I can't say I keep up with Zionist arguments since 1967. There have been a number of arguments for over a century to bolster the obviously shaky arguments for the colonization of a patch of desert that had no live connection with the European Jews of the 19th century. How much weight those arguments were given depended heavily on the actual situation of European Jews, and of course there were weighty counter-arguments as well. Now if there were no connection whatever between contemporaneous Jews of a century ago and ancient Judaea, meaning that ancient Judaea never existed, or that there was no component of its inhabitants that made its way to Europe ever, then I suppose the argument for Palestine as opposed to Uganda, Argentina, or Nevada may have never gotten anywhere, though you never know. There were those like Zamenhof who thought the actual direct lineage was rather threadbare, not to mention that any actual connection was effectively meaningless.
However, for the sake of argument, suppose that modern day Jews could be connected to the ancient Israelites, and assume also that a huge percentage of moder Jews got that way via conversion rather than a bloodline to ancient Israel. So what difference does that make? I remember from 45-50 years the argument that Israel is the homeland of the Jews, but I never heard even once any argument for racial or ethnic purity and I can't see what damned difference it would make one way or the other, any more than I ever heard any arguments based on the Bible or the notion of the chosen people. Of course, people may well have harbored those ideas and I missed the memo. The point remains, the only argument I ever heard, at least one I can remember that stuck in my head, was the argument from the history of anti-semitism all over the world, and the argument from the Holocaust. As far as I know, these were the only arguments anyone cared about, but apparently I was wrong. Actually, it all seems pretty ridiculous now. I suppose Einstein's version of Zionism was reasonable and endorseable, but in retrospect it seems completely unrealistic. I guess you had to be a European Jew tired enough of humiliation and exclusion to entertain the notion. This rather than an ur-racism and lust for conquest--a Stalinist lie of long-standing, explains a lot, at least for those removed from the scene where the dirty work that was done. That's my argument, which is not an endorsement for Zionism, just in case anyone is tempted yet again to accuse me of being an agent of AIPAC. A Jewish friend of mine who just treated me to a birthday movie, dinner, and inebriation told me just a few hours ago he thinks Zionism in the end is bad for the Jews, and I wouldn't argue otherwise, except to say that examining the historical time line with some care, while not necessarily arguing the plausibility of an alternate time line, would at least grant a more convincing perspective than the simple-minded propaganda of Stalinists and third world nationalists, which turns out to be a less effective ideological tool in combatting Israel's actions than they fancy. On 6/26/2010 11:27 PM, CeJ wrote: > RD:>>There is also the argument of Shlomo Sand, that the concept of Jewry is > a modern concept, that the Exile never happened, that there were mass > conversions involved in the formation of the Jews in Europe (and > elsewhere), and therefore that the actual ties of European Jews to > ancient Judaea are spurious. Thus the founding Zionist myth is . . . a myth. > > To argue for anything on any of these bases, against Zionism as well as > for, defies logic.<< > > As I understand it, the now infamous Koestler "13th Tribe" thesis was > really an attempt of a non-religious Zionist to show that the Jews of > Europe largely had a European ethnogenesis, in order to counter > European anti-semitism. I haven't read the book, but I have seen how > its arguments and evidence have been only of selective use to serious > scholars of the topic. Now the sad sick joke is that the work is > attacked as anti-semitic and is cited constantly by the Zionists so as > to obscure the very real scholarship that is showing that the standard > accounts of the ethnogenesis of European Jewry (W. European Jews moved > to C. and E. Europe to escape Christian persecution) has far too many > missing parts and implausiblities. Wexler has done considerable work > on showing how Ladino-speaking Sephardim are of N. African origin and > how C. and E. European Ashkenazim are of basically Turko-Slavic > origin. Even those who have tried to dimss his discussions haven't, as > far as I can see, shown them to be implausible (whereas one very large > implausibility is E. Europe getting a very large Jewish population > because of the migration of a few ten thousand Jews from what is now > France--before foods like potatoes, European populations in most parts > didn't increase rapidly). > > CJ > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
