[flagged]
He and his wife sent money to a school educating Arabs seven years ago, and you stretch that to mean he supports the Zionist monsters slaughtering children right now in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and filming rapes in Sde Teiman, which are then broadcast on Israeli TV (go watch it on Youtube if you want), after which the Zionist rapists are praised by rabbis and Knesset members. I see nothing connecting Ambros to that sick behavior.
Or in other words, I'd argue that many of the jews (probably not all) involved in this school (I wont speak for the arabs), view what its doing as a requirement for zionism and to rectify failures of zionism in the past, but that they don't view themselves as not zionist. (there are also arabs in Israel who are bigger zionists than some of the jews, one only has to go to druze villages in the Galilee to see this)
But it goes beyond that, this school system has been lauded by the "zionist" state. Yea, there are those in the country who hate "coexistence" schools like it (one can only look at the arson that took place a decade or so ago), but the fact that its actively supported and lauded by the state that you seem to think it rejects. Or in different terms, if one views anyone that supports the continued existence of the state of israel to be a zionist, I don't see how one can't consider this school to be "zionist" (and therefore, anyone supporting it, is supporting a "zionist institution".
Of course, one can also not be willing to say everyone that supports the continued existence of the state of israel to be a zionist, but that doesn't quite fit with you wanting to paint all zionists with the broad brush that you do. In regards to that broad brushing, I'd argue that the palestinians and arabs in general should then be painted with the same brush, because they have done the exact same things and many of their leaders have praised the exact same things. If you're not willing to paint them with the same brush, why are you willing to paint jews/zionists as a while with that brush?
Personally, I'm not willing to paint all palestinians with such a brush, so IMO your broad brush strokes reflects more on the you, than on Israel.
All the above isn't to say that either of these people support what the state of Israel is doing, but many unabashed zionists also criticize the state for its failings. I don't quite get why to some, sins of the state of israel (or zionism in general) are prooftexts to the zionism/israel being illegitimate, but to those same exact people, very similar sins done in the name of palestinian nationalism, don't brand it illegitimate. In practice (from my biased view point, used more in the statistical sense, because of what I've been exposed to, than in the prejudice sense), I see much more self criticism within the zionist movement from its inceptions till modern times that I see within palestinian nationalism (but again, thats because I'm exposed to much more aspects of zionism). And even with that biased belief, I try to deal with respect with any person who believes in palestinian nationalism and deal with them as an individual and not paint them with the broad brush strokes (though, in all honesty, I don't always succeed, as well as realizing that if they can't deal with me an individual and therefore view me as guilty of all the crimes they might place on the state, there's no where to even start a conversation, so its better to just move on, as any argument is just going to create confirmation bias (in this case more related to prejudice) in me going forward impacting how I relate to others.
I don’t think that’s the correct definition of Zionism. Zionism is Jewish nationalism, the belief that Jews are a nation and that as a nation they ought (at least in principle) to have their own state. A person can reject that belief, yet nonetheless support the continued existence of Israel as a practical matter, on the grounds that now that it exists, its destruction would cause greater overall human suffering than its continuation in existence in some form.
To give a parallel - a person doesn’t have to be a Czech nationalist to support the continued existence of Czechia. They may simply believe that allowing Czechia to remain in existence is pragmatically going to result in less human suffering than destroying it. That doesn’t require one to believe that Czechia has some abstract “right to exist”.
A consistent anti-nationalist opposes all forms of nationalism, including Zionism. But at the same time they may support the maintenance of the existence of many or all current states, even if those states were originally founded out of nationalism, so long as their reason for that support is pragmatic/utilitarian rather than based on nationalist principle.
And even a person who is a nationalist, isn’t required to be a nationalist of every nation - a person might be an Irish nationalist but not a Czech nationalist or a Zionist. An Irish nationalist might favour the continued independence of Ireland on nationalist grounds, while taking the same position with respect to Israel or Czechia on purely utilitarian/pragmatic non-nationalist grounds
Also, Haredi religious anti-Zionists aren’t opposed to a Jewish state in the land of Israel in principle, they just believe it was wrong to seek to establish it secularly, as opposed to waiting for the Messiah to do so. And yet, most of them, despite being opposed to the current State of Israel’s existence in principle, also oppose active attempts to harm its existence in practice. Yes, there are the extremists of Neturei Karta (NK) who will openly consort with Israel’s enemies, infamously attended the Tehran Holocaust denial conference, regularly support pro-Palestine protests - but most Haredi anti-Zionists aren’t like that. Satmar and its allies (Edah HaChareidis in Israel, the Central Rabbinical Conference in the US), who vastly outnumber NK, reject Zionism as an ideology, but simultaneously reject all cooperation with non-Jewish groups that threaten Israel’s physical safety-indeed, they’ve put NK under a cherem (excommunication) for doing so. They oppose the contemporary State of Israel’s existence in principle, but they also oppose any active efforts to harm its existence in practice, because they put high value on Jewish lives, and they see the latter as a threat to Jewish lives
1) I don't think your limitation of zionism to simply "nationalism" is correct. As I wrote, there were many self described "zionists" (especially in pre-state days) who weren't "jewish nationalists", i.e. their goal wasn't specifically a jewish state, but jewish settlement in a binational state, i.e. their goal was the return of the jewish people to their indigenous homeland, the birthplace of the culture and peoplehood). By restricting it to jewish nationalism (to the exclusion of others), one limits what zionism means.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Shalom_(political_organiz... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihud for examples of "dissident" zionist thought in pre-state days.
2) while I agree that one doesn't have to be a "nationalist" (in a pejorative view of the term) to support the continued existence of an existing state. I think most people who actively support Israel (and institutions in Israel) are not simply being "pragmatic" about that doing that is because its less human suffering, they view that its continued existence is a net positive to the world.
to rephrase the concept, with your next paragraph of "consistent anti-nationalists". Yea, one can oppose all forms of nationalism, but if one considers themselves a "consistent ant-nationalist opposed to all forms of nationalism", but supports palestinian nationalism / excuses violence as valid forms of "resistance", I'd argue that one isn't a "consistent anti-nationalist". i.e. I personally see very few "consistent anti-nationalists".
I also agree that one doesn't have to be a consistent "nationalist" per the next paragraph. I'm certainly not. If one wants to claim that that they aren't "anti-nationalist", but that they simply value palestinian nationalism over jewish nationalism, I get that.
In terms of Hareidi religious anti-zionism
1) outside of satmar affiliated ones, they don't have a consistent view of what it means to be anti-zionist today (i.e. I'd argue that they are more non-zionist jewish nationalists, vs anti-zionist).
2) Even with satmar, to many people who are virulent opponents of Israel (ex: who view zionist as a pejorative), they would view Satmar members, as you describe their philosophy (or opposing any efforts to harm the states existence) as "zionists".
In practice, i believe this demonstrates, that "zionism" (to people virulenty opposed to the state of Israel) is just a code word for anti-semitism, and is just a safe way for people to demonstrate their anti-jewish animus, and therefore further demonstrates the necessity of the modern state of Israel. In practice, I see very little "anti-israel" protests that don't devolve into such usages.
If some binationalists want to call themselves "Zionists", it isn't my place to tell them they can't call themselves that. But other binationalists disagree. For example, Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin (professor of Jewish History at Ben-Gurion University) is a binationalist, and I've read some of his writings, and he is rather critical of Zionism, and presents binationalism more as an alternative to Zionism than as a form of it.
I don't agree that donating money to a school in Israel aimed at promoting peaceful Arab-Jewish coexistence necessarily implies any particular position on whether the State of Israel should exist. If someone donated money to a school in Northern Ireland promoting peaceful Catholic-Protestant coexistence, I wouldn't assume that donation implied any particular position on the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland (whether it should remain part of the UK, or become part of a united Ireland, or even some third option such as shared sovereignty or independence).
I agree that a consistent antinationalist can't support Palestinian nationalism, but I think such people exist. I already mentioned Raz-Krakotzkin. In principle, I support neither Zionism nor Palestinian nationalism, but nowadays my own emotional sympathies are more with the Israeli side. That said, I get annoyed by Zionist language such as "Israel's right to exist" because frankly speaking I don't think any state has a "right to exist". But saying that doesn't mean I support the dreams some have of "dismantling" Israel–I think that would very likely end in genocide
I don't think non-Satmar-affiliated Haredim are being "inconsistent". Both sides agree that the establishment of the secular State of Israel was a mistake, but now it exists, it is a fait accompli, and it would be wrong to permit its enemies to destroy it. Where they disagree, is on how far one can permissibly go in relating to it (such as by accepting money from it or participating in its elections). I don't think either camp is being inconsistent, they just have a difference of moral and halachic opinion. There are similar debates–over how far you can go in compromising with a practical reality which you believe to be ultimately wrong–in other religions too.
Finally, I don't think we should allow the word "Zionist" to be defined by those who use it as a pejorative. People who rant about "Zionist Occupation Government", etc, are just using "Zionist" as a codeword for "Jewish", in order to obscure their own antisemitism. They aren't saying anything useful, and so should just be ignored. But non-pejorative critics of Zionism, from Joel Teitelbaum to Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, are worth listening to, whether they ultimately are right or wrong.
I'd differentiate this chareidi "zionism" that we see practiced from "religious" zionism in that their zionism is more secular, without ascribing religious significance to the state. i.e. while the "religious zionism" sector ascribes religious, messianic, meaning to the state and hence would suffer an internal rupture if the state would fall, the chareidim whose "zionism" I'd argue is more simply "secular/national" would simply view it as part of the ebb and flow of jewish history.
