This is the legacy of a country that never denazified, but still falls in line with Western hegemony regarding the imperialist project of Israel. They have found a new victim to foist their racist paranoia unto and simultaneously use the widespread opposition among Muslims and Arabs to Israel (a state that ethnically cleanses and exterminates them) as means to justify their extermination because their opposition to the Israel is systemically and legally classified as antisemitic.
This is the obvious consequence of labeling valid criticism of Israel as rote antisemitism is fueling anti-Muslim villainization and hysteria. If you oppose Arab extermination and ethnic cleansing, you are antisemitic. And if you're antisemitic you deserve extermination.
This is basically a contradiction inherent in the concept of the nation state. Nation states are inherently exclusionary, but states that are multicultural or assimiltory obfuscate national insterests and end up generally serving the interests of the most powerful nation group, for example white Americans in Canada or the United States.
It's a question of the principal contradiction to me: what drives the power inequality between nations? I think at its root it's class, because the majority of what makes a nation a nation is superstructural. The real simulated meat of the issue is that nations are going to have a bourgeois class or a comprador class etc. who will have a material interest in maintianing material and political inequality between nations.
I don't think there is an easy out. It's just going to have to be a long drawn out dialectic process of national liberation, finding new inequalities, more national liberation until we untie this hairball.
This is the kind of thing that gives me headaches. Is there some drawn-out, agglunative word for "I agree with the Anarchist criticism of the nature of the state but I just think it's idealistic to think we'll be able to go straight from a world of capitalist nation-states to a completely state-free world"?
I mean, it should give you a headache. Neo-colonialism and imperialism form the principal contradictions of our age. To the extent that solving problems give you headaches, this one should give you the biggest headache.
Yeah I would say it's simply more constructive for the left at large to positively affirm Palestinian right to return and end of Israeli occupation and settlement, than to take on anti-Zionism at this point.
I have no issue with anti-zionism. Zionism in its current form should be opposed and it is on Israelis to redefine it as something constructive. If Zionism is redefined as an indigenous movement ascerting that Jews should have EQUAL rights to live in Palestine/Israel, I'll be out protesting in support of that.
Anti semetism, on the other hand, I am extremely opposed to.
I guess I'm agnostic on anti-Zionism. Does Zionism necessitate this form of Jewish existence? Then obviously I'm anti-Zionist. But I think it's just easier and more clear to oppose the current construction of Israel and its history than the principle of Zionism writ large.
youtube suggested this interview between Noam Chomsky and this Ruby Rochberg guy who is basically like a woke liberal Zionist. and Noam actually said he used to be a Zionist in the 40s, but the definition has changed from Jewish right to equality and to live freely in what the Jews call Israel to what it is today, basically a form of Jewish supremacy and settler colonialism. I can support the former, the later is cringe zone 9k.
I think honestly what happened is that after the state was formed you see the creation of a national bourgeoisie who have an obvious material motivation for continual expansion and disenfranchisement of the other local population. It is pretty much you standard internal primitive accumulation creating the base for capitalist development.