I wouldn’t call it a hate movement; it’s too inward-focused.
But like with any ultranationalist movement, it’s definitely heavily leveraged by those wanting to use it for their own hate-driven agenda. The two go hand in hand, but aren’t quite the same thing — dealing with each needs a slightly different approach, and getting rid of one won’t get rid of the other. THIS is the reason not to just label the entire zionist movement as hate/intolerance-driven Jewish supremacy. It’s only the diving board. Take it away and they’ll find something else.
Say you love your country and believe it should be sovereign with strong borders because you want to protect it. That’s nationalism. Arguably bad, but somewhat understandable given the material conditions most people grow up in.
Say instead you love your country and believe it should be dominate over all other countries and that all other peoples in all other countries are lesser for failing to have been born in your country and you should have a strong military and strike first at your enemies who will undoubtedly attack you at any moment because they’re so jealous of your obvious and clear superiority as a country that there’s no other choice but to invade and kill. There’s the ultranationalist line.
Right, could you like, cite anything to explain where you got this understanding? I can tell you can’t, because that second paragraph is imperialism, not nationalism, ultra or otherwise. You’d only make that mistake if you were just vibe-defining this, so I wonder why you felt the need to do this at all.
Nationalism isn’t just “when a place borders,” it is a specific set of relations and politics where ownership over land and access to the resources of that land is privileged through the arbitrary restriction to a naturalized (as in, imagined to be intrinsically and inevitably guaranteed power) group of people and dispossessed from an exploited or colonized group of people. It emerged in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a way to rationalize settler-colonial hierarchies and unify disparate groups of European peoples in the imperial peripheries and metropole around manufactured cultural commonalities like language or heritage. I’m sure you’re aware of German Wars of Unification and their subsequent consequences. New Brunswick and Saskatchewan don’t have obviously similar material conditons besides that they are on the same continent and have similar ways of life forced onto them by a settler-colonial, liberal capitalist state. Settlers in both of those provinces do imagine a common national identity, which is “Canadian,” but that is something intentionally constructed by the state. And no, it isn’t “arguably” bad, unless you’re about to try and argue that the genocide and dispossession of indigenous peoples is only relatively wrong.
Imperialism is the subordination of other groups of people by a privileged group of people within a metropole or core to facilitate the extraction of resources back to that metropole through economic, political, or military coercion. Though it certainly may involve nationalism, as EuroAmerican imperialism does today, it is a distinct set of politics that does not require the same relations as nationalism as it refers to specifically the subordination of external groups of peoples and their lands to the benefit of the privileged, imperialistic group. Canada and the US began as settler-colpnial states on the eastern half of the continent now called North America, and both have expanded westward as part of imperialistic campaigns against indigenous peoples so secure access to the land for their settlers and therefore the transference of resources and power to the benefit of the metropole. Both foster national identities, but those identities are actually subsequent developments of their imperialism and function more to maintain control of those holdings by the metropoles than it was a means to facilitate that expansion.
These things are often cooperative, but they are by no means one thing. Israel is indeed a settler-colonial state occupying Palestine, but it’s one founded on nationalism by the creation of an arbitrary, “unified” Jewish ethnic identity (that also excludes black and African Jewish peoples) and relies on that to exist. Their expansionist and fascistic (which is found in that crisis narrative you reference as the “need” to eradicate potential threating groups) politics are indeed an example of the interrelation between nationalism and imperialism, but are not fundamentally different than Canadian and USAmerican nationalisms and imperialisms just by merit of being “more” violent, and therefore does not constitute some comic-book power up of those politics.
The only reason to distinguish it in the way you and the other commenter has is to misinform and exceptionalize Israel’s settler-colonial genocide of Palestinians and salvage some national identity for equally genocidal states like those in Europe and North America (whom cooperate with Israel for this very reason).
Fucking stop talking about shit you don’t know about, ffs with people on here.
Nationalism (no, not “ultranationalism”) is fundamentally hateful in its arbitrary assignment of an idealized group of people with a natural right to land. Zionism has been oriented around Palestinian dispossession and erasure since its emergence in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, there is no “inward-focused” element here that somehow doesn’t make it an international ideological movement in Canada (which is also a genocidal, settler-colonial state with an interest in protecting Israel’s right to commit genocide). There aren’t any especially naughty Zionists that make the movement look bad, it is fundamentally a genocidal endeavour the same way every settler-colonial state is.
I really hope you have at least one reading on any of these topics to recommend since you’re making some pretty incredible claims here that defy most historical and decolonial scholarship on them.
