Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Ghandi rejected Zionism
JF:I suspect that Gandhi's position on that is by no means not unrelated to his own advocacy of a secular India. Although Gandhi was a very devout Hindu, he was emphatic in support of India being a secular state in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc. would all have equal rights. The twist on a twist in the case of Israel is that they so repeatedly declare that Israel is a SECULAR state. And critics of Zionism point out it is mostly a secular political philosophy and nationalism. I usually counter with observations like, 1. Most religious Jews have been won over to Israel as a Jewish state, even if not the one of prophecy. 2. Zionism is self-contradictory in at least two senses: it was sold as a form of socialism that excludes people based on their religion and ethnicity (because it displaced upwards to 1 million Arab Palestinians to be created) , it is supposed to be a secular political philosophy that raises the idea and actions of the state to a national religion. 3. When Truman rushed ahead of his own cabinet and advisors in order to recognize Israel, he wasn't recognizing Israel, he was recognizing an entity known as something like 'the Jewish state in Palestine'. YC:although he did not understand at all what to be a chosen race meant for the religious jews - a terrible burden and a sacrifice I'm not really sure I follow your point here. The Christian traditions we are most familiar with often emphasize the individual as chosen while Islam has a stronger sense of chosen community (which Christian radicals like Anabaptists also have). What makes Judaism different doesn't have much at all to do with the Old Testament Judaism but rather the late classical, early middle age development of Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism, which tried to impose separation from its largest schism, Christianity, by making conversion and inter-marriage so much more difficult than either Christianity or Islam. That is not to say that separation wasn't also a concern of the Christians, but you can easily see how these attitudes could become mutually re-inforcing. One could only be Jewish by 'blood', one would have to choose willingly to be a Christian. Which is an overstatement (conversion to Judaism was actually possible but very daunting by the time Christianity was completely distinct). If its strictures weren't so often violated, TRJ might have ended up like one of the other major schisms, the depopulated Samaritans. Islam seems to have been developed as a 'universal church' for the 'Abrahamic religions', possibly including Zorastrians. Its strong conversionary and assimilative powers were, contrary to popular modern western belief, due to its doctrinal expansiveness and flexibility, but then held back by the Arabic language and issues in the succession of power--that is until dominant forms of political Islam hit up against European Christianity, which, ironically enough, also harbored European Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism, the very element that would conquer Palestine in the name of a 'return to the promised land'. 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] Ghandi rejected Zionism
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0815-GandhiZionism.html excerpt: Gandhi rejected the idea of a Jewish State in the Promised Land by pointing out that the Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. The Zionists, after embarking upon a policy of colonization of Palestine and after getting British recognition through the Balfour Declaration of 1917 for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jews, tried to elicit maximum international support. The Jewish leaders were keen to get an approval for Zionism from Gandhi as his international fame as the leader of a non-violent national struggle against imperialism would provide great impetus for the Jewish cause. But his position was one of total disapproval of the Zionist project both for political and religious reasons. He was against the attempts of the British mandatory Government in Palestine toeing the Zionist line of imposing itself on the Palestinians in the name of establishing a Jewish national home. Gandhi's Harijan editorial is an emphatic assertion of the rights of the Arabs in Palestine. The following oft-quoted lines exemplify his position: Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. Gandhi's response to Zionism and the Palestine question contains different layers of meaning, ranging from an ethical position to political realism. What is interesting is that Gandhi, who firmly believed in the inseparability of religion and politics, had been consistently and vehemently rejecting the cultural and religious nationalism of the Zionists. What follows then is that he was not for religion functioning as a political ideology; rather, he wanted religion to provide an ethical dimension to nation-State politics. Such a difference was vital as far as Gandhi was concerned. A uni-religious justification for claiming a nation-State, as in the case of Zionism, did not appeal to him in any substantial sense. A few months before his assassination, Gandhi answered the question What is the solution to the Palestine problem? raised by Doon Campbell of Reuters: It has become a problem which seems almost insoluble. If I were a Jew, I would tell them: 'Do not be so silly as to resort to terrorism...' The Jews should meet the Arabs, make friends with them and not depend on British aid or American aid, save what descends from Jehovah. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Ghandi rejected Zionism
