Ben, are you willing to explain it, rather than merely call it out, for the benefit of readers here? You can't expect everyone to understand how this cartoon is obnoxiously racist anti-Mizrahi.
Sure. It claims that Israeli culture was "appropriated" from Palestinians, despite Jewish Israelis predating any Muslims there by thousands of years. It tried to paint Jews that escaped ethnic cleansing from Middle Eastern countries (https://imgur.com/h8XZlxa) as engaging in "Settler Colonialism". It later dismisses claims that Mizrahi are indigenous to Israel as "mytholigization".
While an argument could be made that Israel is the spiritual home of Judaism, rather than the homeland of all Jews, the comic does not argue this.
Pretty much most people do. it is no myth. It is not Zionist view , it is a Jewish view. You comment is antisemític. Please stop hiding your bigotry behind the word "Zionist.".
I agree with Peter's analysis but I don't think I agree with the way the title of this piece frames the issue. It's perfectly legitimate to point out that Zionism isn't a left-wing doctrine and that people who identify as Zionists can't be considered progressives. In that sense: no, Zionists shouldn't be "allowed" on the left, whatever that means.
But Sunrise DC's decision was still wrong. The real problem is that they rejected the support of non-leftists *who agreed with them about the need to fight climate change*.
It's fair to point out that the rally included some other groups who don't fully support the progressive agenda, like Catholic climate activists who oppose abortion rights. By not calling those groups out Sunrise DC gave the impression of holding Jews to a higher standard. But I doubt that was due to anti-Semitism. If the anti-choice views of the Franciscan Action Network had been pointed out, I'm sure they'd have been canceled too. That's exactly the problem with Sunrise's approach, and with a lot of left-wing activism generally.
Of course, zionism is just as progressive as the desire for a Palestinian Arab state. If you believe that there should be a Palestinian Arab state , but not a Jewish state, then you are discriminating against Jews and oppose intentional law. Discrimination against Jews is not progressive.
But of course Zionism is progressive: it's a form of anti-imperialist decolonization. We just disagree with Palestinians about who's in which role. That's an object-level disagreement, not a rejection of the entire framework of radical Left politics.
You fundamentally misunderstand the people you're dealing with. They don't really want to build big-tent coalitions that can actually exert democratic people power and win necessary policy changes. They want to control the Left and progressive spaces. If their control over the Left causes the Left to become dysfunctional or powerless, to lose elections and fail to pass legislation, that only proves the Left's extramural constituents (eg: voters, in this case particularly Jewish voters and Jewish Democrats) are uncivilized barbarians.
In short, you're trying to debate the Iron Law of Institutions.
Strangely, you cite Hungary to make the case of opposing movements who choose to unite against a greater evil, but omit the case of Israeli parties joining together in a coalition whose sole purpose was to oust Bibi. This omition isn't incidental, I think, because of this government's stance against Palestinians in general and their human rights, most specifically. And besides that - Zionism is racism.
Zionism gives priority to anything which is Jewish. Just like the Israeli law of return which gives instant Israeli citizenship to any Jew or even a remote relative to a Jew who isn't Jewish. But there are endless other examples. this is racism.
"I decided to talk it over with two people I deeply respect, who hold different views of Zionism."
If Rabbi Jill Jacobs doesn't see herself as being anti-Palestinian, then she and your other guest, Yousef Munayyer, could have the first debate on whether or not "Zionism is Anti-Palestinian."
A magazine you write for released an obnoxiously racist anti-Mizrahi screed in the form of a political cartoon. (https://jewishcurrents.org/when-settler-becomes-native?mc_cid=cee291239b&mc_eid=976a27a028) Are you willing to call out your own bedfellows?
Ben, are you willing to explain it, rather than merely call it out, for the benefit of readers here? You can't expect everyone to understand how this cartoon is obnoxiously racist anti-Mizrahi.
Sure. It claims that Israeli culture was "appropriated" from Palestinians, despite Jewish Israelis predating any Muslims there by thousands of years. It tried to paint Jews that escaped ethnic cleansing from Middle Eastern countries (https://imgur.com/h8XZlxa) as engaging in "Settler Colonialism". It later dismisses claims that Mizrahi are indigenous to Israel as "mytholigization".
While an argument could be made that Israel is the spiritual home of Judaism, rather than the homeland of all Jews, the comic does not argue this.
Not every one believes in the national origin myth of Zionist Jews.
Pretty much most people do. it is no myth. It is not Zionist view , it is a Jewish view. You comment is antisemític. Please stop hiding your bigotry behind the word "Zionist.".
I agree with Peter's analysis but I don't think I agree with the way the title of this piece frames the issue. It's perfectly legitimate to point out that Zionism isn't a left-wing doctrine and that people who identify as Zionists can't be considered progressives. In that sense: no, Zionists shouldn't be "allowed" on the left, whatever that means.
But Sunrise DC's decision was still wrong. The real problem is that they rejected the support of non-leftists *who agreed with them about the need to fight climate change*.
It's fair to point out that the rally included some other groups who don't fully support the progressive agenda, like Catholic climate activists who oppose abortion rights. By not calling those groups out Sunrise DC gave the impression of holding Jews to a higher standard. But I doubt that was due to anti-Semitism. If the anti-choice views of the Franciscan Action Network had been pointed out, I'm sure they'd have been canceled too. That's exactly the problem with Sunrise's approach, and with a lot of left-wing activism generally.
Of course, zionism is just as progressive as the desire for a Palestinian Arab state. If you believe that there should be a Palestinian Arab state , but not a Jewish state, then you are discriminating against Jews and oppose intentional law. Discrimination against Jews is not progressive.
But of course Zionism is progressive: it's a form of anti-imperialist decolonization. We just disagree with Palestinians about who's in which role. That's an object-level disagreement, not a rejection of the entire framework of radical Left politics.
You fundamentally misunderstand the people you're dealing with. They don't really want to build big-tent coalitions that can actually exert democratic people power and win necessary policy changes. They want to control the Left and progressive spaces. If their control over the Left causes the Left to become dysfunctional or powerless, to lose elections and fail to pass legislation, that only proves the Left's extramural constituents (eg: voters, in this case particularly Jewish voters and Jewish Democrats) are uncivilized barbarians.
In short, you're trying to debate the Iron Law of Institutions.
Strangely, you cite Hungary to make the case of opposing movements who choose to unite against a greater evil, but omit the case of Israeli parties joining together in a coalition whose sole purpose was to oust Bibi. This omition isn't incidental, I think, because of this government's stance against Palestinians in general and their human rights, most specifically. And besides that - Zionism is racism.
How is zionism "racism"? Zionism has nothing to do with race.
Zionism gives priority to anything which is Jewish. Just like the Israeli law of return which gives instant Israeli citizenship to any Jew or even a remote relative to a Jew who isn't Jewish. But there are endless other examples. this is racism.
"I decided to talk it over with two people I deeply respect, who hold different views of Zionism."
If Rabbi Jill Jacobs doesn't see herself as being anti-Palestinian, then she and your other guest, Yousef Munayyer, could have the first debate on whether or not "Zionism is Anti-Palestinian."
Shouldn't this be: "the compatibility of Jewish statehood and liberal democracy"?
yes, my apologies