I disagree with your framing because it makes it seem like Zionism isn’t inherently hateful, just some people coopting the ideology are.
But the very founders and people that created the ideology were hateful, as a matter of fact.
You’re framing an ethno-supremacist ideology that was created at the same time that other very hateful ethno-supremacist ideologies were created and trying to say it isn’t inherently hateful.
That’s like saying Naziism wasn’t inherently hateful, but people coopted the ideology. They’re literally of the same cloth, friend.
You’re framing an ethno-supremacist ideology that was created at the same time that other very hateful ethno-supremacist ideologies were created and trying to say it isn’t inherently hateful.
That’s exactly why I’m comparing it with every other balkan nationalism of the time. Take Greek or Bulgarian or Italian or Hungrian or Turkish or any other nationalism that was being conceived in, well, the age of nationalism, in the end of the 19th century, and they all share the same ethno-supremacist characteristics.
That’s usually what ethnonationalism means in the New World, where there are things like white nationalism etc. In the Old World, ethno-nationalism is a diverse set of ideologies. And the idea of “blood purity” is also not expressed as that radical or controversial in the many many states that follow a jus sanguinis system.
There is absolutely there a structure that makes it extremely easy to slide into hateful politics. Which is why I’m not defending ethno-nationalism, in fact I agree that it is an aberration that should be abolished. I am just pointing out that there is nothing particularly unique about jewish ethno-nationalism. It is currently undergoing a radical phase, but again that’s not historically unique to it. That’s literally how the Turks ended up genociding the Armenians. I am not normalizing or excusing, merely de-exceptionalizing. Nothing special about zionism. Just another shitty ethno-nationalism, same shit we’ve seen many times over.
Sorry, I also didn’t know I was responding to someone different in my prior comment and think we’re in agreement. There’s nothing inherently unique about Jewish ethno-nationalism.
I kind of agree. I don’t think Zionism is that much different from any other shitty nationalism, and I’m saying this from the point of view of the Balkans. Like the Zionist Jews are not doing anything particularly new that, say, the Croatian Ustasha, or the Serb Chetniks, or the Kemalist Turks, or the Bulgarian fascists, or our own nationalist Greeks, etc didn’t already do at some point in the last century or so. Even the settler aspect is not that unique, just look into how us Greeks colonized and cleansed Macedonia or what the Turks did to us and the Armenians and in northern Cyprus. The only difference is that they also have nukes, and a blank check from the Americans to do whatever the fuck they want.
Well, that might be true nowadays, but that’s hardly again unique to zionist jews. Random example, the Orange Parade has been held continually since 1821. I also vaguely remember anti-Tamil mobilizations during the last phase of the Tamil genocide in Toronto, where they flew a plane with a sky message against the Tamils. When the recognition of the Armenian genocide was discussed in Parliament, the Turkish community also mobilized. In the 1930s the Deutscher Bund Canada held pro-nazi rallies.
And also let’s not forget, well, Canada Day, our very own celebration of our own genocide against indigenous people.
A big difference of course is that the zionist events are larger and have more political coverage (with the exception of Canada Day). So in that sense, the title of the OP article is kind of good, in identifying them as “most-successful”. But they are not unprecedented.
Random example, the Orange Parade has been held continually since 1821.
Actually that’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about. White supremists, Orange Order, even pride parades, are all celebrating the people in the parade. Zionists “March for Israel” every year in Toronto.
Zionism is also fundamentally about committing genocide in a specific region. White supremacy would be fine with Blacks living in the USA so long as they’re subjugated.
And also let’s not forget, well, Canada Day, our very own celebration of our own genocide against indigenous people.
Zionists are also fine with Palestinians in “Greater Israel” so long as they are subjugated/second class and don’t ask for national determination, they literally passed that racist law last year or whatever. That’s how they have treated Israeli Arabs since the Nakba. In a way they prefer it like that because it legitimizes them as a benevolent majority (“the only democracy” narrative).
Not sure what exactly you’re reacting against with such ferocity. De-exceptionalizing Zionism as just one more shitty nationalism of the kind we’ve seen already in action in my neck of the woods in the Balkans is not creating excuses for it. Quite the contrary.
I wouldn’t call it a hate movement; it’s too inward-focused.
But like with any ultranationalist movement, it’s definitely heavily leveraged by those wanting to use it for their own hate-driven agenda. The two go hand in hand, but aren’t quite the same thing — dealing with each needs a slightly different approach, and getting rid of one won’t get rid of the other. THIS is the reason not to just label the entire zionist movement as hate/intolerance-driven Jewish supremacy. It’s only the diving board. Take it away and they’ll find something else.
