š§µThe āsettler colonialismā paradigm erases everything one needs to know to properly understand the I-P conflict. It misses everything that distinguishes the Jewish return to Palestine from White European Settler Colonialism. Here are the four key differences. (1/10)
The first difference is the intimate Jewish relationship to the land. The āsettler colonialismā paradigm misses everything that is historically and religiously distinctive about the Jewish relationship to the land of Israel/Palestine. (2/10)
The Jews were returning to a land that had been theirs, in which their religion was born, their temple built, and their Matriarchs and Patriarchs walked. A land that was at the absolute centre of Judaism and Jewish peoplehood,and from which they had been forcibly expelled. (3/10)
The second difference is the exceptional history of Jewish persecution. The āsettler colonialismā paradigm erases the crushing material weight of Europeās antisemitic history as a driver in the rise of Zionism and the creation of the Jewish state. (4/10)
The paradigm ignores: the collapse of the post-1789 liberal/emancipatory society, the backlash (āhighā intellectual+ālowā popular)against the ltd inclusion of Jews in Euro socs in the late 19thc, and the radicz of Euro antisemitism in the 20c culminating in the Holocaust. (5/10)
The Jewish experience of persecution over millennia, culminating in the rupture in world history and Jewish history that was the Shoah, made the creation of a Jewish state in the land of Israel nothing like the creation of āsettler colonialā societies such as the USA or SA.(6/10)
To call Jews who fled an antisemitic Europe or staggered out of Auschwitz, propping up their skeletal bodies on one another, āracist settler colonialistsā is obscene. (7/10)
The third difference is the local character of many Israeli Jews. The settler colonialism paradigm erases the hundreds of thousands of Jews who moved to Israel from Arab lands from the late 1940s, most driven out of their ancient homelands by Arab and Muslim antisemitism. (8/10)
The Jews from the Arab lands arrived in Israel as refugees, most carrying the 1 suitcase they'd been given 24 hours to pack after millennia of residence, the opposite of a āwhiteā āEuropeanā āracistā ācolonialismā. To apply those labels to that trauma is obscene. (9/10)
The 4th difference is that the int. comm. birthed Israel. The āsettler colonialismā paradigm erases the mandates that nurtured the Jewish state into being, just as was happening for Arab peoples, same time, same region. Again, utterly unlike the āsettler colonialā socs.(10/10)
ā¢ ā¢ ā¢
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
š§µ The Nazi analogyĀ seen on the demonstrations renews the core motif of antisemitism, that the Jews are not just āOtherā but also malign. (1/7)
The supposed content of this Jewish malignity has always changed with the times and the needs of the antisemites. (2/7)
The āGod-killerā became the ārootless cosmopolitanā, dissolving every nation but *also*Ā somehow, the āstubborn particularistā, an obstacle to Enlightenment universalism. (3/7)
š§µAnti-Zionism meant one thing in the early 20th century: an argument among Jews, mostly, about how best to meet the threat of antisemitism. It has come to mean something entirely different after the Holocaust and after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. (1/10)
āAnti-Zionismā has come to mean a programme of comprehensive hostility to all but a sliver of world Jewry, a programme for the eradication of actually existing Jewish self-determination. (2/10)
A post-Holocaust, post-establishment of Israel, left-wing. āanti-Zionismā has been converging with some forms of Arab nationalism and even political Islamism ā which are both now coded as singularly progressive. (3/10)