Jewish supremacism vs. white supremacism? by aemathisphd (10/15/11) ⇌ (@jayn0t)
OK, I think I have a better idea what you're talking about now.
So the question, then, is why has white supremacism been largely defeated, or at least questioned, while Jewish supremacy, specifically in the case of Israel, has not been.
Part of understanding the difference, I guess, is understanding the role of victimhood in each case. Whites have largely (if not entirely) been victimizers. This was the case in South Africa as well, as the ANC rose up to oppose apartheid and not to oppose whites per se, although as you pointed out, some parts of the nationalist movement in S. Africa did have that specific goal.
Jews have largely played the role of victims in history, so in this sense, part of understanding why the Jewish case is "different" goes toward truly understanding this fact. This does not excuse Zionist behavior vis-à-vis Jewish supremacy in Israel and Palestine; rather, it contextualizes it.
I don't think you can truly underestimate the effect the Holocaust had, both inside and outside Jewish culture and society. Not only did the Jews who subsequently the Zionist movement, thus mainstreaming it within Jewish culture at large, vow "never again" as a result of it, but a large portion of the non-Jewish world came to the same conclusion. Obviously not all of the world, or perhaps even most of it, but enough of the world with enough power and influence to have a real effect on policy and day-to-day reality. That the Zionists have an extremely effective lobby and public relations division doesn't hurt, of course.
You make a point of contrast between Jewish supremacism and white supremacism. That seems to me an apt comparison but only in so far as it points out that some supremacisms fail and others don't.
If you want a real point of comparison, then look at the case of Rwanda since 1994. In that country, a minority (15% perhaps) Tutsi elite that had been the primary victims of the genocide in 1994 now rule the country, carry out illegal raids into the neighboring D.R. Congo and murder largely innocent Hutu civilians there, outlaw the notion of ethnicity within Rwanda while actually favoring their own ethnic group, make it a crime to question the official historiography of the genocide (even if their version is probably 99% accurate).
Why is the Rwandan Patriotic Front, the Tutsi-dominated party that rules Rwanda, and its leader, Paul Kagame, allowed to conduct itself in this manner? Because of guilt over Western inaction during the genocide and, thus, a blank check for Kagame to do as he sees fit. That those powers that failed to act were the U.S. and U.K. doesn't hurt, given the inordinate amount of power and influence that those two govertments wield. Kagame comes to this country and is feted by Bill Clinton, staying $12,000 per night hotels in NYC, while in Rwanda, the Hutus are increasingly dispossessed, and in D.R. Congo, acts of genocide are committed against same.
Sound at all similar to the way you'd analyze the case of Zionism?
Other possible points of comparison: the Chinese in Singapore, with the backing of the P.R. China; Protestants in Northern Ireland with the backing of the U.K.; Serbs throughout greater Serbia.
It seems to me that one of the few things that actually makes Zionism distinct is that the dominant group wasn't indigenous to the region under dispute, although you could make the same argument about the Chinese in Singapore or the Protestants in Northern Ireland (who largely settled there from Scotland and England).
Does any of that make sense? What I'm trying to say is that I just don't see Zionism as all that much of a "special case." If you contextualize it historically, then it's a little easier to see that it follows a well-established pattern. It's just that the persecution suffered by the now dominant group was worse (with the exception, I think, of the Tutsi in Rwanda, in which case, I'd say it was equal), and that the now dominant group is one with a much longer history of persecution in general. That both helps one to understand why the conflict takes on the character that it has taken on, as well as why perhaps the behavior of the now dominant group is as extreme as it often is.
That being said, just to be clear, that doesn't excuse any of what I see as excessive action on the part of Zionism being the rule rather than an exception.