Daijin wrote:I agree with most of the definition, especially the part about the role of the state, except the part about the connection of localiy with a people - if I got you right here. This can be used for a fascist ideology but it doesn't have to. The special relationship of the Jewish people to Erez Israel and especially Jerusalem is thousands of years old. Jerusalem is mentioned in most of the standard prayers of Judaism. "Next year in Jerusalem" was something like our "happy new year". Judaism is strongly connected to certain places from the bible. It's part of the character of the religion. But that doesn't make it fascist. And other than the Blut und Boden-ideology of the Nazis it doesn't include the total devaluation of other peoples and their connection to the place.
I do not think that the Jewish religion
is fascist in any way (in fact, the mere idea of a 'fascist religion' is almost contradictory already, as it contradicts the fascist tenet that there can be no source of spirituality outside the state). Zionism, however, was of course for a large part secular rather than religious, and while most Zionists definitely weren't 'fascists' in any sense, some of them most likely were (particularly the ones I already named).
As for the last sentence: deportation of other peoples, which is something that I would call "the total devaluation of other peoples and their connection to the place" was not merely something Irgun wanted to achieve, but something that actually was achieved during the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
And if you take the argument of a mystical or better religious element of a nationalism being fascist serious you'd consequently have to call every nationalism that is connected with Islam fascist because of the islamic concept that every piece of land that has ever been ruled by muslims must be reconquered (supposed it was lost to non-muslims - like Spain or Palestine for example).
I tried quite hard to be precise accurate when describing e.g. the different movements within Zionism, and the internal disagreements. Talking about "every nationalism that is connected with Islam" is less subtle. About which 'Islamic concept' are you talking? Is this concept accepted by all
Muslims, ranging from mainstream Sunni Muslims to the Shi'ites in Iran to the Sufis, Alevis, and what else there is?
Isn't it better to simply take the nationalisms at face value -- look at what they actually say, rather than assume things based on the religion they are connected to? (I can also quote the Bible to 'prove' that all Christians and Jews want homosexuals to be stoned to death. It would be ridiculous to do so, because I know almost all Christians and Jews would oppose such a law, even though it is written in the Bible/Torah.)
The last sentence of this paragraph is an important one. You're picking out a single person with fascist ideas. You could most certainly do that with every single nationalism on this planet. But how significant was this particular person? One hint, not a proof though, gives Wikipedia: The English article doesn't give more than a few biographical details and three sentences about his ideology. A German article doesn't even exist. The Hebrew article tells a little more about his background and his conection to the revisionist movement. It also depicts him as a fighter against Nazism. But honestly, I don't know much about him.
This is a good point of criticism -- there is good reason to assume that the influence of Abba Ahimeir was somewhat limited. This is, of course, not the case for Menachem Begin, or the Irgun or Lechi movements (who, at the same time, also were less extreme).
And you'll find it quite difficult to discover the fascism there. On the contrary, Sharon was surprised and sometimes annoyed of Begin's legalism and fierce advocacy of democratic procedures in his government. Begin's cabinet was actually more democratic then those of his Labour predecessors.
Also a good point. But I guess my original point, namely that there has been a fascist or close-to-fascist undercurrent in some movements that were influential to the foundation of Israel as a state, still stands.
Essentially, all of Likud's prime ministers with the exception of Sharon (before he left Likud) -- Begin, Shamir, Netanyahu -- have a connection to either the Lehi or the Irgun movements
How can Netanyahu have a connection to organisations that didn't exist anymore when he was born? Or what do you mean?
His father Benzion was connected to Irgun.
In general, you seem to identify the Likud with everything questionable about the Israeli past. But as I mentioned before, the Likud was and is a democratic organisation and its rise in the 70s actually strengthened Israel's democratic character and broke the political monopoly of Labour. And what's the connection between the Likud and the assassination of Rabin?
Not really 'identify', I understand that Likud is now a democratic party, and does not directly endorse any type of fascist thought. But I wanted to point out what you asked me to point out -- that there has been a fascist undercurrent in some movements that have been quite influential in the history of Likud. And I am still not quite convinced that all traces of this undercurrent are gone by now.
Oh my. On the one hand you have a Likud-premier who officially declares his endorsement for the two state solution. On the other hand you have an antisemitic terrorist organisation that time and again declares its intention to destroy Israel and to kill Jews everywhere in the world. And you see no difference?
On one side, Netanyahu endorses a 'two-state solution', but wants to have the power of the resulting Palestinian state limited (e.g. by not allowing it to import arms). One one side this is, given the situation, of course understandable, but on the other hand one might wonder whether this really is a proper 'two state' solution at all.
On the other side, given quotations such as "As a Palestinian today I speak of a Palestinian and Arab demand for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land." (Khaled Meshaal) and "Israel is there, it is part of the United Nations and we do not deny its existence. But we still have rights and land there which have been usurped and until these matters are dealt with we will withhold our recognition" (Ismail Haniyeh), it seems unfair to simply state that Hamas 'time and again declares its intention to destroy Israel and to kill Jews everywhere in the world'.
All in all, for both sides you can find some nicer quotes and doubtless also some less-than-nice quotes, but my main point really is, that neither Likud (on the Israeli side) nor Hamas (on the Palestinian side) is the best candidate for the peace process. The best chances for peace still have been during a period when both Israel and the Palestinians had a leftist leadership.
(And yes, my personal mission is that it maybe shouldn't be too bad to have an international UN mission in Israel, both to secure Israel's own security, and to establish an independent Palestinian state -- demarcated by the borders that are actually recognized by the UN as Israel's borders. As you have seen, I find some parts of Israel's history questionable, but the fact is, Israel exists, and the world would be better off if everybody just accepted that. Pragmatism often works better than complicated arguments on historical grounds...)