I hear a lot about the anti-Zionist side of things from this side of the border. Are there Zionist Israelis who oppose the State of Israel but not the Nation of Israel and also might embrace a stateless society in the region. I've seen that Israeli libertarians exist on here and I was curious if there were any such leading figures either academically or politically.
Zionism means that there should be a Jewish land/state. The idea is based on the concept that because Jews have been treated so poorly by non-Jews of Europe for so long (culminating in the Holocaust), it's better for them to have their own state, funded and protected by themselves. So, if Jews of, say, Germany are ever mistreated again, they don't have to go on a ship, go around the world asking for an asylum, be turned away from every country, eventually having to return and go to gas chambers (true story).
It would seem that such an idea dissipates if one is an anarchist, but the concept makes sense even without a state. The same way that anarchists today speak of buying off some land in NH or Lichtenstein or living in the sea, Jews in the late 19th century were talking about buying off land for mutual protection. That way, one doesn't live under jurisdiction of any government, fate to its whims. (People living in the US don't realize to what an extent Jews have lived on the edge of a razor blade for the last 2000 years.)
Since most of them were obviously not anarchist, this concept was in the form of a state, but one could imagine them saying: "let's settle in some land, privately bought, and organize an anarcho-capitalist society, in which Jews would be protected from anti-semitism".
The idea of buying land in Israel was cultural, historic, and religious. Certain Zionists believed in buying land in Argentina, in Africa, or elsewhere.
Some people (including myself) may not believe that the State (especially the secular State we have today) is an ideal situation or has any importance, but there is still a religious concept of living in the geograptic location of the land of Israel for Jews. (I consider it non-binding, but there are religious Zionists who consider it binding and may consider it so despite being anarchist.)
My family (and about 100 members of my wife's family) live in Israel. All males have served in the army, and some have helped founding the State. When people ask me whether I am in favor of a One-State solution or a Two-State solution, I answer that I am in favor of No-State solution. But... having said that, I think private protection agencies hired by Jews living in what is today Israel (whichever bank) would do almost exactly what Israeli army does. They would bomb the crap out of the bastards who shoot rockets at their clients.
There would be competition, and so they would probably be more efficient about it and cause less collateral damage (although Israeli army's record on collateral damage is the best in the world, and most collateral damage happens when the Arabs choose not to leave the buildings where the terrorists are hiding which the army says it will bomb), and, most importantly, the protection agencies would not be concerned about the international opinion, UN, UK, US, and others, and just destroy the terrorists in a more brutal, but more effective (long-term) manner.
Also, the problem in both Israel and N. Ireland is not that Arabs hate Israeli government or Israelis hate Palestinian government, but that Arabs hate Jews and Catholics and Protestants hate each other. And it's not a case of blowback. Certainly not in the case of Israel, where Jews were hated by local Arabs for a long time. So, just because the government goes away, the problem won't disappear magically. One can only learn what was going on before 1948. There were private Jewish and Arab communities living side-by-side (Jewish ones on privately bought land). Arabs would attack Jews. Jews would retaliate. And so on. The British turned a blind eye to everything.
Speaking of Hareidi Jews living in Israel -- in my opinion, they are a disgrace to their nation. And I say this as a Chassidic Jew myself. They are against the state to the point that they will not get a birth certificate for their child in a local government office, but they are so due to religious, not libertarian reasons. Which is fine with me (I won't get into the details; they are irrelevant). But they are happy to take governmental assistance and live off it. They don't work; their wives have to work and support their large families; they degenerate mentally and morally, etc., etc. Nowhere else in the world, throughout the 3500 years of Jewish history, has such a disgrace happened. Jews (including major rabbis) have always been productive. Yes, some people learned and were supported by their communities, but those were rare individuals, and the support was voluntary. Hareidi Communities living elsewhere in the world where they do not get governmental assistance (including such places as Lakewood, NJ, or Catskill Mountains in the Upstate NY) are completely different from their Israeli counterparts.
Are there any statists who oppose the state?
If Zionism can mean nothing other than a statist Jewish government, then replace it with a Jewish homestead movement I guess.
There are some Jewish religious factions among Chareidi communities, some of which live in Jersusalem, that oppose the State of Israe, and according to wikipidia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta), they claim that "any form of forceful recapture of the Land of Israel is a violation of divine will". Their position on Israel is quite clear, however, I do not know what their religious view would be on the instituion of government and State in general, so I wouldn't go too far and call them libertarians.
I'd have to know what you mean by 'zionist' to answer your question directly. Rest assured, there certainly are people within the territory of Israel who are anarcho-capitalists, just as there are in the UK and in the USA.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I'm not a libertarian but my brother is. He recently refused to go to jury duty, refuses to renew his license tag and is contemplating refusal of payment of the tickets he's accumulated as a result of his outdated tag.
