European Guilt = Support Israel
- Thread starter Mossawa
- Start date
what did that declare again? i forget
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
During WW1, when the Brits were kicking Ottoman ass, Balfour sent a letter to Lord Rothschild, declaring britain's support for the creation of a jewish homeland in Palestine, which was part of the Ottoman Empire at that time.
Those are instrumental differences, not differences of content. Even the racism 'racialised' jewish-ness in the same manner it had been already constructed, and in the first place was not begun by the nazis.
I'm not ignorant of those differences. What I'm quite ambivalent towards is the extent that
It certainly could not have happened without 100's of years of pre-existing hostility towards Jews.
The zionist movement was well underway before (starting in the early 1900's, and there were already problems between jewish immigrants and the palestinian arabs by the time that ww2 had begun). And it was well underway because of European anti-semitism, to relate what i said in previous posts more to the original topic.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
The reasons why the Palestinians were uncomfortable with zionism are in no way analogous to either "traditional" European anti-semitism or the racialised nature of the Nazi state
I also think anti-semitism wasn't the only reason why zionism attracted support, especially because the earlier (and more influential) supporters of zionism in Western Europe, especially, were often assimilated Jews who had even adopted other religions - Herzl, for example, advocated baptising Jewish children before they were "old enough to know better"
the individuals who supported zionism among the non-jewish elite in Europe were in no way friends of the Jews, either
Absolutely. I neglected to point out those were based on economic/political conflicts created by the zionist movement. Though there was the rather nasty mufti of Jerusalem - 'traditional/religious' anti-semite.
But traditional antisemitism in Europe was hardly just religious, as evidenced by the inquisition, one basis which Herzl, for example, was a zionist?
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
My feeling is that Western support for Israel has a very prominent element of self-interest. I think the Western powers recognised quite early that there was potential for conflict between Islam and recognised that the Middle East would be a convenient staging post to soak up the pressure from the more virulently fundamentalist strains of Islam.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
beginning in the 19th century, people were trying to discover a "scientific" basis for the "evil of Jewry", and categorise the jews, like everyone else, into racial groups ...
coccinelle
Active Member
As I recall the Balfour Declaration was not made public at the time. So it could hardly be said to have been made as anything other than as part of a private deal by the Cabinet of the time in return for something that Rothschild could offer a Government sorely pressed in wartime.
was it just religion before all this or was it interchangeable with percieved ethnicity (as in cultural grouping)? why were they doing what you mention in a 'golden age' of secular thought? isn't it possible that modern racism transfers what was in part ethno-cultural hostility towards jews (which was fostered by ruling elites as it was convenient for them as well), and not judaism, as such? religious prejudice can be a function of many things, besides theology, including percieved social interests.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
good point. i'm not saying that religion was the only reason for anti-semitism, which has changed through time, and certainly in the 19th century anti-semitism assumed a "racial" rather than "religious" character.
it's a mistake to see the 19th c as a "golden age" of anything imo, yes a lot of very important developments did come from the enlightenment but often they were "bad" as well as "good"
scientific racism was different to the old cultural prejudices of the past as it was an attempt to scientifically prove which races were inferior, or otherwise. and the zionist movement was actually a completely secular movement at the beginning
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Also, balfour was not acting on behalf of the entire British govt but as a private individual.
so basically he was just one guy making a statement?
It seems to me the actual content and messages about jews were the same that had gone on before. Many atavisms are embedded in culture in a lot of ways that are mostly taken for granted. Not that it's exactly the same phenomenon, but it had to exist already, mobilising the aforementioned. It's not like it was suddenly invented out of thin air. Its form was profoundly different, but every means for that form had been developed outside germnany, including the neccesary content of fascism IMO.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Sort of.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
i personally find it amazing that jews have survived for such a long time and have such widely differing languages, traditions and beliefs in different countries and i think that diversity should be celebrated rather than the idea that jewish people are all exactly the same and "should" believe exactly the same thing and observe the torah and their other traditions in exactly the same way (ie, the western/european way).
coccinelle
Active Member
If you look at the Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
you will see the declaration of support was made on behalf of His Majesty's Government (i.e. the cabinet) though the matter was never referred to parliament because (as noted by Winston Churchill some years later) it would have been very unpopular.
