Category: Zionism


Contradictory statements are leaping forward all over the web… see below… (Extract)

 

‘Claims that Hitler was a Zionist, or supported Zionism, before his anti-Jewish policies turned into murder and extermination flare up at regular intervals. They usually cite the controversial Haavara Agreement (Transfer Agreement) of August 1933 as the most potent evidence of a wilful cooperation between Hitler and the Zionist movement. When viewed in a certain way, this deal does superficially seem to show that Hitler’s government endorsed Zionism – but just because it was a mechanism to help German Jews relocate to Palestine it does not imply it was “Zionist”.

The Haavara Agreement was the only formal contract signed between Nazi Germany and a Zionist organisation. The signatories were the Reich Ministry of Economics, the Zionistische Vereinigung für Deutschland (Zionist Federation of Germany) and the Anglo-Palestine Bank (then under the directive of the Jewish Agency for Palestine).’

Source: Labour antisemitism row: there was nothing Zionist about Hitler’s plans for the Jews

 

The UK Labour Party has been at the centre of a row over anti-Semitism, including its relationship to anti-Zionism. What do these terms actually mean?

  • Anti-Semitism is “hostility and prejudice directed against Jewish people” (OED).
  • Zionism refers to the movement to create a Jewish state in the Middle East, corresponding to the historic land of Israel – anti-Zionism opposes that.
  • But some say “Zionist” can be used as a coded attack on Jews, while others say the Israeli government and its supporters are deliberately confusing anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism to avoid criticism.

Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone was suspended from Labour following a series of remarks about Israel, including the suggestion that Hitler supported Zionism before the Holocaust.

It follows the suspension of Bradford West MP Naz Shah after it emerged she had once suggested, among other things, that Israel should be moved to the United States. The new president of the National Union of Students, Malia Bouattia, has also been heavily criticised for remarks she made about Zionists.

Some in the Jewish community say the use of “Zionist” as a term of abuse reflects a rising tide of bigotry and racism directed at Jews.

The Labour peer Lord Levy told the BBC’s Newsnight: “There can be criticism of the state of Israel, but anti-Semitism – using the word ‘Zionist’ as another form of anti-Semitism – frankly can no longer be tolerated.”

Others – including Livingstone – argue anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism, and that it’s wrong to mix up anti-Jewish prejudice with legitimate disagreement with the actions of the Israeli state.

However, critics of anti-Zionists point out that sometimes particularly harsh criticism of Israel goes further than disagreement with policies, but rather denies the right of the Jewish state to exist.

Speaking on The Daily Politics, the former London Mayor said: “Don’t confuse anti-Semitism with criticism of the Israeli government policy and treatment of the Palestinians.”

It’s a debate around which emotions run high. It’s also obviously true that being a Zionist and being Jewish are not the same thing.

There are Zionist critics of Israeli government policies, such as the occupation of the West Bank, the route of the separation barrier (which Israel is building in and around the West Bank and which it says is for security against Palestinian attackers, though Palestinian supporters see it as a device to grab land) and the building of settlements.

Equally, there was Jewish opposition to the Zionist movement, which sought to establish a Jewish homeland, long before the state of Israel was declared in 1948. Today fringe ultra-Orthodox groups such as Neturei Karta oppose the state of Israel because they believe the true Jewish state will only be established with the coming of the Messiah.

Likewise, some make the point that Zionism is a political project supported by plenty of non-Jews, including Western governments and many US evangelical Christians.

But it’s been widely argued that the term “Zionist” has, in some circles, become a code word for “Jew” and that bigotry against Jewish people has been expressed using the language of anti-Zionism.


What is Zionism?

  • Political movement which emerged in 19th Century Europe aimed at countering anti-Semitism, and establishing a Jewish homeland
  • In the Hebrew Bible the word “Zion” refers to Jerusalem, hence the movement’s identification with the city and the land that surrounds it
  • Balfour Declaration of 1917 gave British support to the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine
  • Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Zionist Organisation, was elected the first president of Israel in 1949

Khadim Hussain, a former Lord Mayor of Bradford, was suspended from Labour after he shared a Facebook post that referred to “the six million Zionists that were killed by Hitler”. Alex Chalmers, a former co-chair of Oxford University Labour Club, said some members regularly used the word “zio” – despite it being regarded as an ethnic slur.

Bouattia was attacked after it emerged that in 2011, she co-wrote a blog for a Friends of Palestine campaign group saying that “the University of Birmingham is something of a Zionist outpost in British Higher Education”. She has also attacked “Zionist-led media outlets” – which critics said reflects anti-Semitic myths about Jewish conspiracies to control the media.

 

Source: What’s the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism? – BBC News

The Jerusalem Post recently published an article declaring that ultra-Orthodoxy has surrendered to the Zionist idea.

This declaration sure is news to the hundreds of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews who want nothing to do with the Zionist State. The Post offers no concrete evidence to back up their claim; the evidence they do bring is circumstantial at best. Let’s look at a couple of the mistakes on which the author of the Post article bases his conclusions.

First, he mistakenly classifies religious Jews who join the IDF as ultra-Orthodox. As ritually observant as these young men may be, that doesn’t make them ultra-Orthodox. In fact, these boys are often viewed as pariahs in their old neighborhoods. There have been numerous demonstrations across the globe with hundreds of thousands of participants, decrying the Israeli government’s attempt to draft ultra-Orthodox boys into their army. Surely, one cannot classify the boys who do break off as ultra-Orthodox. And if there are any truly ultra-Orthodox Jews there, one certainly cannot judge the vast majority based on the few who were unable to withstand the challenge and joined the army to improve their financial situation.

Next, the Post cites the fact that there has been an increase of ultra-Orthodox participation and influence in the government. While we at True Torah Jews are opposed to any participation in the Israeli government, still, one cannot paint with a broad brush and label everyone who does participate as having surrendered to Zionism.

