Suchergebnisse

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

This thesis examines the history of four Zionist youth movements in Australia: Bnei Akiva, Betar, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair. All four movements were established in Australia in the 1940s and 1950s by European Jews who wanted to re-create the organisations they had grown up with in Europe. The movements were, originally, activist political organisations dedicated to educating Jewish youth towards immigrating to Palestine/Eretz Israel (making aliyah) in order to help build the Jewish state. While all four movements shared the same basic aim of aliyah they also possessed distinct political ideologies. The movements were inspired by a kaleidoscope of European intellectual thought, but in particular they were influenced by the German youth movement and the British scouts as well as nationalism, socialism, romanticism and fascism. Historians of Zionism and European Jewish history have written a great deal about the origins of the movements and their important role in the history of Jewish nationalism. While scholars have examined the importance of the movements in Europe, Palestine and elsewhere, current academic research is largely silent on the history of the movements since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The historiography on the youth movements in Australia is even sparser. In this thesis I examine what the success of the movements in Australia may tell us about Jewish identity. I explore the ideological developments within the movements in Australia, their successes in convincing members to make aliyah, as well as their attempts to adapt their ideologies to suit a rapidly changing world. Originally the movements were dedicated to aliyah, but it is clear that an ideological shift has begun to take place with their embrace of a Diaspora-Zionism. This ideological development represents the most dramatic change in the ideology of the movements since their original establishment. The idea of an ideologically based Diaspora-Zionist identity raises important questions about the nature of Jewish ...

Setelah timbul pertentangan antara masyarakat Arab dan Yahudi, akhirnya lewat pertemuan tokoh-tokoh Yahudi yang dipimpin oleh Ben Gurion mendeklarasikan berdirinya negara Israel pada tanggal 14 Mei 1948. Hasil ini adalah puncak dari perjuangan mereka yang sangat panjang, melewati berbagai fase, mengkristal dalam bentuk gerakan politik Zionisme sampai akhirnya tiba pada pendirian sebuah negara Yahudi di dunia. Tetapi seiring dengan itu polemik yang berkepanjangan semakin menemukan jati dirinya sejak diproklamirkan negara tersebut dan tidak pernah tuntas diselesaikan antara Israel dan Palestina. Bahkan konflik tersebut juga meluas ke negara-negara Arab lainnya.Keywords: Zionisme, Yahudi dan Negara-negara Arab-Israel

The historian Sir Lewis Namier, born Ludwik Bernstein in Russian Poland in 1888 and brought up in east Galicia, was an unusual figure amongst Jewish theorists of nationalism. His father's family were assimilated Jews, and Namier grew up in a household that was thoroughly Polonised. Though registered as Jewish, he was not circumcised and was brought up in ignorance of Jewish traditions; his parents and sister subsequently converted to Catholicism. Unlike other Jewish intellectuals, he had no love for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy nor for German culture in general, and as a young man was an ardent pan-Slavist. Education at Oxford also imprinted in him a lifelong admiration for the British Empire, which he regarded as a force for good because it embodied the libertarian ethos inherent in Britain's national traditions. In his early writings, he defined nationality principally by race, and took religion, and attachment to a particular territory, as the principal markers of racial identity. This analysis derived chiefly from his observation of the history and geopolitics of central and eastern Europe, but he was also able to apply the same calculus to the "Anglo-Saxon" empires of the Atlantic world. These ideas, which he refined in later life but never abandoned, also fuelled a growing attachment to Zionism, accelerated by his own experiences of anti-Semitism, and his observation of the maltreatment of Jews in eastern Europe, of which he became increasingly aware through his role as an expert adviser in the British Foreign Office in 1916–1920.

On 11 September 2012, the American philosopher Judith Butler received the renowned Theodor W. Adorno Award of the City of Frankfurt am Main for her work in philosophy. Her theory of performative gender challenges fixed gender roles, forced sexual orientation and racist ideology while promoting a universal code of ethics. As a woman, a Jew, and an intellectual Butler rejects the reduction of Judaism to a nationalist definition of Zionism. A radical pacifist, she is committed to movements that fight – peacefully, albeit with unorthodox strategies – to find political solutions that ensure a basis of equal rights for all people in those lands, for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Programme Welcome: Cilly Kugelmann, Christoph F. E. Holzhey Diskussion: Judith Butler and Micha Brumlik Moderation: Andreas Öhler ; Judith Butler and Micha Brumlik, Is Zionism an Integral Part of Judaism? , discussion, Jüdisches Museum Berlin, 15 September 2012

As we are aware about the policies of Zionism, they are very opportunistic. They manipulate and make favorable any incident for their own purpose. Recent attack in Denmark in which two persons were killed, one of them was a Jew, member of Scandinavian countries of Jews community. After this attack Prime Minister Netanyahu invited all the diaspora Jews to come in Israel by saying that wave of anti-Semitism is again continue. Anti-Semitism is proved the best card for Israel's policy. Whoever opposes the policy of Israel is being labeled anti-Semitic. In this article we examine how it proved the best card for Herzl in the past and today for Netanyahu.

