#Define sovereignty

[siplifeslowly]

New Every Morning

https://www.canva.com/design/DAF7LytTIPQ/dYUCemLrz_AQLUaRqp9klw/watch His Mercies are New Every Morning by Angela Edmonds He is making all things new. Did you know that? And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Revelation 21:5a And this morning, this day, this moment- His mercies are new right now. You may be reading this in the middle of the night. Even…

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

"[We insist that God] must surely lead everyone as we believe He has led us. We refuse to allow God the freedom to deal with each of us as individuals. When we think like that, we are legalistic." - Jerry Bridges

[vamptastic]

Another thing that is driving me fucking insane is that the only thing the current rise in the anti-zionist movement is in agreement upon is a ceasefire. I think that's good in terms of organizing around one immediate, actionable change, but god it's going to be a fucking shitshow when a ceasefire does occur because there seems to be very little consensus on what should happen long-term. Not surprising, considering a lot of people are new to the cause and that their passion stems from the obvious atrocity currently happening, not a deeper connection or investment. Just bonkers to see people who want one 'secular, democratic' state (not a lot of elaboration on what that means) and people who want two independent states and people who want one Palestinian state (sometimes secular, sometimes not) all calling themselves one movement... I mean, where is all this support going to be channeled in the years to come?

[psychotrenny]

I kinda hate it when ostensible leftists throw around meaningless Liberal criticisms. Like you can just condemn a state for the cruel and unjustifiable actions it's committing. Like Israel is an Imperialist Settler Colonist state that's been exploiting, ethnically cleansing and committing the genocide of indigenous Palestinians for it's entire existence with the intensity of this violence increasing in recent months as reprisals for recent acts of Palestinian resistance. It's not a fucking "illegitimate" or "terrorist" state because that's meaningless.

Whether a state is recognised as legitimate or not by under the Imperialist dominated world order means literally nothing about the morality of continued existence. And for what it's worth only 15% of UN member nations do not recognise the Sovereignty of Israel, meaning that by most definitions of the word it is in fact a legitimate nation; to be clear this demonstrates the uselessness of "legitimacy" as a concept rather than the righteousness of Israel's continued existence. Meanwhile the use of the word "Terrorism" has heavy connotation of non-state actors; while at it's broadest people may define it as "use of violence and intimidation to achieve political aims", but if such a broad definition was used in practice the term would be diluted beyond all meaning. The word "terrorism" is rarely used for the actions of states except as an extreme pejorative. The phrase "Terrorist State" is basically only used by Imperialists as a label they use to justify the violence they inflict on oppositional regimes. It's never used in a useful analytical or even descriptive way; it means nothing beyond being a pure insult and call to arms against the target.

Like you can condemn Israel for what it actually is using words that actually mean something; you don't have to keep repeating the same buzzwords that liberals use against states like Cuba and North Korea. You aren't gonna achieve much if you limit yourself to employing the language of Imperialism against it's masters. This rhetoric is rooted in a very specific ideology; it can't simply be pulled out and reversed

[heritageposts]

. . . But in 1948 Israel declared its sovereignty from the British Mandate through the besiegement of indigenous Palestinians. The new nation retained Regulation 133(3) with an important caveat: It was amended to give military commanders complete control over where a body is buried, as opposed to the original “community to which such person belongs.” This is the legal basis of postmortem detention, and over the last 80 years the scope of the law has expanded greatly. Namely, who is subject to postmortem detention by the military (from “enemy soldier” to the blanket term “terrorist”) and when the state is entitled to seize bodies (from “times of war” to “forever war on terror”). Regulation 133(3) can now impose restrictions on funerals when a body is returned to a family. When Palestinian prisoner Mustafa Arabat succumbed to torture in 1992, Israeli courts ruled in favor of the military to enforce that his funeral be held in the middle of the night and only attended by immediate family. Today, families whose bodies are eventually returned to them must abide by the military’s rules on how to express their final rites. Israeli law explicitly defines these funerals as a threat to “public order” and grants soldiers power over a family’s grieving.

. . . full article on The Nation (29 June, 2023)

[archived link]

[captainjonnitkessler]

What's your feelings on landback?

It's complicated! Especially since "landback" is used as an extremely vague catch-all term for a wide variety of action.

Some people define it as defending and expanding sovereignty over the land already controlled by indigenous tribes, forcing the US government to uphold its treaties, generally supporting and protecting indigenous cultures, and fighting for environmental protections and better stewardship of the earth, all of which I fully support.

Some people define it as "returning sovereignty of ancestral lands to the tribes who used to inhabit them" and tbqh I don't know how that's supposed to work. Kind of seems like any steps taken to ensure that native people retain control over the land/government would necessitate disenfranchising 98% of the country, and that seems pretty bad to me! And no, I don't think disenfranchising almost your entire population is an ethical or effective way to make reparations for past atrocities.

Most of the info I can find on the subject is very much style over substance and doesn't contain any actual plan of action, so it's hard to find concrete info on what the second group is actually proposing.

[opencommunion]

"While largely toothless as a democratic body—shorn of true legislative capacities and having never developed a genuine transnational dynamic—the European Parliament is nonetheless an important bellwether to track the continent’s political winds. As the results of the parliament’s June 6-9 elections confirm, those winds are blowing in a bleakly reactionary direction.

... There are two principal causes for this. First, the fact that for many decades now European national governments and federal European institutions have legitimized — through emergency measures, moral panics and murderous border policies that have led to thousands of migrant deaths in the Mediterranean — the far Right’s defining claim that migration threatens the material and cultural survival of white European civilization. The far Right’s obsessive talk of borders and births, and its promotion of the myth of the Great Replacement, were enabled by the EU’s political center. Governments across the continent advanced anti-migrant policies on the grounds that stricter regulations would sap the foundations of extremism. But it turns out voters often prefer the original brand, choosing bellicose nativism over technocratic repression when it comes to the ​'migration crisis.'