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:00:21 +0900 CeJ jann...@gmail.com writes: http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0815-GandhiZionism.html excerpt: Gandhi's response to Zionism and the Palestine question contains different layers of meaning, ranging from an ethical position to political realism. What is interesting is that Gandhi, who firmly believed in the inseparability of religion and politics, had been consistently and vehemently rejecting the cultural and religious nationalism of the Zionists. What follows then is that he was not for religion functioning as a political ideology; rather, he wanted religion to provide an ethical dimension to nation-State politics. Such a difference was vital as far as Gandhi was concerned. A uni-religious justification for claiming a nation-State, as in the case of Zionism, did not appeal to him in any substantial sense. I suspect that Gandhi's position on that is by no means not unrelated to his own advocacy of a secular India. Although Gandhi was a very devout Hindu, he was emphatic in support of India being a secular state in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc. would all have equal rights. Following independence, this would put him on a collision course with the right-wing Hindu nationalists who would eventually assasinate him. I also suspect that Gandhi would not have been too suprised that the BJP (direct political descendents of the sort of Hindu nationalists who assasinated him) have been strongly pro-Israel. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant Project Management Online Nation's Leading Online PMP Course. Get Certified-Find Out More Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c276ff55384314fcdm03vuc ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Ghandi rejected Zionism
The above letter from Gandhi does not show he was antisemitic (although he did not understand at all what to be a chosen race meant for the religious jews - a terrible burden and a sacrifice not a silly-boasting glory as most antisemites and some... Jews believe), but it shows that the non violent resistance of the Jews Gandhi advocated in front of the Nazis was a criminal political attitude. Yves Colema Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question. My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews. But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews. But the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province. But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both? Or is England drifting towards armed dictatorship and all it means? Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism. It is also showing how hideous, terrible and terrifying it looks in its nakedness. Can the Jews resist this organised and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. No person who has faith in a living God need feel helpless or forlorn. Jehovah of the Jews is a God more personal than the God of the Christians, the Mussalmans or the Hindus, though, as a matter of fact in essence, He is common to all and one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Ghandi rejected Zionism
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:38:37 -0400 Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org writes: Really? I thought Hindutva fascism was connected to anti-Semitism? Ralph, where have you been? If you look at Europe, most of the far right is now very pro-Israel. Even Jean-Marie Le Pen, the guy who was once convicted of Holocaust denial by the French courts, is very pro-Israel. One can be both an anti-Semite and a Zionist. Indeed, there is nothing new about that. Herzl in his day, spent much time cultivating support among anti-Semitic politicians and publicist, including his own friend, Edouard Drumont, who was then a very famous anti-Semitic agitator. Why should things be that different with the Indians? Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant Do you know anything about Gandhi's letters to Hitler, or is this just Pakistani propaganda? On 6/27/2010 11:35 AM, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:00:21 +0900 CeJjann...@gmail.com writes: http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0815-GandhiZionism.html excerpt: Gandhi's response to Zionism and the Palestine question contains different layers of meaning, ranging from an ethical position to political realism. What is interesting is that Gandhi, who firmly believed in the inseparability of religion and politics, had been consistently and vehemently rejecting the cultural and religious nationalism of the Zionists. What follows then is that he was not for religion functioning as a political ideology; rather, he wanted religion to provide an ethical dimension to nation-State politics. Such a difference was vital as far as Gandhi was concerned. A uni-religious justification for claiming a nation-State, as in the case of Zionism, did not appeal to him in any substantial sense. I suspect that Gandhi's position on that is by no means not unrelated to his own advocacy of a secular India. Although Gandhi was a very devout Hindu, he was emphatic in support of India being a secular state in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc. would all have equal rights. Following independence, this would put him on a collision course with the right-wing Hindu nationalists who would eventually assasinate him. I also suspect that Gandhi would not have been too suprised that the BJP (direct political descendents of the sort of Hindu nationalists who assasinated him) have been strongly pro-Israel. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant ___ 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 Get Free Email with Video Mail Video Chat! http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210 ___ 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