In historiographical research, there is an approach that perceives the ideologues who preceded the Hovevei Zion movement (1881) and the Zionist movement (1896) as "heralds of Zionism". These ideologues operated, or at least proposed the idea of the Jews' return to the Land of Israel and establishment a political entity in the Land, beginning from the 1860s. The researchers are divided, however, on the identification of the heralds. Some locate them even earlier, in the 17th century, while others deny their very existence. This article wishes to claim that the heralds of Zionism were Orthodox rabbis, such as R. Kalisher, R. Alkalai, R. Friedland, R. Guttmacher, R. Bibas, and R. Natonek, who operated in the early half of the 19th century and transformed the Jewish theology that advocated a passive-spiritual-Divine redemption into an active-practical-natural redemption. For this purpose, it is necessary to immigrate to the Land of Israel and cultivate the land. They contended that once the People of Israel would do so, the redemption would arrive.

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

This chapter examines the attitudes of the Jewish Social Democratic Party of Galicia (the Austrian-occupied province of partitioned Poland) to Zionism between 1905 and 1920.

Christian activism in the Arab&ndash ; Israeli conflict and theological reflections on the Middle East have evolved around Palestinian liberation theology as a theological&ndash ; political doctrine that scrutinizes Zionism, the existence of Israel and its policies, developing a biblical hermeneutics that reverses the biblical narrative, in order to portray Israel as a wicked regime that operates in the name of a fallacious primitive god and that uses false interpretations of the scriptures. This article analyzes the theological political&ndash ; theological views applied to the Arab&ndash ; Israeli conflict developed by Geries Khoury, Naim Ateek, and Mitri Raheb&mdash ; three influential authors and activists in different Christians denominations. Besides opposing Zionism and providing arguments for the boycott of Israel, such conceptualizations go far beyond the conflict, providing theological grounds for the denial of Jewish statehood echoing old anti-Jewish accusations.

Both Palestinian patriotism and Zionism, as ideas, epitomize the same standard; to be specific both are patriot developments taking into account the prerequisite of a country for their own particular individuals. The basic issue, nonetheless, is by all accounts that both have been guaranteeing the same real estate parcel for their countries, and consequently the wellspring of inconvenience is more down to earth than ideological. As opposed to the suspicion covered up in this current article's given title, political belief systems don't perceive nor accommodate with each other, nor do they figure out who perceives whom and who accommodate with whom. It is just people, and once in a while likewise assemblages, who—figuratively—start or experience such adjustments of relationship.

This article answers the false assertion that Zionism is nothing more than a political movement that should be abandoned by Jewish students on American university campuses. Yearning for the Land of Israel and Jerusalem is, in fact, a deep spiritual integral part of Jewish identity. It dates back 3000 years to Biblical times. The connection of Jews to Zion is a key component of Jews' shared ancestry and ethnicity and has persisted throughout Jewish history. This dedication is demonstrated today by the custom that concludes a Jewish wedding ceremony and by the declaration ending the Passover Seder. Harassment of students who express their Jewish identity by supporting Israel is as much anti-Semitism as demands that they stop eating kosher food. Zionism's opponents claim that the Jewish people have no right to self-determination in the Land of Israel. This amounts to anti-Semitism under the definition of that term adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ("IHRA"). That definition has been adopted by many countries and by the US Department of State. The article discusses an egregious event disruption by anti-Israel protesters in May 2018 at the University of California, Los Angeles ("UCLA") and the national conference at UCLA of Students for Justice in Palestine ("SJP") in November 2018. One available remedy for harassment of Zionist students on campus is legal action under 42 USC 1983. An administrative remedy can also be pursued by filing a complaint under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights against a university administration that fails to protect Jewish students from discrimination. This misfeasance constitutes discrimination based on national origin and is equivalent to racial and ethnic discrimination. The Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law has recently initiated its new "JIGSAW" program to provide law student assistance to Jewish undergraduates who are harassed on their campuses because of their support for the State of Israel.