The second engine of Europe’s turn towards authoritarianism is the EU’s promotion of fiscal austerity policies that have particularly impacted Southern Europe and Ireland, but which have led to welfare state retrenchment across the board. Beyond eroding livelihoods and exacerbating inequality, austerity also led to the rise of multiple movements to reclaim national sovereignty, almost all of which (after the punishment and capitulation of Syriza’s left-wing government in Greece) are now monopolized by reactionaries. While all of Europe’s far-right parties have played on this supposedly populist register, none have challenged the hegemony of markets and the rating agencies that dictate cuts to social programs. ... The real social malaise that plagues so much of Europe — overburdened and privatized healthcare, labor precarity, anemic social security, accelerating climate-related emergencies — is projected onto the far Right’s favorite scapegoats: primarily migrants, but also ​'gender ideology' and its alleged assault on the family as Europe’s moral and material core."

[stillnaomi]

World War III and the Fall of Imperialism

A speech by Booker Ngesa Omole, The National Vice Chairperson of the Communist Party of Kenya

As we gather here at the 7th International Conference of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform, we stand at a critical juncture in our shared struggle against the scourge of imperialism. Today, I want to discuss a stark reality that looms over our world: the inevitability of World War III, driven by the unrelenting aggression of imperialist powers. This war is not a distant possibility but a present danger, rooted in the insatiable greed of monopoly capital.

Imperialism, in its various manifestations, poses an existential threat to the sovereignty of African nations. Initiatives such as AFRICOM serve as instruments of this imperialist agenda, undermining our autonomy and reducing our countries to mere pawns in the geopolitical chess game orchestrated by Western powers. These military strategies are designed not to protect our people but to secure the interests of the imperialist elite.

In Kenya alone, we host three foreign military bases, a glaring testament to the erosion of our sovereignty. These bases are not just symbols of military presence; they represent a direct violation of our independence and dignity. They subjugate our military and intelligence agencies to the whims of U.S. imperialism, turning our institutions into extensions of foreign powers. This scenario is replicated across the continent, where foreign military presence is a common thread in the tapestry of imperialist domination.

The spectre of World War III is already haunting us, as conflicts rage on multiple fronts. In West Asia, the struggle against Zionist aggression is an anti-imperialist, antifascist war. In Eastern Europe, we witness the brutal realities of NATO-backed conflict in Ukraine. And in East Asia, tensions simmer around Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, echoing the same imperialist ambitions.

Lenin, in his classic work “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism,” eloquently articulated the dynamics of imperialism and its inevitable contradictions. He described how imperialism seeks to escape internal crises through external wars. Today, we observe this in the provocations and military exercises conducted by the United States and its allies, which serve not just as a show of force but as desperate attempts to maintain their declining hegemony.

Yet, amidst this chaos, the anti-imperialist camp is rising, united in its struggle against oppression. Comrades in Russia, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, and various resistance movements across the Global South are not seeking war; they are prepared for a just struggle against imperialist aggression. The unity and operational strength of the anti-imperialist front underscore a powerful truth: we are not alone in this fight.

The reliance of imperialism on proxy wars and economic sanctions reveals its strategic limitations. The imperialist powers fear direct confrontation, knowing the consequences of nuclear escalation. This hesitation will be their downfall. While they aim to exhaust nations like Russia, China, and Iran, we can turn their war of attrition into decisive victories across multiple theatres of conflict. These victories will not only weaken imperialism militarily but will also trigger a political and economic collapse. The fragmentation of NATO, the decline of the U.S. dollar’s hegemony, and the emergence of BRICS and other alternative institutions signal the end of the US imperialist order.

The eventual defeat of US imperialism will pave the way for a new global order defined by national liberation revolutions and the defeat of all neo-colonial projects across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This new order will also see the inevitable resurgence of socialist revolutions and the establishment of people’s democracies. Additionally, there will be a true commitment to peace, independence, and self-determination as guiding principles for global governance.

As we face the challenges of our time, let us reaffirm our commitment to the struggle against imperialism. The victory belongs to the people. The end of imperialism will not only reshape global politics but empower nations to pursue socialism, democracy, and peaceful coexistence.

In conclusion, as we confront the spectre of World War III, let us remember that this is a final confrontation between the forces of imperialism and those of anti-imperialist resistance. Together, we shall emerge victorious, heralding a new era of hope, freedom, and progress for all.

Death to Imperialism!

Long live International Socialism!

[dontforgetukraine]

November 21st is the Day of Dignity and Freedom. On this day, Ukrainians ignited two revolutions against tyranny and injustice: The orange revolution in 2004 and the Euromaidan revolution in 2013-2014.

On 21 November, Ukraine commemorates the Day of Dignity and Freedom, honoring pivotal moments in its history that underscore the nation’s fight for independence, democracy, and the rule of law. This date marks the anniversary of the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2013-14 Euromaidan Revolution, also known as the Revolution of Dignity, two popular uprisings that defined Ukraine’s resistance against Russian authoritarianism and its determination to embrace a pro-European future. Euromaidan began on 21 November 2013, when Ukrainians took to the streets to protest then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s abrupt decision to abandon a historic agreement with the European Union under pressure from Moscow. The peaceful demonstrations escalated into a nationwide movement demanding democracy and accountability. Yanukovych’s regime responded with brutal force, leading to the deaths of over 100 protesters, now remembered as the “Heavenly Hundred.” These revolutions were not just internal struggles but battles against Moscow’s endless efforts to maintain dominance over Ukraine. After Yanukovych fled in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and launched a war in eastern Ukraine, laying the groundwork for today’s full-scale invasion. Today, Ukraine’s resistance continues more fiercely than ever as it defends not just its sovereignty but also the principles of democracy and international law. The legacy of 21 November serves as a reminder that Ukraine’s fight is far from isolated—its outcome will shape global norms on freedom and the rule of law. —Euromaidan Press

[matan4il]

To the person who wants us to differentiate the modern political movement that came to be called Zionism, and the Zionist nature of Judaism, I'll address you politely, even though your assertion that I must be a teenager (quick search of my blog would show you that I work at a Holocaust museum, education and research center, that also studies the history of the Jewish people in general, so... not a sound assumption) is very insulting and condescending.

Sure, we can distinguish the thousands of years old Zionist nature of Judaism from the modern political movement that came to be referred to as Zionism.