Rabbi Reuven Grozovsky, head of Agudah’s Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah, wrote at the time the state was established that participating in its government was, strictly speaking, a sin, and he classified the Agudah’s approach of participating as “aveirah lishmah” – a sin done with good intentions.

Rabbi Shneur Kotler, the late dean of the largest yeshiva in the United States, conceded that the ideal approach is to refrain from participating in the Israeli government. “The Satmar Rav proves in Vayoel Moshe that opposition to Zionism and non-participation in the state is the position that the Talmud and all Jewish legal authorities once held. On the contrary, our Agudah approach is a new approach: that in today’s environment, we have to commit a sin with good intentions and salvage whatever we can, choose the lesser of two evils and so on.”

And of course Rabbi Elazar Shach, despite his advocacy of participation in the Israeli government, is quoted extensively in this very same Jerusalem Post article as being strongly anti-Zionist.

Therefore, it should be clear that those who participate, even when they go a step further and take on more responsibility, do not mean to do anything more than a further “sin with good intentions.”

But the time has come for a wake-up call: the sin may not have been done with good intentions, and it certainly did not have a good result. Those who participate in the Israeli government would do well to remember the famous analogy, given by one of the rabbis who permitted participation, to someone who is attacked by a band of robbers and negotiates with the robbers to see if he can salvage at least some of his possessions. No one would misconstrue his negotiation as approval for the robbers. In the early days of the state, when the ultra-Orthodox community was small and under attack, this analogy made sense to many as a rationale for participation. But today, as the Post article rightly points out, the boundaries are becoming blurred, many Orthodox are benefiting from the state, and some people are beginning to forget what exactly is wrong with Zionism.

And this very point was made by the Satmar Rav years ago: joining the government and taking their money is truly a Faustian bargain, because once the Orthodox community becomes dependent on the Zionists, it will eventually fall under Zionist control. As the Torah says, the bribe blinds the eyes of the wise.

The Post conveniently ignores the fact that there is a large contingent in the Holy Land represented by the Eidah HaChareidis. Members of this group refrain from participating in the government altogether. These pious Jews do not vote in Israel’s elections, nor do their schools accept funding from the Israeli government. In fact, for decades, another well known anti-Zionist group, the Satmar Hasidic dynasty, has helped to support schools that refuse Israeli government support through an organization called Keren Hatzolah, which distributes money to these schools several times throughout the year. If all ultra-Orthodox Jews have given into the Zionist idea, who does the Eidah HaChareidis represent? For whom does Keren Hatzolah raise millions of dollars every year?

The Post also gives the impression that increasing trend of ultra-Orthodox men in the State of Israel working for a living instead of pursuing Talmudic studies has something to do with surrender to Zionists. It does not. On the contrary, working for a living is a healthy feature of any Jewish community and, in this case, it enables the ultra-Orthodox to become less dependent on the Zionist state.

Don’t let the Zionist media fool you. There are hundreds of thousands of fervently anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews throughout the world, and we will never surrender to the Zionist idea.

Source: The Ultra-Orthodox Will Never Surrender to the Zionist Idea | True Torah Jews

WITH ORGANS installed in synagogues, German inserted into prayer books, Jewish scholars disowning the messiah, and Jewish schools teaching history, philosophy and math, a flabbergasted Rabbi Moshe Sofer (1762-1839) ruled: “All that is novel is forbidden from the Torah.”

Two centuries on, ultra-Orthodoxy’s resistance of religious change remains as fierce as it was when its revered founder consecrated the slogan that still remains its emblem, rallying cry and mission statement. However, in the war that his successors initiated generations later – the war on Zionism – ultra-Orthodoxy is in the throes of a grand retreat.

The ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) war was declared the morning after Zionist prophet Theodor Herzl published in 1896 his own mission statement, “The Jewish State,” the platform for the Jews’ political resurrection, which most rabbis rejected as blasphemy.

On the Hasidic end, Rabbi Sholom Dov Ber Schneersohn (1860-1920) ruled that even if the Zionists had been observant, and “even if there had been room to believe they will achieve their aim,” observant Jews “should not listen to them” because the Talmud forbade the Jews to undo their exile, and a Jew’s hope is that “our redemption will be brought about by God himself.”

Anti-Hasidic sages went a step further and ordered their followers to boycott Zionism.

Jews must avoid “connecting with what amounts to religion’s destruction and an obstacle to the house of Israel,” wrote Lithuanian sage Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik, while the chief rabbi of Lodz, Eliyahu Meisel, wrote that “anyone with God’s fear in his heart shall distance himself from them [the Zionists], will not walk with them, and will keep his legs from their paths.”

One hundred and twenty years on, a Hasid is a minister in the Zionist government; thousands of ultra-Orthodox men serve in the Zionist army and a plethora of ultra-Orthodox colleges lead thousands into the Zionist state’s economic beehive and social mainstream.

Reform Judaism, which also originally opposed Zionism claiming the Jews had already been redeemed when Europe emancipated them, humbly changed its mind after Hitler’s rise to power, and in 1937 formally adopted the Zionist idea.

Source: The new Zionists: Ultra-Orthodoxy has effectively surrendered to the Zionist idea – Israel News – Jerusalem Post

jaz

The papers in the UK are carrying on a campaign of slander against the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn shouting ‘Anti-Semitic’and ‘Racist’ every time someone criticises israel…

How can people who support a Free Palestine be anti-Semitic?

There is a lot of the Jewish Community themselves who do not support israel or Zionism, are they to be labelled Racists too?

Stop talking Bollocks…

Anti-israel is not Anti-Jew, any more than Anti-daesh is Anti-Islam.

%d bloggers like this: