-
As to the difference with Israel, because it was born from the Russian and European persecution of Jews, which culminated in genocide I just think you need to have a bit of cultural sensitivity. Coupled with that you rarely encounter other people who have the very right of their country to exist challenged as part of the criticism.
I don't think that's wholly representative of the migration of Jews to Palestine in the early 20c. I'm not disputing that many, many fled persecution, and felt that they had nowhere else to go but to paint it so black and white simply isn't true.
There were Zionist militia that helped the British invade Palestine with a very clear and defined intention to establish the state of Israel in response to "the Jewish Question".
The British and Arabs were equally shit, and there were decades of riots, armed rebellion and all manners of atrocities committed by all sides in the region.
My point here isn't to advocate or denounce zionism but I find it's important to understand the context and actions of those involved before making sweeping statements about why we should have some cultural sensitivity around such issues.
Israel exists because of an ideology that predates the oppression you reference and the politicised, modern Zionism was an acute distillation of that, partly in response to what was happening in Russia and Eastern Europe at the time. This is going to be very unpopular, but a contemporary comparison is ISIS, who have arguably been trying to do a similar thing. Are they entitled to feeling offended by those saying they had no right to form a caliphate, because they feel like they have endured a century of colonial oppression and foreign intervention?
Clumsy comparison, and contextually different but I'm interested to hear what qualifies one and not the other to warrant cultural sensitivity.
edit; just to clarify, I'm not comparing the atrocities that the Jews have endured to ISIS and British / American history in Middle East. More the proposition of two nation states being violently established under the guise of an ideology
You are reading a single comment by @🅑🅐🅣🅣 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
🅑🅐🅣🅣
It would depend on the situation. As a general rule, no, I wouldn't bang on about the faults of someone's country to them.
I'd engage in a sensitive discussion with them to gain some insight. I'd possibly challenge some points of disagreement, but I'd be polite.
Although my friends and I do rinse our Dutch and Aussy mates for being massive racists. Which now I think about it is probably a bit insensitive.
As to the difference with Israel, because it was born from the Russian and European persecution of Jews, which culminated in genocide I just
think you need to have a bit of cultural sensitivity. Coupled with that you rarely encounter other people who have the very right of their country to exist challenged as part of the criticism.
EDIT : So as not to bump and further derail the thread, and to clarify my last point in relation to Batt's post below. My point was the increasing persecution of Jews in Russia and Europe in the late c.19th was the catalyst for modern Zionism becoming discussed as a real option in that time. The increasing levels of violence in c.20th propelled it to a reality.
Of course there are numerous personal reasons of individuals emigrating, and the concept of a Jewish homeland is an ancient one. But I can't think of another state born so directly out of persecution (Haiti maybe?). That gives it a unique sensitivity in discussions most other countries don't have.