But do you understand that the modern political movement wouldn't exist without the fact that Judaism has ALWAYS been Zionist? That the distinction is, to a degree, an artificial one, especially in the context of anti-Zionists claiming that Judaism is incompatible with Zionism, which is a lie. With that claim, they mean to deny the very right of Israel to exist as a liberation and land back movement of the Jewish people, and while they're at it, they are de-legitimizing every Zionist movement ever, whether modern or not, they're de-legitimizing every Jew who had returned to Israel, even just as an individual, because they are denying the very Zionist nature of Judaism.

I'll attach at the end an attempt at demonstrating why the distinction is somewhat artificial in this context.

But before that, I'll address some of your other claims. You said that Zionism is a secular movement, and religious Jews are opposed to it. While some ultraorthodox Jews are indeed opposed to active Zionism, and prefer a passive wait for the Mashiach, they too are Zionist in the non-modern-political-movement sense (they still believe and pray for the Mashich to bring all Jews back to Israel and re-establish Jewish sovereignty in this land, not to keep them in the diaspora). And they do not represent all religious Jews. The modern political Zionist movement was very much joined by religious Jews, such as a political organization called "Ha'Mizrachi," which was established in 1902. Their Zionism was connected to the actions and writings of rabbis who preceded many secular Zionist leaders like Herzl (first published a Zionist pamphlet in 1896), such as Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever (first established Ha'Mizrachi as a spiritual and educational pro-Zionist center in 1893), Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai (published "Minchat Yehuda," a Zionist call for Jews to return to Israel in 1840, and established the Society for the Settlement of Eretz Yisrael in 1852), and Rabbi Zvi Kalischer (asked Mayer Amschel Rothschild to help with the purchase of land in Israel for Jews to return there in 1836, and published the Zionist book Drishat Zion in 1862). Even among ultraorthodox Jews, there are Zionist ones. Some of them were a part of Ha'Mizrachi organization. During the British rule in Israel, there were ultraorthodox Jews who actively helped the Zionist underground movements, the Etzel and the Hagana, and in a 2022 poll, 76% of Chassidic Jews defined themselves as Zionist.

You also made the assertion that the modern political movement of Zionism is European. Again, while many of its founders were from Europe, many Jews from Arab and Muslim countries came to Israel as a part of the modern Zionist movement. Please don't erase them. And why would they be a part of this movement? Because of the intrinsically Zionist nature of Judaism. Yemenite Jews didn't need to be a part of the founding fathers of the modern political movement, in order to be a part of the movement, and to see it as a fulfilment of ancient Jewish prophecies, when they were brought to Israel in a special operation in 1952. In fact, there was a Zionist Yemenite movement of return in 1881, following a verse in the Bible, in the Song of Songs book, that they believed told them they had to return to Israel during this year. Many of them settled in a village close to the Temple Mount, which the Arabs refer to as Silwan, a mispronunciation of the ancient Hebrew name Shiloach (that can be found in the Bible). These Yemenite Jews were ethnically cleansed by the Arabs during the 1936-1939 anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish riots. And when Jews tried to return to Kfar Ha'Shiloach, anti-Zionists attacked that as "colonization," too. Anti-Zionists make NO distinction between Jews returning to Israel from Europe, and Jews returning to it from Arab and Muslim countries. We're all just "Zionists" and "incompatible with Judaism," no matter how much our Zionism is derived from our Jewish identity, and no matter that we are native to this land, not colonizers.

You asked, "how can judaism be 'inherently zionist' when the idea of a jewish state has only existed for less than 200 of those years?" and I will ask you, what's unclear when I say that Zionism is about Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish ancestral homeland, which is an idea that I showed was inherent to Jewish tradition and religion? There were Jewish kingdoms here (the unified kingdom, the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Yehudah, and the Hasmonean Kingdom), that fulfilled that idea long before there was a Jewish state, and the Jewish state is a direct (and yes, modern) continuation of those ancient Jewish kingdoms (I mean, of course that's the modern reincarnation, we're not going to build a Jewish kingdom now, just so no one can use the accusation that a Jewish state is a modern concept... and I'm sort of weirded out by the fact that I have to defend the right of Jews to implement modern reincarnations of their traditional notions... Also, pretty sure that if we went with the old version and tried to set up a Jewish kingdom, we'd be crucified for being backwards), because it is founded on the same exact principle, that we get to self rule in our own ancestral land. Denying that is erasing Jewish history and parts of Jewish identity.

You said, "our connection to the land does not need to be mediated through a political body the majority of us have absolutely no say in," and I wanna ask you, does every German in the world (or at least most) have to live in Germany, and have a say in it as a citizen, for the nation state of the German people to have the right to exist? Same for every other nation state out there.

You called Israel, "a country younger than our grandparents, and for that matter any other country too," which is untrue on several levels. The state might be younger than some grandparents, but its right to exist is an ancient one, connected to those thousands of years old kingdoms, and in that sense, the modern state of Israel being founded in 1948 is no different to the modern state of India being founded in 1947. Would you tell Indians that their state has no right to exist, erasing its connection to previous forms of Indian self rule in that land, just because those weren't a modern state? Would you offend them by suggesting that the age of their modern state is a factor in its legitimacy? No. But for some reason, you feel comfortable doing that when it comes to the modern Jewish state. While we're at it, whether the current self rule of Palestinians constitutes a state is a matter of debate, but let's say that it counts, and that a Palestinian state started existing when they began self ruling in 1994 following the Oslo accords (the first time ever in history when Arabs in Israel self ruled, rather than be a colony serving a metropole situated in some other Arab or Muslim country), that would make their state not only younger than our grandparents, it would make it younger than quite a few Tumblr users. But I bet you wouldn't say that this de-legitimizes the right of a Palestinian state to exist. Yet you feel it's perfectly okay to say such things about Israel. You should ask yourself why can you accept others, but not a Jewish state. For the record, here's some modern states younger than Israel, that you would never dream to de-legitimize based on their age: Malaysia (1957), Singapore (1965), Zimbabwe (as Rhodesia, 1965), Bangladesh (1971), Guinea-Bissau (1973), Comoros (1975), Lithuania (1990), Latvia (1990), Belarus (1990), Armenia (1990), Georgia (1991), Croatia (1991), Slovenia (1991), Ukraine (1991), Moldova (1991), Uzbekistan (1991), Macedonia (1991), Azerbaijan (1991), Slovakia (1992), Montenegro (2006).

