3

I have been trying to read and understand Non-Zionism, but i did not get that much out of Wikipedia.

In wiki it is mentioned:

Non-Zionism is the political stance of Jews who "were [or are] willing to help support depoliticized Jewish settlement in Palestine but will not come on aliyah."

The trend began in the United States in the first few decades of the 20th century when "an increasingly large section of Americanized Jewish opinion began to shift away from anti-Zionism either to pro-Zionism or non-Zionism. The non-Zionists were willing to offer the fledgling Jewish homeland fiscal and diplomatic counsel, not for their own benefit or spiritual comfort but for those Jews who chose to reside there."

About Non-Zionism: In first statement it said

depoliticized Jewish settlement

but in the second

offer the fledgeling Jewish homeland fiscal and diplomatic counsel

So, I am confused. Do they think, they should use the political power or not?

Can somebody please explain the below terminologies in simple words:

  1. Non-Zionism
  2. Anti-Zionism
  3. Pro-Zionism
Improve this question
0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

So the basic boiled down position is how to two questions that are mutally exclusive.

First, was the formation of the nation of Israel Legitimate? Second, is modern immigration of the Jewish people legitimate?

A pro-Zionism position believes that the answer to both is yes. The formation of the Israel State is a legitimate act and Jewish Immigration into said state is Legitimate as well.

An Anti-Zionism position will hold that the answer to both is no. Israel is not a legitimate state, and thus immigration of Jewish people into the territory claimed by Israel is illegitimate, since it is back by a government body that does not have the right to make such a law.

A Non-Zionism believes the the first question is yes, but the second question is no. That is, the Formation of the Israel State was legitimate but present day mass migration by the Jewish people should not be conducted any more. Basically, they see it as Israel having a right to exist and protect it's citizens, but they do not support it in a religious sense.

Improve this answer
6
  • 3
    Do you have sources? My impression was that non-zionists may also answer both questions with no. But in contrast to anti-zionists, they do not call for the destruction of Israel (as a Jewish state), but accept it as a historical reality.
    – tim
    Aug 8, 2018 at 18:33
  • From Wikipedia, it sounds like they do supported (politically, and financially) jews moving to Palestine (Israel didn't exist in the 20ies and 30ies), but prefered not to move there themselves without being opposed to the idea of others doing so.
    – janh
    Aug 8, 2018 at 19:05
  • 1
    And is there a name to call people who believe that answer of the 1st question is no, but answers to the 2nd question is yes ? Israel as a "purely Jewish state" is not legitimate but people should be allowed to go live in multicultural Palestine region if they want to (why is not my problem). I'd be among those.
    – Bregalad
    Aug 8, 2018 at 19:15
  • @Bregalad Those too would be considered anti-Zionists, because if you mean colonization of Israel with Palestinians right to return you are arguing for a de facto destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.
    – user9790
    Aug 8, 2018 at 20:26
  • I second @tim in request for sources. Also, how much is this distinction a matter of self-identification with a group/position vs. labelling someone else who is usually in opposition, at least on some aspect?
    – Fizz
    Aug 9, 2018 at 4:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .