Anonymous #1 4w

Not sure if she’s a bundist, I’ve never heard of her before. That’s rude af to say. Not everyone supports nationalism

-1

Anonymous #1 4w

Yes she is. Before ww2, her grandfather was one of the first to convince Jews that Europe was safe for them and they don’t need Israel. Her perspective is that he was right 🤡

6

Anonymous #2 4w

I know her from the book/article she wrote. I’m not assuming anything. I got the sense that all she saw was old anti Zionist communist Jews and stopped there without giving thought to anything else

3

Anonymous #2 4w

What’s wrong with believing that Jews had the right to live in freedom and dignity wherever it was they stood? You’re going to agree with what the antisemites were saying, that they don’t belong where they have lived for generations?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

It looks like you don’t have an understanding of what Zionism is. Anti Zionists do

0

Anonymous OP 4w

Bundism is very specific to the time and place it was founded and basically disappeared after they murdered during holocaust, it’s also just like straight up a purely Ashkenazi thing. I don’t think that there can really be modern bundhists. I think that there is a sort of weird romanticism for the Shtetl as if pogroms didnt exist

5

Anonymous #1 4w

Well yeah bc Jews in the Middle East weren’t being persecuted like Jews in Europe. It was the other response to rampant antisemitism in Europe. To build community and strengthen bonds where they were actually RIGHTFULLY living instead of letting the antisemites win. And we shoudnt let the antisemites be successful in completely destroying it and its memory, either!

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Okay, if you have two political philosophy for the safety of Jews, and one of those philosophies resulted in the entire movement being murdered for being Jewish you’d say that’s a pretty defunct philosophy. Regardless of what you think about the current political state of Israel, israel a concept saved many many many many Jews lives

2

Anonymous #1 4w

It wasn’t the fault of the Jews that they got massacred?? It was the fault of the Nazis… They didn’t just kill bundists, they killed Zionists too. By your logic Zionism would be a defunct philosophy bc apparently it’s the Jews fault for being murdered. It saved lives? Is that why they treated holocaust victims like shit bc they viewed them as weak?

5

Anonymous OP 4w

The ideology failed but it’s not the fault of Jews and I didn’t say that. Yes, Israel has saved lives on many many occasions I’m alive because of Israel. Israel has taken in as refugees 850,000 MENA Jews, 20,000 Ethiopian Jews, and like 500,000 Jews from Europe/russia. If Israel had been founded a decade earlier, we wouldn’t have had cases like the MS St Louis. As a bureaucratic state, Israel has failed holocaust survivors, but it also provided them a place when they had no where else to go.

6

Anonymous OP 4w

“jews in the middle east weren’t persecuted like jews in europe.” sure there wasn’t a genocide but explain to me the dhimmi system then. the middle east was an unsafe place for jews, except for israel

2

Anonymous #3 4w

Yeah that’s why I said they weren’t persecuted LIKE European Jews. it was largely safe, ofc not perfect bc they were minorities

0

Anonymous #1 4w

But see the only reason nearly a million Jews in SWANA were displaced was bc of Israel. Israel forced their displacement thru agitation, bombing and propaganda campaigns. Israelis and early settlers looked down on the European Jews who survived the Holocaust. They really only revered European Jews who were strong and got out before they were put in camps. How safe did Israel make it for these ppl? Is that really a safe haven? Being weaponized for a colonial project?

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

i’m talking about before israel. the dhimmi system. pogroms and massacres in the ottoman empire, yemen, iran, morocco, syria. israel made it safe to be middle eastern and jewish, european and jewish, arab. the iron dome doesn’t ask what ethnicity you are.

2

Anonymous OP 4w

israel is hardly a colonial project. jews are literally indigenous to the land! it’s like the first thing you learn in hebrew school.

2

Anonymous #3 4w

How safe does it make it when Israel benefits from global antisemitism and is happy to stoke the flames to further displace diasporic Jews so that that they can have an ethnic majority over Palestinians?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

That’s not what indigenous means if you look into indigenous studies. The only indigenous Jews were the ones before the settler project came into effect

0

Anonymous OP 4w

we clearly have different definitions of words! that’s okay but i think this discourse isn’t going to work. if you want to stay ignorant about jewish people’s place in this world, fine by me. i clearly can’t change your mind

2

Anonymous #3 4w

That’s the commonly accepted academic definition but okay. Use the revisionist pro colonial weaponized definition if you wish. And sorry but I’m not the ignorant one about this topic lol

0

Anonymous #3 4w

Even if you google it, it says it’s a status in response to colonialism. It’s not race science

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Anyone that calls Israel a colony has to acknowledge that Israel isn’t like literally any other colony. Indigenous is about cultural significance of the Lande to a group of people and by that standard Jews qualify

6

Anonymous #1 4w

A lot of children, even grandchildren, of immigrants maintain cultural ties to their parents’ home countries. Doesn’t make the children indigenous if they’re born elsewhere

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

We’re talking about cultural inheritance, by your definition would Palestinians who haven’t lived in their homes for two generations not being indigenous?

2

Anonymous #1 4w

No bc they were displaced from colonialism. A colonial entity that still exists and is still pretty young and fresh. Jews were displaced by the Romans. The Roman Empire no longer exists therefore there is nothing to decolonize and settlers who came to displace the indigenous population in Palestine are not indigenous. They were settlers seeking to displace and replace the culture

1

Anonymous OP 4w

This feels like very roundabout logic. Would Jews have not been Indigenous after the Babylonian exile? Count the byzantine empire is an extension of the Roman and therefore Jews only lost indigenousness during the Arab caliphate? It feels very arbitrary because Jews never really assimilated into their host culture and they always maintains the belief that they were going to go back to that specific land.

2

Anonymous #1 4w

It’s not roundabout if you understand colonialism and look into indigenous studies. Indigenousness is about the relation and status in response to colonialism None of those empires still exist. Israel exists. & they were never allowed to assimilate bc of antisemitism

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Also technically colonialism didn’t exist until the early stages of capitalism but that distinction isn’t as important in this context

1

Anonymous OP 4w

you’re using a much narrower definition of indigeneity than most historians. indigeneity is more commonly understood as a people’s historical origin in a particular land and their continuity with that land over time. Jews are indigenous to Israel because culture, religion, language, and identity originated there and maintained a continuous connection to the land throughout centuries of exile

3

Anonymous #1 4w

If indigeneity disappears once a people regains sovereignty, then it becomes a status that can be lost through successful self-determination, which doesn’t make sense.

3