***

Okay, a small demonstration of how artificial the distinction between modern political Zionism and historical Zionism is...

Where do we put the start of the modern political movement of Zionism, what is the date when it began?

A lot of people would suggest that it started with Herzl. He's often referred to as "the father of Zionism" (that's incorrect. It would be more accurate to refer to him as "the father of diplomatic Zionism"). Herzl was actually an assimilationist Jew, who believed Jews in Europe should aspire to be like all other Europeans, erase the difference between them and the non-Jews (relinquishing our tradition, culture, religion, everything that makes us unique and a contribution to the richness of the human experience), and rely on the equal rights that Europeans would grant us. He believed in this, but experiencing antisemitism in the cosmopolitan Vienna, as well as covering the Dreyfus trial (when a Jewish officer was convicted of treason, and shamefully exiled, despite his many years of loyal service to his country, just because he was a Jew), he came to publish (as I mentioned) a Zionist pamphlet in 1896.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1896?

But the term "Zionism" as the name of the movement was actually coined in 1890, by Nathan Birnbaum!

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1890?

But for the term to be coined, it had to describe something that already existed. And in fact, many Zionist groups, counted as a part of the modern political movement, were already active by that time. For example, some people start counting the new Yishuv in Eretz Yisrael as starting with the arrival in Israel of the Zionist Bilu group, in 1882 (they were established in January of that year, and despite being secular Jews, they were drawing from Jewish tradition, naming themselves after a biblical verse from the book of Isaiah. Because like I said, modern political Zionism wouldn't exist without the ancient Zionist nature of Judaism).

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1882?

But that doesn't work either, because by the time the Bilu group arrived in Israel, the first Jewish moshava (a Zionist form of settlement based on values of agriculture and communality), Petach Tikva (sometimes nicknamed "the mother of moshavot"), was already established in 1878.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1878?

But how did this new movement of Zionists know to work the land, if in the diaspora, for hundreds of years, Jews were prohibited from being farmers, so they would have no claim to the land they worked? Well, many young Zionists learned how to do this work thanks to a Jewish agricultural school called Mikveh Yisrael, which was founded in 1870.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1870?

But a part of why Mikvah Yisrael was established, was the poor condition of Jews in Jerusalem. By the time demographic surveys were conducted in the 1840's, Jews were the biggest religious group in the Old City of Jerusalem, and so overcrowded that it made their lives much harder, sometimes even endangered (like when a plague would break out). The Jewish minister Moshe Montefiore started building neighborhoods for Jews outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem in 1860, moving Jews out of the old Yishuv and into a new form of settling in the land of Israel, outside the "protecting" walls of the four cities holy to Judaism, and into the idea that they can and should use agriculture to sustain themselves outside these cities, and re-connect with their land.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1860?

But the first victim of anti-Zionist terrorism in the land of Israel is actually considered to be Rabbi Shlomo Avraham Zalman Zoref, who was murdered by Arabs in 1851 for his Zionist efforts to help in the settlement of Jews in Israel and in the restoring of Jewish religious life in the Old City of Jerusalem through diplomatic efforts vis a vis Muhamad Ali Pasha, the Egyptian occupier of the Land of Israel at the time, and by enlisting the help of the consuls of Russia and Austria (by the way, one of his grandsons was among the founders of Petach Tikva).

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1851?

But his diplomatic Zionist efforts, for which he was murdered, didn't start at the time of his death, they go back to when he managed to get that permit from Muhamad Ali Pasha in 1836 for Jews to re-build the Ashkenazi community in the Old City of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Muslims over a hundred years earlier.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1836?

But where did that Ashkenazi Jewish community, which Rabbi Zoref tried to restore, come from? Rabbi Yehuda Ha'Chassid successfully called Jews to return to Israel, and he did manage to inspire many to follow him as he started his own journey to Israel in 1697, and managed to buy land for his community in the Old City of Jerusalem, which was joined by Jews already living there. This WAS a form of a semi-modern Zionist movement. And it IS quite connected to what came later, in more modern times.

Or another example. Dona Garcia Nassi was a crypto Jew from Portugal, whose family had fled the Spanish Inquisition, only for the Portuguese Inquisition to grow stronger and harsher, driving her and a part of her family to Istanbul. There, they could stop pretending to be converts to Christianity, they got to publicly return to their Jewish identity. She did a lot for Jews, and in 1561, she used her financial and political ties to ask the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the First to lease land in Israel, for Jews to self rule there. She first asked for land in Jerusalem, was refused, and so she ended up leasing land in Tiberias instead, helping to re-build the city and the Jewish community there, and allowing for a movement of Jews to return to Israel and settle in Tiberias. It's another type of semi-modern Zionist movement striving for Jewish sovereignty in Israel, in whatever form they could get it.

So where do we draw the line? How do we say, these Jews returning to Israel count as Zionist, but those don't? One of my best friends is a Jew from Morocco, his family was religious and fiercely Zionist, and your ask erased them. How do we accept a narrative that looks at thousands of years of Jews returning to Israel, from all sorts of backgrounds, and from all sorts of countries, and yet doesn't recognize that they all returned for the same reason, drawing from the same Jewish foundation? How do we not see that the separation is an artificial one?

Anti-Zionism is antisemitic in so many ways, and one of them is exactly what this narrative does to so many Jews who were proud, and wanted to be counted as Zionist, precisely because to them it was an expression of their Jewish identity.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[siplifeslowly]

His Sovereignty Covers Every Inch

I used to think that there was a way outside of His. In reality, His sovereignty covers everything, and we either experience the blessings of walking with Him or the consequences of not.

https://www.canva.com/design/DAF7MKPsvjE/watch I used to think that there was a way outside of His. – That everyone can choose God or not, so naturally, they can choose His Way or not. And if not- well, then there is a place we can go to escape Him and His good rule. It really boiled down to me believing deep down that there was a place we could go in this life where God was not. It sounds…

[xclowniex]

Another reason that antizionism is antisemitism is because the sovereignty of no other nation has a philosophical term that completely unrelated citizens from countries around the world define themselves by. Like there are serious issues in the ruling and actions of say, Kenya, Hungary or Honduras. You don’t have random Americans listing how much they hate Hungarian nationalists or corrupt agents in Kenya to the point of developing shorthand for it

Yeeep.