One of Zionism's stock tacics has been to conflate Zionism and Judaism. Just as there are Jewish opponents of the racist Israeli state today, there have always been opponents of the Zionist strategy for dealing with anti-semitism. Zionism, as a political movement was established during the late 1890s. It was fought, from the start, by another modern political movement which in the same period. Rather than examine this aspect of the politics of the largest organisation of Jewish workers, the Bund in the Russian empire, this paper considers the attitude of its sister organisation in the Austrian Empire, the Jewish Social Democratic Party of Galicia (JSDP). Jewish social democrats in Galicia were, as members of the Polish Social Democratic Party (PPSD), in competition with Zionists for the allegiance of workers during the 1890s. The PPSD did not, however, take the organisations of Jewish workers seriously and Zionism made headway in the Jewish working class. In 1904, an Austrian Poale Zion (PZ, Labour Zionist) organisation in 1904. Dissatisfied with the assimilationist policies of the PPSD and, especially, its neglect of Jewish workers' organisations and agitation and literature in Yiddish, dissident Jewish socialists, led by Henryk Grossman, announded the formation of the JSDP on Mayday 1905. From the its first public statements, the Party emphasised its fundamental commitment to the class organisation of the Jewish workers, solidarity with the international working class and a commitment to class struggle. On the basis of this position, the Party explicity rejected Zionism. The JSDP's campaign against Zionist was an ongoing, if subordinate feature of its political activity. The Jewish Social Democrats competed with PZ for members of its constituent unions, particularly amongst shop assistants and clerks. The two organisations supported rival candidates in the first election to the Austrian Imperial Parliament under universal suffrage, in 1907, and in provincial (which years were there elections to the Sjem, municipal, workers' insurance fund ballots. When they eventually suppported the same candidates, on some occasions, it was because PZ moved to the left and backed social democrats. In the campaign for universal suffrage, the JSDP's policies were in accord with those of the General Austrian Social Democratic Party, calling for equal, geographic constituencies, while PZ backed the Zionist demand for elections by national curia. The JSDP also exposed the inadequacies of Zionist policies through material in its weekly newspaper, Der sotsial-demokrat. It carried articles not only on the doings and faults of Zionists and PZ members in Galicia and Austria, but also an expose of the conditions facing Jewish workers in Palestine, and a review of one of the first expressions of Arab nationalism published in the west. Like the Bund, the JSDP after 1905 had considerable success in organising Jewish workers. It rapidly overtook the influence of PZ and built an organisation committed to the emancipation of the Jewish working class where it was, rather than flight in the face of anti-semitism and class collaboration in pursuit of the project of colonising Arab land.

According to Samia Mehrez (1991: 255), a complete decolonisation process must include both the colonised and colonising societies. For the colonisers, decolonisation entails liberation from the hegemonic system of thought and from 'imperialist, racist perceptions, representations, and institutions'. Rooted in the conceptualisation of Israel as a settler colonial project, this article aims to shed light on decolonisation attempts from within the (colonising) Israeli society. Here, resistance practices of groups of Jewish-Israeli anti-Zionists, in active support of the Palestinian struggle, entail a confrontation with the state but at the same time include another, long-term dimension: the formation of discourse and practice that challenge the Zionist consensus, which thus function as an educative practice. This article aims to shed light on these activities and to conceptualise them as acts of 'critical pedagogy'. Indeed, their resistance teaches the Jewish-Israelis first about the reality of the oppression that Palestinians suffer. Second, and crucially, it reveals to the Jewish-Israelis the boundaries of permitted political activity and the possibility of overlooking and disregarding social conventions and legal norms. Most importantly, this type of activity (that is largely Palestinian-led and directed), symbolises the struggle against the boundaries and borders imposed by the state, aimed at separating Israelis from Palestinians and thus it constitutes a counter-hegemonic praxis

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict scenario analysis suggests that part of the construction of national discourses mediated by systemic political and economic interests and not only of endogenous elements as proposed by the common reading of Zionism. From there, the originality of national discourses based on religious grounds should be reviewed to understand transverse processes conceal hegemonic interests. However, religious discourses that have intervened along the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with greater intensity after the 1967 war, have been a catalyst for expressions of religious Zionism, obscuring geopolitical interests for territorial control in Palestine. ; El conflicto palestino israelí propone un escenario de análisis que parte de la construcción de discursos nacionales mediado por intereses políticos y económicos sistémicos y no solamente de elementos endógenos como propone la lectura común del sionismo. Desde allí, la originalidad de discursos nacionales basados en argumentos religiosos debe revisarse para entender procesos transversales que disimulan intereses hegemónicos. No obstante, los discursos religiosos que han intervenido a lo largo del conflicto palestino israelí, con mayor intensidad luego de la guerra de 1967, han sido un catalizador de expresiones del sionismo religioso, ocultando intereses geopolíticos por el control territorial en Palestina.