That was the standard leftist stance during the formation of Israel, since a whole heck of a lot of immigrants into Israel were socialist Jews who kept getting targeting in pogroms in eastern Europe. So it wasn't a silly idea to assume Israel would either have a lot of socialist influence or simply become socialist due to the demographics immigrating there. A lot of Soviet Jews moved there as well, many of whom fought in WW2.
The assumption about socialist influence in Israel ended up being more or less correct, by the way, it just didn't last and didn't have enough impact as everyone assumed it would, plus a whole lot of the so-called socialists ended up also being in favor of burning down the homes of Arab people. The Workers' Party of Israel (or Mapai), the largest left-leaning party in Israel, held a third of the seats in the Knesset until the 1970s. The other leftist party, the United Workers Party, (Mapam) was much smaller, more Marxist, but also incredibly loud and influential. They were on the surface in favor of Israeli-Arab coexistence, but I believe some of their senior leadership were also higher level officials in the Israeli armed forces, who were the very people in charge of burning down people's homes.
There was also a lot of talk about the formation of Israel necessarily leading to a decline of British influence in the middle east, so some talked about Israel in anti-colonial terms.
Time is funny. What must have seemed like an incredibly nuanced position back then has become clearly mistaken now. I can only wonder what types of things we believe now that will seem horrifyingly wrong in 80 years.
Also I'm not terribly informed on a lot of this stuff. Sorry if I made any assumptions or said anything wrong. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.
I remember reading that there was also a split in the zionist movement in the early Soviet Union because while zionism always contained elements that were more domineering and supremacist, a large part of zionism was a simple desire for safety from the institutional violence that Jews had been subjected to over the centuries, and so the movement split into those who still wanted an explicitly Jewish state of their own and those who believed that the secular Soviet Union was sanctuary enough.
But I don't remember any more details than that, nor do I know if what I read was accurate to begin with.
This twit is funnier because Stalin (if i remember correctly, maybe i'm wrong) was pro-Israel.
That was the standard leftist stance during the formation of Israel, since a whole heck of a lot of immigrants into Israel were socialist Jews who kept getting targeting in pogroms in eastern Europe. So it wasn't a silly idea to assume Israel would either have a lot of socialist influence or simply become socialist due to the demographics immigrating there. A lot of Soviet Jews moved there as well, many of whom fought in WW2.
The assumption about socialist influence in Israel ended up being more or less correct, by the way, it just didn't last and didn't have enough impact as everyone assumed it would, plus a whole lot of the so-called socialists ended up also being in favor of burning down the homes of Arab people. The Workers' Party of Israel (or Mapai), the largest left-leaning party in Israel, held a third of the seats in the Knesset until the 1970s. The other leftist party, the United Workers Party, (Mapam) was much smaller, more Marxist, but also incredibly loud and influential. They were on the surface in favor of Israeli-Arab coexistence, but I believe some of their senior leadership were also higher level officials in the Israeli armed forces, who were the very people in charge of burning down people's homes.
There was also a lot of talk about the formation of Israel necessarily leading to a decline of British influence in the middle east, so some talked about Israel in anti-colonial terms.
Time is funny. What must have seemed like an incredibly nuanced position back then has become clearly mistaken now. I can only wonder what types of things we believe now that will seem horrifyingly wrong in 80 years.
Also I'm not terribly informed on a lot of this stuff. Sorry if I made any assumptions or said anything wrong. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.
deleted by creator
I remember reading that there was also a split in the zionist movement in the early Soviet Union because while zionism always contained elements that were more domineering and supremacist, a large part of zionism was a simple desire for safety from the institutional violence that Jews had been subjected to over the centuries, and so the movement split into those who still wanted an explicitly Jewish state of their own and those who believed that the secular Soviet Union was sanctuary enough.
But I don't remember any more details than that, nor do I know if what I read was accurate to begin with.
The Israeli Communist Party seems to be much better. They're allied to the Arab parties and want a binational state.
Would you like to know more?
he's cancelled
no i think he voted against it
deleted by creator