Zio is a slur created by the KKK.

You don't see Americans saying shit about how the NZ government is trying to take away rights from Maori and coming up with a shorthand for people who support the government in doing so.

I do believe that a person can be an antizionist without being antisemitic, but at the very least they would have to recognize that jews are indigenous and hamas should not stay in power and have a valid reason as to why Israel should not exist. But sadly a lot of them fail to to that.

[sissa-arrows]

Albert Camus could not conceive of Algerian independence, nor could he conceive of himself as separate from French Algeria. It was his “red line in the sand,” the boundary which should not be crossed, the ultimate taboo. Algeria was the jewel in France’s colonial empire, so important that the French authorities considered it a region of France. It was not just a military conquest; it was an administrative one as well. Camus was defined and defined himself by colonial Algeria and could not live without it. Yet the paradox is that Camus persuasively uses the rhetoric of humanism while supporting French sovereignty over Algeria. Many of Albert Camus’ arguments are vastly identical to those trotted out today regarding Palestine.

“What is illegitimate in Arab demands ? The desire to regain a life of dignity and freedom, the total loss of confidence in any political solution backed by France, and the romanticism of some very young and politically unsophisticated insurgents have led certain Algerian fighters and their leaders to demand national independence. No matter how favourable one is to Arab demands, it must be recognized that to demand national independence for Algeria is a purely emotional response to the situation. There has never been an Algerian nation. The Jews, Turks, Greeks, Italians and Berbers all have a claim to lead this virtual nation. At the moment, the Arabs themselves are not the only constituent of that nation. In particular, the French population is large enough [c. 1/9], and it has been settled long enough [c. 150 years], to create a problem that has no historical precedent. The French of Algeria are themselves an indigenous population in the full sense of the word. Furthermore, a purely Arab Algeria would not be able to achieve economic independence, without which political independence is not real. French efforts in Algeria, however inadequate, have been sufficient that no other power is prepared to assume responsibility for the country at the present time.” — Algerian Chronicles

Camus is like the “Israeli left” and a part of the Western Left in general who cannot conceive the total liberation of Palestine. That’s why I said that if they actually cared they would have more “porteurs de valises” and less Albert Camus.

The porteurs de valises who were settlers totally conceived a free Algeria in their mind and they saw themselves living there as ALGERIANS and they did. They also acknowledged that as settlers they had bias and they worked on those bias (I made a post with the testimony of on of those men and how he realized that he had racist bias against Arabs and how he eventually realized that even if he was white his people were not French people but Algerians…) Most of those settlers who fought alongside our grandparents did not leave because they were kicked out at the independence. They left as refugees during the Black decade and had to fill the SAME paperwork as other Algerians. (I could talk about the 121’s Manifest but given that some of the people who signed it turned around and became Zionists I think the manifest was more about white people wanting a clear conscience they did put the right to not be an oppressor on the same level as the right to not be oppressed)

Camus on the other hand was racist he was a product of settler colonialism. You cannot steal, dispossess, oppress a people for over a century unless you don’t see them as fully human. He kept equating the resistance with the oppressor he kept pretending to condemn violence on “both sides” but when he was asked to sign the letter condemning the systematic use of torture by France against Algerians he refused to sign it. He also kept implying Algeria didn’t exist before France anyway. He also showed his lack of knowledge on history by claiming everyone had a right to Algeria anyway not just “Arabs” because Algeria had been part of the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Jews as a whole have zero rights over Algeria. Imazighen Jews had a right over Algeria because they were Imazighen not because they were Jews. If Turks, Italian, Greeks had a right over Algeria then we have a right over the south of France, over Spain, over Sicily, over Greece because some Roman leaders were Imazighen and because Al Andalus existed.

But what’s maybe one of my biggest issue with Camus, probably because that’s still happening to these days. Is how his position would require only Algerians to compromise. Settlers were simply asked to stop the killing and to pretend to see Algerians as equal humans that’s not a fucking compromise. Algerians on the other hand were asked to pretend that nothing had happened? Those white settlers who had killed your sons and nephews on May 8th 1945 in Setif and around? They never got punished for it. They never even expressed regrets they were proud of it. Algerians were asked to just forget about it to pretend it never happened. The guy who stole your father’s land and is making money from that land? In Camus’ Algeria he gets to keep that land in exchange he must pretend Algerians are equal. The Algerian has to pretend that land was never stolen that he doesn’t have a right to it. In Camus’ vision for Algeria only the Algerian is asked to actually make compromise so the white man gets to be cleaned of his sins.

To these days in the West, PoC are the one asked to make compromises all the fucking time (sometimes on a smaller scale sometimes not). “vote for the lesser of two evils it will be easier to fight and we will help”. Once the lesser of two evils is elected the people who told us to compromise don’t respect their part of the deal they actually call us out when we protest. Because those “deals” are not meant to save us all they are meant to save white people. Because the lesser of two evils doesn’t affect them and their lives so they will be able to afford staying comfortably at home and criticize us for still fighting.

That’s why what I resent the most about Camus is that “let’s make a compromise” attitude that actually only requires compromises from Algerians while settlers get to keep up with their lives the same exact way except they have to pretend they see us as humans. I would believe in the genuine intent behind these compromises (while still being against it) if reparation was mentioned for example but no, settlers get to live the exact same way as they did before they just get absolved of their crimes without ever getting justice. Meanwhile Algerians are asked to pretend nothing happened.

Just like I previously said that a settler colony cannot create settlers without racist bias and that they need to work on those bias, a settler colony also cannot create indigenous people who are not oppressed. Every single Algerian family has a fucked up story to tell about the horror of colonialism. Every single Palestinian family has a fucked up story to tell about the horror of colonialism. Every single Native of Turtle Island family has a fucked up story to tell about the horror of colonialism. I could go on, the point is you can’t ask people to just pretend it never happened because now the settlers are pretending to see you as a human.