I have yet to meet a zionist who wasn’t actively dehumanizing Palestinians to justify their worldview.
Valid point; usually anyone able to put humanity before nation isn’t going to be an ultranationalist of any type.
Could you explain where you’re getting the term “ultranationalist,” and what distinguishes it from nationalism in this case?
Say you love your country and believe it should be sovereign with strong borders because you want to protect it. That’s nationalism. Arguably bad, but somewhat understandable given the material conditions most people grow up in.
Say instead you love your country and believe it should be dominate over all other countries and that all other peoples in all other countries are lesser for failing to have been born in your country and you should have a strong military and strike first at your enemies who will undoubtedly attack you at any moment because they’re so jealous of your obvious and clear superiority as a country that there’s no other choice but to invade and kill. There’s the ultranationalist line.
Right, could you like, cite anything to explain where you got this understanding? I can tell you can’t, because that second paragraph is imperialism, not nationalism, ultra or otherwise. You’d only make that mistake if you were just vibe-defining this, so I wonder why you felt the need to do this at all.
Nationalism isn’t just “when a place borders,” it is a specific set of relations and politics where ownership over land and access to the resources of that land is privileged through the arbitrary restriction to a naturalized (as in, imagined to be intrinsically and inevitably guaranteed power) group of people and dispossessed from an exploited or colonized group of people. It emerged in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a way to rationalize settler-colonial hierarchies and unify disparate groups of European peoples in the imperial peripheries and metropole around manufactured cultural commonalities like language or heritage. I’m sure you’re aware of German Wars of Unification and their subsequent consequences. New Brunswick and Saskatchewan don’t have obviously similar material conditons besides that they are on the same continent and have similar ways of life forced onto them by a settler-colonial, liberal capitalist state. Settlers in both of those provinces do imagine a common national identity, which is “Canadian,” but that is something intentionally constructed by the state. And no, it isn’t “arguably” bad, unless you’re about to try and argue that the genocide and dispossession of indigenous peoples is only relatively wrong.
Imperialism is the subordination of other groups of people by a privileged group of people within a metropole or core to facilitate the extraction of resources back to that metropole through economic, political, or military coercion. Though it certainly may involve nationalism, as EuroAmerican imperialism does today, it is a distinct set of politics that does not require the same relations as nationalism as it refers to specifically the subordination of external groups of peoples and their lands to the benefit of the privileged, imperialistic group. Canada and the US began as settler-colpnial states on the eastern half of the continent now called North America, and both have expanded westward as part of imperialistic campaigns against indigenous peoples so secure access to the land for their settlers and therefore the transference of resources and power to the benefit of the metropole. Both foster national identities, but those identities are actually subsequent developments of their imperialism and function more to maintain control of those holdings by the metropoles than it was a means to facilitate that expansion.
These things are often cooperative, but they are by no means one thing. Israel is indeed a settler-colonial state occupying Palestine, but it’s one founded on nationalism by the creation of an arbitrary, “unified” Jewish ethnic identity (that also excludes black and African Jewish peoples) and relies on that to exist. Their expansionist and fascistic (which is found in that crisis narrative you reference as the “need” to eradicate potential threating groups) politics are indeed an example of the interrelation between nationalism and imperialism, but are not fundamentally different than Canadian and USAmerican nationalisms and imperialisms just by merit of being “more” violent, and therefore does not constitute some comic-book power up of those politics.
The only reason to distinguish it in the way you and the other commenter has is to misinform and exceptionalize Israel’s settler-colonial genocide of Palestinians and salvage some national identity for equally genocidal states like those in Europe and North America (whom cooperate with Israel for this very reason).
Fucking stop talking about shit you don’t know about, ffs with people on here.
Lenin.
Jesus fucking Christ, if you want to be a Marxist, you have to fucking read.
Nationalism (no, not “ultranationalism”) is fundamentally hateful in its arbitrary assignment of an idealized group of people with a natural right to land. Zionism has been oriented around Palestinian dispossession and erasure since its emergence in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, there is no “inward-focused” element here that somehow doesn’t make it an international ideological movement in Canada (which is also a genocidal, settler-colonial state with an interest in protecting Israel’s right to commit genocide). There aren’t any especially naughty Zionists that make the movement look bad, it is fundamentally a genocidal endeavour the same way every settler-colonial state is.
