Should we distance ourselves from Zionism?

[White Israelite]

I don't know how many people consider themselves a Zionist here, but it almost seems like modern day Zionism is infact a hijacked movement and infact a threat to the Jewish people and the Israelis.

Look at many of the people who call themselves Zionists, the ADL and AIPAC claim to be Zionists but yet they praise Obama and work against the constitution. Also the foreign aid sent to the Israeli government that call themselves Zionists are the same ones who support this "peace process" and removal of settlers from Amona. Wouldn't that make modern day Zionism more attributed to the supporters of the current secular state of Israel and infact enemies of the Jewish people?

In my personal opinion, Zionism = Homeland for the Jewish people.

I believe Zionism has already met it's goals in the establishment of the state of Israel but not the kingdom of Israel.

Would it be better to refer to one strictly as a Kahanist to keep away from the Zionist tag? It seems like the term Zionist has been tainted in a very negative way, not just by our enemies but by fellow Jews as well.

What are your thoughts about this?

[q_q_]

In a word No.

There are different groups of zionists.
We are not leftist socialist ones.

Chaim discusses this very well here.

Who were the real Zionists?
http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=szmss6sumrr3

(see the JTF hebrew section for subtitled videos)


Of course, you had secular anti religious zionists like herzl.
Then you had jabotinsky - revisionist zionism.

people like olmert and other seculars really consider themselves post zionists, or others call them that.  They are not zionists.

Chaim came up with a good argument when he said something like..   we / JTF / kahanists, and followers of jabotinsky , are the real zionists because we want a return of jews to zion.. 

(some "zionists"  maybe most of them, the original ones, were ok with a move to uganda)


Basically, if you say you're a zionist, it doesn't mean you hate israel and want to give all the land away. That's just ridiculous.  You can say right wing zionist just to be clear, incase it isn't. 
Kahanist implies zionist.  Rabbi Kahane wrote a book called I am a Zionist! (prob to instill pride in jews to say it)

[White Israelite]

Chaim discusses this very well here.

http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=szmss6sumrr3

(see the JTF hebrew section for subtitled videos)


Of course, you had secular anti religious zionists like herzl.
Then you had jabotinsky - revisionist zionism.

people like olmert and other seculars really consider themselves post zionists, or others call them that.  They are not zionists.

Chaim came up with a good argument when he said something like..   we / JTF / kahanists, and followers of jabotinsky , are the real zionists because we want a return of jews to zion.. 

(some "zionists"  maybe most of them, the original ones, were ok with a move to uganda)


Basically, if you say you're a zionist, it doesn't mean you hate israel and want to give all the land away. That's just ridiculous.  You can say right wing zionist just to be clear, incase it isn't. 
Kahanist implies zionist.  Rabbi Kahane wrote a book called I am a Zionist! (prob to instill pride in jews to say it)

Wasn't it Madagascar?

I remember reading something that the original modern day Zionists wanted either a homeland in the Ottoman Empire (Ancient Kingdom Of Israel) at the time or Argentina, not sure why Argentina?

It seems like a losing battle to call oneself a Zionist especially in a political atmosphere because the name has been so tainted even in America today by evil self hating Jews, would the idea of saying one is a Kahanist and they follow the Torah be more appealing to people understanding that the government of Israel is not a friend to the Jewish people?

[IslamIsCancer]

I'm a Kahanist Zionist.

[Kananga]

Wasn't it Madagascar?

I think it was Uganda.

[q_q_]

it wasn't quite uganda . some other place nearby or something.


I heard it was meant to be a temporary thing. (and by the way, if they had agreed to it, and got it set up, it might have provided a place for jews to flee during the holocaust.. ). 

I have to justify the point I just wrote about uganda being positive..
I personally (prepare for a bit of a shock) am not necessarily a religious zionist, in that I am not 100% sure that we should have a state. But, since we have one. On the arab issue, I am a kahanist. And regarding the government, I would rather a kahanist government in israel than any other government there. And I love his ideas.. revolution or referendum,,  and his plan to say if they ban his party, he would show in their law that all their parties should be banned for contradicting the jewish or democratic chrachter of the state.

As far as rabbi kahane was concerned, anybody that would vote for him is a kahanist. By that definition, I'm a kahanist..  And I agree with alot of what he says, and love his style. I have some huge issues with the whole zionism thing though, which I might make a separate post, and I wish I could have raised those issues with him.

Regarding his voting definition, I base that on the fact that somebody once called in and said they were a socialist, could they be a kahanist. He said yes.

Once you say you're a kahanist.. you can't really say you're not a zionist. It's too contradictory!

