Is the Zionist movement against morality?

Responsa > Category: General > Is the Zionist movement against morality?
Adir Asked 7 months ago

Hello Rabbi, I saw that you defined yourself as "religious Zionist", without a hyphen, to emphasize that your Zionism stems (only, or mainly) from universal moral values. So, I wanted to ask you what you think about the following text:
“What is racism?

Racism is discrimination or hostility on the basis 

What is Zionism?

Zionism is a movement for the establishment of a Jewish state on the southeast coast of the Mediterranean, a region that at the time of the emergence of Zionism was inhabited mostly by non-Jews - Palestinians - Christians and Muslims.

Okay, but how does that make Zionism racist?

very simple. Remember the definition of racism? Let's use it:

Discrimination on Ethnic Basis - Zionism has never questioned the opinion of Native Palestinians about establishing a Jewish state in their own homeland. This is a serious violation of the principles of democracy: even though they made up close to 100% of the population, no one bothered to ask what the native Palestinians think. Why? Because they are simply not Jews. The more prominent democratic principle - the will of the majority - is denied to the native population of the country, but if they came from the wrong ethnic background. The native Palestinians of course supported Arab independence, but their opinion was not interesting. This is the reason why the Zionists vehemently opposed throughout the years of the mandate the establishment of a legislative council - because the will of the majority would abolish the Zionist enterprise.

Ethnic-based hostility - Since the advent of Zionism, native Palestinians living in their homeland have been seen and perceived as an "obstacle." Why? Because Zionism - the establishment of a "Jewish" state - requires a Jewish majority in the country. And because there was a clear majority of non-Jewish Palestinians at the time, the very presence of this indigenous population became undesirable. Zionism caused an unbelievable phenomenon: people were perceived as unwanted - just because they lived in their own home. And when a modern-day Israeli politician calls Palestinians a "thorn in the side" (apparently the author of the text meant the current Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, who said this perhaps against the background of the frustration that Palestinians' presence in the territories "interferes" with Israel annexing them). That its effects have remained with us to this day. ”
Does the rabbi have an answer to these claims? These sound like very serious claims. Because you said that you were a Zionist as David Ben-Gurion was a Zionist, you would not answer them with the answer, "This is what we were commanded in the Torah." The question, then, is what is your answer to them, as "secular scores."

Leave a comment

1 Answers
mikyab Staff Answered 7 months ago

My opinion is that the following text is nonsense.
First, my Zionism is not based on moral values, just as my family affiliation is not based on morality. These are just facts. I belong to my family and I also belong to my people. And just as my family needs a home, my people also need a home.
In this part of the country lived natives without a national identity, without sovereignty and without a state. It was no problem to come and settle here and strive for the establishment of a national home while preserving their rights. In particular they offered them a division and they refused. They went to war and ate it. So do not whine.

A score she demands does not have Responded 7 months ago

It is also important to note that the number of inhabitants of this region at the time of the beginning of Zionism was extremely small, and most of them were also immigrants from neighboring countries. With the increase of the Zionist movement and the development of trade and economy, many more chose to immigrate here. About a century later they also decided they were a people, and the rest is history.

Copenhagen interpretation Responded 7 months ago

Discrimination not on ethnic grounds but on ownership. When you reserve the right to decide which strangers will enter your home, you are not "discriminating on ethnic grounds." There is no fundamental difference between preventing entry in advance and taking out the strangers retrospectively if they invaded your home while you were not present.

The people of Israel are basically composed of descendants of Babylon and Rome (including those who we adopted over time into the family) and since then the heirs are considered the sole legal owners of the land.

Emanuel Responded 7 months ago

But despite this, Rabbi Michi thinks that there can be a future in power and also in favor of a "corrective" preference: here is the deranged Ben Barak: %d7%91%d7%a8%d7%a7-%d7%90%d7%9d-%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%93-%d7%9e%d7%9b%d7%a4%d7%a8-%d7%9e%d7%a0%d7%93%d7%90-%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a6%d7%94-%d7%9c%d7%94%d7%99%d7%95%d7%aa

Leave a comment