I really hope you have at least one reading on any of these topics to recommend since you’re making some pretty incredible claims here that defy most historical and decolonial scholarship on them.
therefore, white supremacists aren’t a hate group, as they are focused on white people…
You should probably read a few lines from Jabotinsky (a popular Zionist Nationalist). He uses blood and land tropes a lot.
I’ve read just enough to not want to ever read anything by the guy again. As I said, the two go hand in hand, and he’s a prime example of that.
I disagree with your framing because it makes it seem like Zionism isn’t inherently hateful, just some people coopting the ideology are.
But the very founders and people that created the ideology were hateful, as a matter of fact.
You’re framing an ethno-supremacist ideology that was created at the same time that other very hateful ethno-supremacist ideologies were created and trying to say it isn’t inherently hateful.
That’s like saying Naziism wasn’t inherently hateful, but people coopted the ideology. They’re literally of the same cloth, friend.
That’s exactly why I’m comparing it with every other balkan nationalism of the time. Take Greek or Bulgarian or Italian or Hungrian or Turkish or any other nationalism that was being conceived in, well, the age of nationalism, in the end of the 19th century, and they all share the same ethno-supremacist characteristics.
Xenophobia is hateful. Ethno-nationalism is xenophobic and about blood purity.
That’s usually what ethnonationalism means in the New World, where there are things like white nationalism etc. In the Old World, ethno-nationalism is a diverse set of ideologies. And the idea of “blood purity” is also not expressed as that radical or controversial in the many many states that follow a jus sanguinis system.
There is absolutely there a structure that makes it extremely easy to slide into hateful politics. Which is why I’m not defending ethno-nationalism, in fact I agree that it is an aberration that should be abolished. I am just pointing out that there is nothing particularly unique about jewish ethno-nationalism. It is currently undergoing a radical phase, but again that’s not historically unique to it. That’s literally how the Turks ended up genociding the Armenians. I am not normalizing or excusing, merely de-exceptionalizing. Nothing special about zionism. Just another shitty ethno-nationalism, same shit we’ve seen many times over.
Sorry, I also didn’t know I was responding to someone different in my prior comment and think we’re in agreement. There’s nothing inherently unique about Jewish ethno-nationalism.
I kind of agree. I don’t think Zionism is that much different from any other shitty nationalism, and I’m saying this from the point of view of the Balkans. Like the Zionist Jews are not doing anything particularly new that, say, the Croatian Ustasha, or the Serb Chetniks, or the Kemalist Turks, or the Bulgarian fascists, or our own nationalist Greeks, etc didn’t already do at some point in the last century or so. Even the settler aspect is not that unique, just look into how us Greeks colonized and cleansed Macedonia or what the Turks did to us and the Armenians and in northern Cyprus. The only difference is that they also have nukes, and a blank check from the Americans to do whatever the fuck they want.
Zionists are the only ones throwing parades in Toronto to support genocide on the other side of the globe.
Well, that might be true nowadays, but that’s hardly again unique to zionist jews. Random example, the Orange Parade has been held continually since 1821. I also vaguely remember anti-Tamil mobilizations during the last phase of the Tamil genocide in Toronto, where they flew a plane with a sky message against the Tamils. When the recognition of the Armenian genocide was discussed in Parliament, the Turkish community also mobilized. In the 1930s the Deutscher Bund Canada held pro-nazi rallies.
And also let’s not forget, well, Canada Day, our very own celebration of our own genocide against indigenous people.
A big difference of course is that the zionist events are larger and have more political coverage (with the exception of Canada Day). So in that sense, the title of the OP article is kind of good, in identifying them as “most-successful”. But they are not unprecedented.
Actually that’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about. White supremists, Orange Order, even pride parades, are all celebrating the people in the parade. Zionists “March for Israel” every year in Toronto.
Zionism is also fundamentally about committing genocide in a specific region. White supremacy would be fine with Blacks living in the USA so long as they’re subjugated.
Yea that’s a shit take
Zionists are also fine with Palestinians in “Greater Israel” so long as they are subjugated/second class and don’t ask for national determination, they literally passed that racist law last year or whatever. That’s how they have treated Israeli Arabs since the Nakba. In a way they prefer it like that because it legitimizes them as a benevolent majority (“the only democracy” narrative).
Not sure what exactly you’re reacting against with such ferocity. De-exceptionalizing Zionism as just one more shitty nationalism of the kind we’ve seen already in action in my neck of the woods in the Balkans is not creating excuses for it. Quite the contrary.