I'm not a libertarian but my brother is.
He recently refused to go to jury duty, refuses to renew his license tag and is contemplating refusal of payment of the tickets he's accumulated as a result of his outdated tag.
I think the definition of Zionism precludes their being anti-state of Israel Zionists.
However, there are religious zionists and political zionists. The two are not necessarily dependent on each other.
Political zionists we know well (neo-cons), religious zionists believe in the abstract notion of Israeli kingdom of heaven (on Earth).
I suppose there could be 'anarchist zionists' who believe in a culturally manifest Israeli homeland, but not necessarily a State that reflects that sentiment.
This man was the first zionist (as far as I know) and envisioned an Israeli state that spanned from "Egypt to the Euphrates" (subsuming what we know today as Jordan and Lebanon in their entirety and also significant chunks of land from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria). This is why Arabs are suspiscious of Israeli expansion. They have a long way to go if you know what I mean...
Of course, I do not mean the Zionism currently presented. I'm ignorant as to whether there the term "Zionism" has any flexibility when it comes to the political structure. I've heard of course of the labels that Aristophanes mentioned, like Political Zionism and Religious Zionism. I guess the best description I can provide at this moment to what I'm getting at is whether or not there are Jews who reconcile their belief with a Jewish dominated land like where they currently reside with an anarco-capitalism type of structure promoted by the ideas on this site here for example.
My history on Israel is a bit shaky, but I was under the impression that the first wave of immigrants prior to official independence brought plots of land in the region cheaply and on it formed their own political system. Which, on the surface sounds like an act that was beginning to seem legitimate to libertarian ideals even if the end state itself was not. I am of course not well read in the area, and researching the area objectively is impossible because of the propoganda on both sides.
researching the area objectively is impossible because of the propoganda on both sides.
Read both sides; discern.
I'm a libertarian Zionist myself. Unfortunately socialism is quite popular in Israel; the sheer amount of fraud I see going on even in my daily life is astounding. PhDs aren't worth much, people mooch off of the government, and some car rental guy even asked my mother for a bribe. Despite the fact that everyone has cheap health care, the doctors are incompetent and people consider it an atrocity not to send your child to public school. Half of the kids there go to (state-funded) dormitories. I heard some guy blaming our debt with China on the failures of capitalism... I guess it will be a while before liberty becomes popular there.
Now that I'm done ranting, Zionism is about a Jewish homeland and has nothing to do with a Jewish "State."
Luminar: Zionism is about a Jewish homeland and has nothing to do with a Jewish "State."
Can you refer us to when and where the term Zionism was ever used in reference to something other then a Jewish State of Jewish nationalism?
It may be difficult to separate the two. If you believe that a certain territory should be settled by Jews under no non-Jewish national government's control, and you are not an anarchist, then you will be a statist zionist. The question is: why is the primary, and which the secondary, a vehicle?
Anyway, to answer your question, see some links here. It seems that this guy fits the description, as well as this one.
As an aside, it's interesting how in the early 20th century socialism has become an anti-establishment social religion of sorts. I was reading a book about just-post–WWII Japan, and basically, there were two broad classes of people: those who believed that Japanese tradition medieval society and mentality (everyone is damyo's slave) was still correct and socialists. In Russia, you either believed that Tzar was the people's father or you were a socialist. Etc.
I meant that having a state isn't necessary for Zionism. I'm not sure about the term "Zionism" but there have been attempts throughout history to immigrate to the area and establish a Jewish presence there, and I don't think that it had much to do with creating a state. Concepts evolve anyway; simply because Zionists a hundred years ago wanted a Jewish state doesn't mean that that is the eternal, fundamental tenet of Zionism.
I think Zionism is basically Jewish Nationalism. Historically, that's how the term has always been used. I'm not familiar with any other or current use of the term that does not refer to the State of Israel. If you are talking about just Jews who believe their rightful home is in the "Holy Land" but do not believe in having a State, then that is something else. I've never seen Zionism be assoicated with the latter, but you are welcome to enlighten me on this issue.
Apparently, not every Israeli is a socialist.
Here is a guy who describes himself as a "kippah-wearing settler" which means he is a religious Zionist, yet his views seem to be pretty libertarian:
I believe that being a Jew means being free. The whole Jewish message is a message of man's freedom – slavery only to God and not to any human regime. This is why I support reducing legislation in general, granting broader autonomy to the average citizen, reducing the State's authority, annulling religious laws, shutting down the Israel Land Administration and returning State-owned lands to their rightful owners – the people of Israel. I will fight against any violation of the people's right to live their lives as they see fit.
Obviously, not all of his views are libertarian or (for sure not) anarchist. He is a statist, but he seems to be sympathetic to the concept of minimum government.