muslims take issue with that...

Reply
#19
GregPotemkin Wrote:
devotedknuckles Wrote:Why is Zionism look at and argued over with a different tone then other nationalism? whats the difference?

Well, Zionism is a form of racial nationalism – i.e.- a nationalism based on the concept of establishing a state for the exclusive benefit of  a particular racial/ethnic group (in the case of Zionism for the Jews), rather than a nationalism for the benefit of all the people in a particular area.

This being the case, it has led to all manner of outrageous things.  Arabs who were born there are/were ethnically cleansed (and forcibly prevented from returning), in order to obtain a super majority of Jews, while at the same time one of its fundamental laws (the law of return) states that any Jew (from anywhere in the world, even if he cannot name a single ancestor from which he can show lineal descent who ever lived there) has a right to “return” there.

In my view, Zionism (as a form “Jewish Nationalism”) is no better or worse than “White Nationalism” would be, if it had (as was the case with apartheid era South Africa) the raison d’etre of establishing a “White state”. 

 

The inequity of it all is only emphasized by the fact that the state to which the form of nationalism aspires is/was established in an area with a majority of non-members of the desired racial/ethnic/national group.

 

I hope this explanation helps.
 


Thank you but not quite the way a Zionist would see it...

Criminals support themselves thro' a variety of different means like money laundrying, illegal drug running, prostitution, etc. Anything which is not done within the laws of a state or country is considered criminal.

There are scores of criminals and crimes. Israel is no more immune than every other country or state on this planet.

More than half a century after the creation of the State of Israel, it is apparently still necessary to explain that Zionism, the belief in the need for a Jewish state, is an assertion of human rights. The meaning of Zionism is simple: it asserts the right to the self-determination of the Jewish people and the right to preserve their cultural identity.  
Zionism gives the Jewish people the same fundamental safeguard that every other nation has - the human right of self determination and self defense. Not only for the Jews but for all forms of life.

The story of Zionism challenges the imagination. A tiny, impoverished group of intellectuals and dreamers took it upon themselves to transform the ancient prophetic vision of the restoration of Israel into flesh and blood reality. Zionism faced the opposition of other Jews and the indifference or hatred of most of the world. Zionism took on the Turkish Empire and the British Empire and defeated both. From a people stigmatized as the cowards of the earth, Zionism fashioned a mighty military machine that defeated huge armies. From a tiny strip of desert sunk in the decay of the dying Turkish empire, Zionism created a world class economy and a thriving democracy.

Zionism remade the image and the reality of the Jewish people. The psychological transformation preceded the reality and made the reality possible. A people almost dead willed itself back to life at what could have been the last moments in its history.

Zionism transformed the intellectuals and merchants of the ghettos of Europe into workers and engineers who built great industries and made deserts bloom. The scurrying frightened figures of ghetto lore gave way to bronzed workers and proud soldiers. In those who hate Jews, contempt was transformed into fear. The lying stereotype of the Jew who could not fight gave way to the equally pernicious lie of the Zionist warmonger. Better to be feared than despised.

Zionism declared that it would redeem the land. Land that had lain fallow for 2,000 years was made to feed a nation of seven million people. Zionism revived the ancient language of the Bible. Hebrew became the language of a modern nation: a language for rock singers and stevedores, comics, poets, pilots, engineers scientists and young lovers.

The story of Zionism is a human story. In its long road, the Zionist movement had many surprising successes, many failures, and many mistakes and tragic disappointments. The story is not finished yet.


Reply
#20
Zionists are not responsible for what is being done in their names, most often behind their backs... just as you are not responsible for the criminal acts that your state or country is undertaking.

Israelis and Jews who identify as Zionist are thus manipulated into believing that an attack on one of them is an attack on all of them and haters contribute to this notion by using the inflammatory rhetoric exhibited in what they post.

Zionism is a tenet of Judaism.

Zionism comes in many forms and it is not perfect but neither is it center of evil. Anyone presuming that is a simpleton.

Israel is a multi-racial state so it can't be racist. It discriminates against populations supporting its destruction though.

Before Zionism there was evil and if Zionism didn't exist at all in this day and age there still would be evil.

Zionism is the modern expression of the 1,900 year old dream of rebuilding a Jewish state in Israel, after Rome put an end to Jewish independence in the Land of Israel. It expresses the conviction that the Jewish people have the right to freedom and political independence in its homeland.

Political Zionism is the ongoing effort, through political means, to develop and secure the Jewish people's national existence in the Land of Israel.

Zionism recognizes that Jewish peoplehood is characterized by certain common values relating to religion, culture, language, history and basic ideals and aspirations, although secular and religious Zionists emphasize these aspects differently.

Additional information may be found in the Zionism Reading List, available at http://www.scjfaq.org/rl/zio-index.html.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)