• gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    Not exactly. Zionism was a labor-communist movement with an emphasis on fairly purchasing land from absent landlords, communal ownership, multiculturalism, agriculture, and independence for the native peoples of the region.

    I know it goes against the popular narrative these days, but the nice thing about history is that it never changes. I’m happy to share primary sources or mainstream, independent scholarship on any of these points if you have followup questions on any of these points.

    For now, here is a poster from 1900 to illustrate the point:

    • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      I feel like we’re talking about two very different things with the same name.

      While that form of zionism may have existed at one point, it is completely irrelevant today, as the zionism seen in Israel is very much far right and enthnonationalist.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        24 days ago

        Yeah Zionism had a lot of different opinions on how and where to do it before the Holocaust gave the movement the political capital it needed to actually happen. Funny how often these “iT gOeS aGaiNsT the NaRraTivE” types actually just don’t know or deliberately ignore the complete context.

    • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      “Labor-Zionism” is reactionary and ethnonationalist, they perpetuated the Nakba were willing to work with the far right as long as they were Jewish (putting ethnic politics above workers unity). IMO they should be seen like how we see national Socialism and national Bolshevism.