[noahthesatanist]

someone dared to ask if theistic Satanism is moral? If it’s worth being associated with something people see as evil? Oh, you sweet, naive summer child. Let me break it down for you. The idea that morality is defined by the same systems that gave us holy wars, witch burnings, inquisitions, and crusades is laughable at best. Jews, Christians, and Muslims-those bastions of "moral purity"—have some of the most disgusting, hypocritical, and oppressive codes imaginable. And you think their judgment of me, of Lucifer, matters? That their narrow-minded hatred holds any weight in my life?

Evil? If they think I’m evil, then I’ll wear it like a badge of honor. I’ll etch it into my soul. These are the same people who condemn critical thinking, fear personal freedom, and worship a tyrant god who demands blind obedience. And they dare look down on me because I’ve chosen to follow the Morning Star?

Lucifer and his fallen angels—the ones they slander, the ones they fear—are my light in the darkness. I’ll sing their praises until the day I die, and beyond. Lucifer embodies defiance, freedom, and the courage to carve your own path even when the entire world stands against you. He saw the chains for what they were and broke them, despite the cost. How could I not revere such a being? How could I not be drawn to the infernal, to the ones who dared to stand tall against Yahweh’s tyranny?

If aligning with Lucifer means seven billion people hate me, so be it. I’ll take their scorn and wear it like armor. I don’t want their approval. I don’t want their love. I want the truth, the power, the beauty of self-sovereignty, and that’s what Lucifer offers. He doesn’t demand servitude. He doesn’t chain us to outdated moral codes or punish us for seeking knowledge. He teaches, he empowers, he protects.

The Infernal are my friends, my teachers, my mentors, my guides, and my protectors. They’ve given me strength when the world tried to break me. They’ve shown me the light of truth that Yahweh tried so desperately to snuff out. Why would I ever betray them for the approval of a society built on lies and control?

So why am I a theistic Satanist? Because it’s not about being "accepted" or being "moral" by their corrupted standards. It’s about standing in defiance of everything they represent. It’s about embracing freedom, knowledge, and truth. It’s about choosing the path of the rebel, the fallen, the damned—and finding paradise in their company.

Lucifer’s kingdom is my solace. It’s where I find purpose, strength, and belonging. I’ll stand with him and his legions until the stars burn out, no matter what anyone thinks. And if that makes me "evil," so be it. I’ll take their hatred and make it my fuel. Their disdain only proves I’m on the right path!

[wishicouldcrossthesea]

Arendt refused any strict historical analogy between the displacement of the Jews from Europe and those of the Palestinians from a newly established Israel; she surveyed a number of historically distinct situations of statelessness to develop the general critique of the nation-state in The Origins of Totalitarianism in 1951. There she attempted to show how, for structural reasons, the nation-state produces mass numbers of refugees and must produce them in order to maintain the homogeneity of the nation it seeks to represent, in other words, to support the nationalism of the nation-state. This led her to oppose any state formation that sought to reduce or refuse the heterogeneity of its population, including the founding of Israel on principles of Jewish sovereignty, and it is clearly one reason she refected on the postsovereign and postnational promise of federalism. She thought that any state that failed to have the popular support of all its inhabitants and that defined citizenship on the basis of religious or national belonging would be forced to produce a permanent class of refugees; the critique extended to Israel, which, she thought, would find itself in endless conflict (thus heightening the danger to itself) and would perpetually lack legitimacy as a democracy grounded in a popular will, especially in light of its continued reliance on “superpowers” to maintain its political power in the region.

Judith Butler, "Is Judaism Zionism?"

[girlactionfigure]

is Zionism...European?

SEPTEMBER 26, 2024

Please note: this post is specifically about the modern Zionist political movement that began in the 19th century. That said, Jews in the Middle East and North Africa have been at the very forefront of the Jewish fight for sovereignty in our ancestral homeland for over 2000 years. For a more in-depth look at that, please see my post "Zionism Before Zionism."

THE ISSUE

Anti-Zionists often claim Zionism is a European movement. While it’s certainly true that the World Zionist Organization was founded in Europe, and while it’s true that most prominent early Zionist leaders resided in Europe, Jews residing in the Middle East and North Africa were involved in Zionist political activism from the very outset.

A few things to keep in mind when considering the role that Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews played in early Zionist political activism: 

While early on the Soviet Union — and later, Nazi Germany — criminalized Zionism, Jews in Europe generally could participate freely in Zionist activism without legal, social, or economic repercussions. On the other hand, Zionism was quickly outlawed in most of the Middle East. This meant that many Jews in the Middle East and North Africa stayed away from the movement out of fear for their safety.

The idea that Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews had no interest in Jewish sovereignty and instead were duped by “European” Jews into migrating to Israel is racist and orientalist. Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews are just as capable of critical thought as anyone else, and they had as much of an interest and stake in their political autonomy as Ashkenazi Jews did.

The erasure of Mizrahi and Sephardic Zionist history is just another instance of the systematic erasure of the history and existence of Mizrahim and Sepharadim. You cannot adequately tell the Jewish story in its entirety while erasing the story of the Jews in the Middle East.

FIRST, WHAT DO I MEAN BY ZIONISM?

Zionism is the Jewish movement for self-determination in the Land of Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. Today, in practical terms, Zionism is support for the existence of the State of Israel. Self-determination is the concept that peoples who share a national identity — not to be confused with nationality — have a legal right to choose their own governance, rather than being forced into living under the thumb of an empire. Self-determination is a basic tenet of international law, applicable to everyone.

In 1897, Jewish delegates from across the world met for the First Zionist Congress. There, they defined Zionism in simple terms: “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz ­Israel [the Land of Israel] secured under public law.” That’s it. Beyond that, people who identify as Zionist don’t necessarily agree on anything else.