There are Haredi Religious Zionists, the Hardal - in particular the followers of Rabbi Zvi Thau, his students at the Har Hamor Yeshiva he founded in Jerusalem, and the Noam political party for which he serves as spiritual leader.
But although the term “Hardal” has only been heard in recent decades, there has always been a “very frum” subset of Religious Zionism. There is a direct line going from Rabbi Zvi Thau, to the Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva in Jerusalem where Thau held a leadership position for decades before splitting off to found his own yeshiva, to Thau’s mentor Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, and in turn to his mentor’s father and the founder of Mercaz HaRaz, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Mandatory Palestine.
Among the strictly Orthodox (“Haredi”), although Satmar-style hardline anti-Zionism and “non-Zionism” (which can be interpreted as “soft anti-Zionism”) have traditionally been the clear majority, there has always been a Religious Zionist minority, going back to the early 20th century. Religious Zionism has always contained a spectrum of observance from Haredi-style strictness through to “dati lite” laxity. So some of the people you are talking about were arguably “proto-Hardal” or “Hardal avant la lettre”
Complicating the matter is there has definitely been some movement in recent decades from the “non-Zionist”/“soft anti-Zionist” camp to Religious Zionism. A good example is the Sephardic Haredi party Shas, who used to identify as “non-Zionist” but in 2010 decided to join the World Zionist Organisation. Or similarly, Chabad is still technically “non-Zionist”, but with every passing year their “non-Zionism” appears ever harder to distinguish from actual Zionism. (But, keeping in mind that the Chabad of shluchim in Chabad houses is rather different from the Chabad of Crown Heights and Kfar Chabad, I’m not sure if that generalisation is equally true of both.)
Conversely, however, United Torah Judaism and Agudath Israel haven’t really changed their position - they still reject both secular Zionism and religious Zionism in principle, but are willing to engage in certain forms of cooperation with the State of Israel in practice. Rather than moving like Shas and Chabad have, they are staying where they are. In fact, I think the recent ratcheting up of the long-standing controversy in Israel over Haredi conscription is encouraging them to dig-in to their current position. (Although interestingly even Shas, despite embracing Religious Zionism on paper, is still opposing conscription for its followers, and urging them to engage in civil disobedience against it.)
Except most of these other definitions don't really matter to the current situation, right?
The one that does matter is Herzl's of course, which is the one that the State of Israel unequivocally operates on. More specifically the Jabotinskyian variants that have been the foundation of its consensus policy since 1967 (and much more firmly so since Begin).
Another example of "non-standard Zionism" was Canaanism [0], a 1940s outgrowth of Revisionist Zionism that wanted a Hebrew nationalism rather than a Jewish nationalism, and sought to include Arab Christians and Muslims on the condition that they start speaking Hebrew instead of Arabic, and adopt a new "Hebrew" ethnic identity in place of their pre-existing "Arab" one. But despite having significant influence on the development of Israeli art and Israeli literature, politically Canaanism was always a minuscule irrelevancy.
Or are you simply suggesting that you don’t think these people have thought hard enough about the matter because they don’t share your worldview? That’s a popular take among the adolescent atheist set.
You imagine yourself as being more of an intellectual than anyone who disagrees with you, even those who are among the most brilliant people on the planet. This sort of posturing is something most people outgrow.
In most organized religions, people join as children, and at that age you have developed the necessary cognitive maturity to analyze the complexity of a belief system (see Piaget stages of development).
Even a person that will grow up to be rational and brilliant can be persuaded to believe pretty much anything as a kid. A bearded man delivering gifts in a flying sled pulled by flying raindeer? A fairy that exchanges teeth for money? All good.
A child's belief in religion should not be the same as an adults (both in a metaphysical sense, as well as in what the religion brings and contributes to making the world a better place). Now one might hope that there's a smooth path from one childlike understanding to one's more mature adult understanding (at least if one values the religion), but that's not always the case, or not readily available to all due to the way they are taught and raised (and again, to those who value religion), that can be a shame.
My "rational" mind has a very difficult time accepting the concept of "spacetime" being limited (not that the limits might ever matter to me in practice), but that doesn't change my belief in its truism.
On the flip side, when it comes to religion, there are many things as an adult I cannot know if they are "really true" or not (though as a child it was much simpler to believe in them being simply true), but I can believe that operating as if they are true, can allow me to operate in the world in a manner that can hopefully makes the world a better place. Do I know if the metaphysical stuff is "real" or not? The honest answer is no. Do I feel acting ("belief" some might say) as if they are true, can make the world a better place? yes. Do I also know that others who believe can make the world a worse place? yep. But guess what, plenty of people have made the world a worse place trying to replace religion as well, so I don't think its so much that religion should be blamed, but people in general, they will always looks for an excuse, and religion can be a simple excuse, but to paraphrase the voltaire's famous statement of "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him", if religion didn't provide the excuses people make for making the world a worse place, people would have invented other reasons for it.