Curiously, there were no notes or papers surrounding the Declaration, strangely reminiscent of the very private deal done between the new 'Israel', the French and the British which led to the catastrophic Suez Crisis.
I agree. Then again Europe has tended to have limited idea of a lot of cultures based on its construction of them.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Whatever the reason, the commitment to the creation of a jewish homeland was given by Britain, long before the second world war and the holocaust.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
ironically, these days it seems to be people like the BNP who support Israel the most:
http://bnpDOTorgDOTuk/2008/04/the-bnp-and-anti-semitism-a-response-to-the-board-of-deputies/
guilty conscience maybe?
http://bnpDOTorgDOTuk/2008/04/the-bnp-and-anti-semitism-a-response-to-the-board-of-deputies/
guilty conscience maybe?
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
It's because Muslims are the new Bogeymen. Israel is the perfect ally for that.ironically, these days it seems to be people like the BNP who support Israel the most:
http://bnpDOTorgDOTuk/2008/04/the-bnp-and-anti-semitism-a-response-to-the-board-of-deputies/
guilty conscience maybe?
And of course, just like Balfour, they'd be delighted if all the British Jews moved to Israel.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So advocation and then execution of a plan of mass extermination wasn't a change of content?
No, it was begun several hundred years previously, reached a nadir with "The Protocols...", but was deployed as a (pseudo)-scientific theory based around some of the principles of eugenics by the Nazis.
I haven't claimed that it couldn't.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Not really. He had a team of learned and eloquent advisors, one of whom was Herbert Samuels, who had a slight agenda...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
adc - your comment about Nazism being the 'culmination' of European anti-semitism is where people have the issues. This implies that there was some kind of 'direction' or 'aim' of anti-semitism throughout European history, which of course there wasn't - anti-semitism has waxed and waned throughout the history of Europe throughout the second millenium for a huge array of issues, and as has been pointed out, even in the times of the inquisition, was never, ever made the heart of a whole sociopolitical system the way it was under Nazism.
I'd take issue with this tho:
Yeah it could. Scapegoating is a piece of piss. The historical element made it easier for sure, but the Holocaust could have happened if the Nazis had started calling the Jews scum in the 1930s. Hate, especially in times of economic hardship, is easy to create, manipulate and direct, especially if you control almost all media outlets and the state itself is actively colluding in such propaganda.
I'd take issue with this tho:
Yeah it could. Scapegoating is a piece of piss. The historical element made it easier for sure, but the Holocaust could have happened if the Nazis had started calling the Jews scum in the 1930s. Hate, especially in times of economic hardship, is easy to create, manipulate and direct, especially if you control almost all media outlets and the state itself is actively colluding in such propaganda.
It was the big fundamental difference, what I'm arguing is that the elements that composed anti-semitism were basically the same ones in terms of the resntiment, paranoia, protrayal of jews, and such... therefore atavistic.
I meant that scientific racism began in the 19th century and so did the concept of 'aryan race' and 'racial purity'.
I said:
The function removed my self-referential quote when you used it.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
and of course, even the "anti-zionist" fash always rant on about how we should all take a leaf out of Israel's book in dealing with minorities ... zionists are seen as "better" than normal Jews because zionists recognise the importance of racial purity and want to build up a racially based state, whereas normal jews only want to promote the values of communism and go around destroying the white race
you'll often see fash going on about how Israel is "allowed" to be racist but no other country is ... and saying things like "at least they keep to themselves, which is better than the filthy jew who spends all day shagging our white women"
and you'll often see them going on about "sending all the kikes to Israel" which is about as zionist as you can get!
Point taken.
It was well established in Germany
That's hardly a new role for anti-semitism to play tho. OTOH my argument should've been _wouldn't_ not 'couldn't'.
They did get to power using it though.
Similar threads
- Poll