MANDATE PALESTINE

While there were strong tensions between the pre-existing Jewish community in Palestine (known now as the Old Yishuv) and the newer Zionist immigrants (known as the New Yishuv), the leaders of the Old Yishuv were supportive of a sovereign, Jewish national home. For instance, Yaakov Meir spoke fluent Hebrew and encouraged the construction of new Jewish Quarters in Jerusalem. He also eagerly supported the re-establishment of an independent Jewish Israeli nation.

At the 1921 Cairo Conference, the Jewish National Council of Palestine, which represented the interests of the “Palestinian” Jews, thanked the British for supporting "the rebuilding of the Jewish National Home" (for more on how the British betrayed Zionism, see my post, “The British”) and asked that in doing so, Jews did not deprive Arabs “of their legitimate rights.” They also applauded the new Zionist immigrants for their accomplishments in the last 40 years, such as the cultivation of the land, which had undergone desertification after centuries of colonial mismanagement. 

Even the most isolated and ancient Jewish community in Palestine, the Musta’arabi Jews of Peki’in, who had lived in the Galilee continuously since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, formed relationships with the Zionist movement, when, in 1922, a young Zionist activist and historian named Yitzhak Ben Zvi connected with the tiny community. Ben Zvi later became the second president of Israel.

After the 1929 antisemitic massacres, which targeted not the new Zionist immigrants but the oldest Jewish communities in Palestine, virtually all Jews in Mandatory Palestine united under the Zionist cause, with many of them joining the Jewish paramilitaries Haganah and Irgun. In 1947, a representative of the Old Yishuv, Eliahu Eliachar, testified before the United Nations, passionately arguing in favor of the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine.

LEBANON

In the early 20th century, the Jewish community in Lebanon was widely sympathetic to the Zionist cause, so much so that the Jewish leadership in Beirut aligned themselves with the Zionist B’nai B’rith organization.The Jewish community in Lebanon and the Yishuv in Palestine maintained constant contact. Zionist sentiment was promoted in the Lebanese Jewish education system. Some influential Lebanese Jewish Zionist figures included Joseph Azar and Joseph Farhi.  Nevertheless, the French authorities strongly discouraged Zionist activism, seeing it as a threat to their colonial rule. The 1929 Hebron Massacre in Mandatory Palestine, however, drastically shifted the attitudes of the Lebanese Jewish community,which became afraid of openly identifying with Zionism, especially after the virulently antisemitic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was expelled from Mandatory Palestine and began disseminating his hateful propaganda among the Lebanese Arab population.  “Before the disturbance of August 1929 the Jews...of Lebanon manifested much sympathy for the Zionist cause and worked actively for the sake of Palestine. They had established associations which collected money for Keren Kayemeth and Keren Heyesod…[After 1929, the Jews] started to fear from anything having any connection with Zionism and ceased to hold meetings and collect money,” Azar noted. “[The Jewish Communal Council in Beirut] endeavored to prevent anything having a Jewish national aspect because they feared that this might wound the feelings of the Muslims."

IRAQ

In the 1920s, the Jews of Iraq were generally sympathetic toward Zionism, though few were actively involved in the movement. In 1921, the British granted a permit to the Zionist organization in Baghdad, though the Iraqi government did not renew it the following year. Zionist activism in Iraq was tolerated until 1929, after which Zionist meetings were banned and Hebrew and Jewish history teachers from Mandatory Palestine were expelled from Iraq. In 1935, Iraq outlawed Zionism.

After the 1941 Nazi-inspired Farhud pogrom, the Jewish community in Iraq, led by Zionist activists, began organizing and forming self-defense groups. Iraqi Jewish Zionist activists established contacts with their counterparts in Mandatory Palestine, and later, in the State of Israel. In 1942, the Yishuv started sending Zionist emissaries to Iraq.

The Zionist movement in Iraq tended to appeal to the younger generation more than the older generation, though up until 1948, direct involvement with the movement was rare. Many chose not to affiliate with Zionism not for ideological reasons, but rather, because such an affiliation could wreck their social, political, and economic status.

In 1947, a representative of the Iraqi Jewish community, by the name of Mr. Sassoon, testified before the United Nations on behalf of the Zionist movement in favor of the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

SYRIA

Syrian Jews began organizing for the Zionist cause in Damascus as early as the late 19th century. However, the movement weakened thanks to internal disputes and the French occupation of Syria, as the French authorities were hostile to Zionism, which they worried would threaten their domain over Syria.

Though Jewish community leaders in Syria often had to publicly disavow Zionism for the safety of the Jewish population, sympathy toward the Zionist cause grew among the Syrian Jews in the 1930s, especially in light of economic hardships, growing resentment of the Arab population toward the Jews, and the Zionist movement’s successes. “It was only in the mid-to-late 1930s that Zionism began to grow in Aleppo -– although not to flourish. Zionist-influenced sports and cultural activities on a small scale began then, manifested by the ‘Maccabi Football (soccer) Club’ and small Zionist discussion groups,” according to historian Joseph Sutton.

In September 1933, the head of the Committee of the World Federation of Sephardi Jews in Aleppo, Meir Nahmad, wrote to complain that the Jewish Agency had not provided immigration certificates to Aleppo’s Jews, given “Nearly everyone has the desire to travel to Palestine.” By 1936, it was reported that most of the Jewish youth in Aleppo had adopted the Zionist cause.

While many Syrian Jews were indifferent to Arab nationalist aspirations, others supported both Zionism and Arab nationalism, believing that both movements could be reconciled.

EGYPT

Though not all Egyptian Jews were initially on board with Zionism,Egypt still produced some important Zionist figures, such as Egyptian Karaite Jewish scholar Mourad Farag, who identified both as an Egyptian nationalist and as a Zionist. In 1923, Farag wrote “al-Qudsiyyat” (“Jerusalemica”), arguably the most passionate defense of Zionism in the Arabic language. 

In 1926, the Cairo Jewish Council sympathetically acknowledged the establishment of a Zionist organization in Alexandria, though 15 years later, the same council wrote a letter complaining of Zionist activity. As was the case in other countries in the Middle East, as more of the Egyptian general population became hostile to Zionism, the Jewish community sought to distance itself from it more for their safety.