[q_q_]

some leftist wrote on usenet

"
Uganda (actually, an area narby) was a "nachtasyl", a
night asylum, according to Herzl. It was to be a temporary shelter. He
conceived the idea after the terrible pogroms in 1903, such as Kishinev. It
was never intended as a permanent home to replace Israel.
"

[nopeaceforland]

OP: In response to your ? No, denouncing support for Zionism would be like the idiots who say "let's not support Israel, and the the sand chimps will stop bothering us" There will always be something to complain about from antiZionists and Terrorists if there's a difference. Personally I call myself a Kahanist, I feel Zionists and Kahanists go hand in hand!

[q_q_]

OP: In response to your ? No, denouncing support for Zionism would be like the idiots who say "let's not support Israel, and the the sand chimps will stop bothering us" There will always be something to complain about from antiZionists and Terrorists if there's a difference. Personally I call myself a Kahanist, I feel Zionists and Kahanists go hand in hand!

Most religious jews are not zionists, they are non zionists or anti zionists.  Especially in the diaspora.

As long as they are against the arabs, and think the israeli government is weak and pathetic, and wish they were stronger, then that's fine.  Jewish lives are at stake, most are sensitive to that.

[Dr. Dan]

Zionism is a JEwish Torah Concept...started from Hashem to Abraham Issac Jacob and the ISraelites on Sinai of a homeland in Canaan...It is no different to any variation of a concept of a Jewish homeland to either live in or for some, to hope for.

[nopeaceforland]

OP: In response to your ? No, denouncing support for Zionism would be like the idiots who say "let's not support Israel, and the the sand chimps will stop bothering us" There will always be something to complain about from antiZionists and Terrorists if there's a difference. Personally I call myself a Kahanist, I feel Zionists and Kahanists go hand in hand!

Most religious jews are not zionists, they are non zionists or anti zionists.  Especially in the diaspora.

As long as they are against the arabs, and think the israeli government is weak and pathetic, and wish they were stronger, then that's fine.  Jewish lives are at stake, most are sensitive to that.

I hope you're right, my friend!

[Ze'ev]

The only true Zionists are the Revisionist Zionists.
Many of those "in charge" including the Israeli government has a history of acting criminally, and against the Jews own interests at many times.

Has anyone on here read "Perfidy" the novel by Ben Hecht? If not, you should give it a read...it will open your eyes to a lot of things.

You can actually read it (and print it) online here http://www.hirhome.com/israel/perfidy.pdf

[q_q_]

OP: In response to your ? No, denouncing support for Zionism would be like the idiots who say "let's not support Israel, and the the sand chimps will stop bothering us" There will always be something to complain about from antiZionists and Terrorists if there's a difference. Personally I call myself a Kahanist, I feel Zionists and Kahanists go hand in hand!

Most religious jews are not zionists, they are non zionists or anti zionists.  Especially in the diaspora.

As long as they are against the arabs, and think the israeli government is weak and pathetic, and wish they were stronger, then that's fine.  Jewish lives are at stake, most are sensitive to that.

I hope you're right, my friend!

so do I !

[AsheDina]

Well, I say to those FILTHY CRUMMY DIRTY MAGGOT FILLED FRAUDS:

  WE ARE THE ZIONISTS. WE ARE THE KAHANISTS. WE ARE TAKING OUR NAME BACK FROM YOU!
So, get LOST you ugly demons from hell. WE ARE THE ZIONISTS..
They are the ................>>>>Satanists.
They are the ................>>>>Demonists.

  Israel IS ISRAEL.  And WE WILL NOT EVER STOP. America is AMERICAN. WE ARE THE TRUE PATRIOTS.

 I cant STAND these treacherous pigs!
 

[q_q_]

We are the real Zionists. The Herzl Zionists just stole the name.

The term zionism was coined by the bad ones.

the ideology called zionism was described by Herzl.

I am not sure what ideological differences jabotinsky brought to it.. But it was later.

Rabbi Kahane was a very practical man, and in my opinion, in his ideal world , all religious jews would believe the tenets of religious zionism, and there would be no need for the term zionism.   Really religious jews, like charedim, or like rabbi kahane, don't believe in any ISMs other than judaism, and torah.  Rabbi Kahane used the term because like jabotinsky, he was talking to many secular jews.  If he had set himself the task of  addressing charedim, he would have happily not had to use that term, he would have just argued that the Torah says we should do X. And that's that. Without mentioning the term zionism.

Infact, coming to think of it, when he was talking at YU (not charedi, but a yeshiva). Maybe even there he didn't use the term zionist..  And he didn't talk poetically about the hope of 2000 years.  It was purely halacha, and that type of discussion. That's really what his arguments were based on. But because he was such a clever clever man, he would go to the media - a rabbi in politics - not a politician. And he would argue with secular arguments, and so on. To talk to people in a language they could relate to. But himself, he was purely a rabbi.  I don't think he would have used that label in an ideal world.  But notice that in the world he chose to experience, he thought we should.  And he did use it often.