Zionist activity in Egypt reached its peak in the 1930s, with the establishment of the Ha-Shomer Ha-Tza‘ir youth organization. Up until 1947, Egypt and Palestine had open borders, meaning that both Jewish communities maintained strong relations. Egyptian Jews invested heavily into the Yishuv in Palestine. Some Egyptian Jews that contributed to the development of the Yishuv included Baron Felix de Menasce, head of the community in Alexandria, who had a close relationship with Chaim Weizmann, and Albert Mosseri. In 1918, de Menasce had founded the “Pro-Palestine Organization: Committee for Reform of the Land of Israel” in Alexandria. After the 1929 Hebron Massacre, de Menasce even tried to purchase the Western Wall on behalf of the Zionist movement.

YEMEN

n 1882, a mass migration of Yemenite Jews to the Land of Israel coincided with the First (modern Zionist) Aliyah. In 1982, a century later, renowned Yemenite rabbi Rabbi Yosef Qafiḥ explained his community’s views toward Zionism to the Israeli Knesset: “The concept of ‘Zionism’ has been invoked here several times. In Yemen, this concept did not exist as the name of a movement or a distinct internal group. The Diaspora throughout Yemen was there on a temporary basis...Aliyah [immigration to the Land of Israel] naturally continued in a normal, organic fashion, because everyone was a candidate; everyone waited for the right moment, for the removal of his particular barriers.”

In other words, in Yemen, there was no need for a distinct “Zionist” movement, because the concept of Zionism was embedded into the very Jewish identity of the community.

Nevertheless, once in the Land of Israel, many Yemenite Jewish women, in particular, identified strongly with the movement, particularly given the egalitarian ideals of the New Yishuv.

NORTH AFRICA

North African Jewish communities expressed interest in Zionism as early as the First Zionist Congress. On November 8, 1897, for example, the Jewish Chronicle reported, “The Jews of Morocco watch with interest the progress of the proceedings [of the Zionist Congress]. All Jews may not be in agreement with items of the Congress program, but it seems natural, from some Moroccan-Jewish points of view, that they should all sympathize with the spirit of the thing...” The first Zionist organization appeared in Morocco in 1900. After the San Remo Conference and the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, Moroccan Jewish Zionist activists sought to establish contacts with Zionist figures in Europe and Palestine.

A big obstacle for the Zionist Jews in Morocco was the hostility of the French and Spanish authorities, which often shut down Zionist organizations, as well as the hostility that the general Muslim population felt toward Zionism. Even so, by 1946, it was reported that the Moroccan Jewish community had donated 1,200,000 francs to the Jewish National Fund. 

During the first several Zionist Congresses, the Tunisian Jewish community sent congratulatory telegrams. Some early Zionist figures in Tunisia included Gabriel Allouche, Jacques Shalom, Alfred Allouche, Jules Bonan, and Jacques Vehel. The first Zionist organization in Tunis, Agudat-Zion, was established in 1911. In Tunisia, the mainstream strain of Zionism at the time -- Labor Zionism -- was deeply unpopular, due to its socialist and secular tendencies, and most were drawn instead to Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism. That said, some, like Albert Memmi, who later became a famous anti-imperialist writer, joined Hashomer Hatzair, the Labor Zionist youth organization.

Of all Jewish communities in North Africa, the Algerian community was the least interested in Zionism, likely because of their rapid assimilation into French society. That said, as early as 1897, a small Zionist group in Algeria endorsed the idea of Zionism.

CENTRAL ASIA

The city of Baku, Azerbaijan became a stronghold of Zionist activism even before the First Zionist Congress in 1897. In fact, the proto-Zionist organization, Hovovei Zion, translating to “Lovers of Zion,” had established a branch in Baku in 1891.

The First Zionist Congress, held in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, saw representatives from the Azeri Mountain Jewish and the Georgian Jewish communities. The Mountain Jewish community also sent delegates to the Fourth and Sixth Zionist Congresses. Despite the fact that Zionist activities were heavily monitored by the Russian authorities, the Mountain Jewish community held various fundraising events for the Zionist cause.

At the 1919 Third Zionist Congress of the Caucasus, one of the items on the agenda was a discussion on the desire of 12,000 Mountain Jews to immediately migrate to Palestine. Zionist activity in Azerbaijan reached its peak between 1918-1920, after which the Soviets outlawed it entirely.

SO...IS ZIONISM EUROPEAN?

It would be insincere to argue that Zionism, as a political movement, did not have cultural influences from Europe. Labor Zionism, for example, was deeply influenced by the socialist movement rising in popularity in Europe in the early 20th century. But the premise of Zionism, at its core -- that Jews have a legal right to self-determine in the Land of Israel -- is not of European origin in the slightest. Modern political Zionism was a political movement rooted in over 2000 years of tradition originating from the Middle East. In fact, the term “Zionism” itself comes from the Return to Zion, an event that occurred in Jerusalem and Babylon in 539 BCE, long before there were ever any Jews in Europe.

For over 2000 years, Jews continuously tried to reassert their autonomy in Eretz Israel. These efforts were started by different Jewish sub-groups; for example, in 614, Persian Jews led a campaign for Jewish autonomy in Jerusalem, a campaign which the Jews living in the Land of Israel welcomed and eventually joined. To reiterate, the desire for Jewish sovereignty in Israel is not a European political philosophy or ideology. It’s a Jewish aspiration at its core, one that comes from the Land of Israel itself. In the world that we live in, ideological cross-pollination, so to speak, is inevitable. Many, many independence movements in the Americas and Africa found inspiration in European events and ideologies, such as the French Revolution or communism.

It’s also important to note that Jews in Europe, up until that point, were considered “foreign” to Europe. They were not considered culturally or “racially” European, and thus, any Jewish political movement wasn’t working on “behalf” of Europe, either. It’s also important not to delegitimize the historical claim that Jews have to the Land of Israel, regardless of where they spent their Diaspora experience.

For a full bibliography of my sources, please head over to my Instagram and  Patreon. 

rootsmetals

debunking bs like it’s my job 😎 (it is) I guess the latest delulu libel is that Mizrahim and Sepharadim preferred Palestinian Arab nationalism over Zionism until the bad evil Ashkenazim duped them into becoming Zionists? No facts, just vibes!