Posted on 09/09/2012 1:28:45 PM PDT by ReformationFan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySvaWWYGbq0&feature=BFa&list=PLDEE4D91A6D15D8DA
Just go to the youtube website and type in the title of the movie or whatever subject you’re looking for in the search engine. If it’s available there, it will come up.
Thanks, never been to their actual website.
Ironically, the screenplay for Exodus was written by the unrepentant Communist and member of the "Hollywood Ten," Dalton Trumbo
It's not really that ironic.
The early zionists (Herzl for example) were socialists. The kibbutz movement was a socialist movement. Conservative Jews like Adolph Ochs were strongly against Zionism.
Theodor Herzl was not a socialist. He was secular, and his Zionism was a purely secular nationalism (much like Irish Republicanism). But he was not a socialist, and Adolph Ochs was no conservative.
The socialist Zionists came after Herzl, primarily from the "Second Aliyah" that followed the failed Russian revolution of 1905. It was these Zionists who started the qibbutzim, not Herzl.
The socialist mindset behind the movment is why Trumbo was championing it (and why Paul Newman took on the project I might add). Also, it was why a Democratic President (Truman) and not a Republican who moved to make Israel a nation.
The Bolsheviks outlawed Zionism as soon as they came to power. The only time this position was reversed was for a few years in the late 1940's when the Russians decided their number one enemy in the world was the British Empire. They supported both Zionism and Arab nationalism against the British. But after a few years they changed back to their original anti-Zionist position which never changed. They did maintain diplomatic relations with Israel until 1967 (Cuba did so until 1973), but they were never pro-Zionist apart from that brief period in the later Forties.
Preminger and Newman were indeed liberals who considered Israel a liberal cause, and Trumbo undoubtedly had Party permission (or maybe even orders) to write the screenplay. But that has nothing to do with the origins of Zionism, which were indeed secular but not socialist or left wing.
However, as we know positions and beliefs are relative on the left. Once Israel started getting rich they turned against her and now it is the conservatives who have to defend a prosperous nation.
As stated above, the Communists were always anti-Zionist apart from one brief period. The Bolsheviks outlawed it in Russia (even as they supported Irish nationalism) and even the early "Palestine Communist Party" (the Jewish Communist party in the pre-state Yishuv) was officially anti-Zionist. And even David Ben Gurion, while no tzaddiq and a socialist himself, was on the "right wing" of the socialist movement in Israel, even "de-politicizing" the Palmach (which was largely led by Stalinists) after independence, removing the old radical leadership.
As to Truman, Truman wasn't pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist. He recognized Israel only because of political pressure and for no other reason. Moreover, after doing this he maintained the arms embargo which favored the Arabs. He never lifted a finger for Israel.
Please check your history.
I generally agree with most of your post but Tom Dewey(the GOP presidential nominee in both 1944 and 1948) and Ohio Senator Robert Taft(a/k/a “Mr. Republican”) were both pro-Israel too.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/palestin.htm
I believe if either of these men had been president in 1948 instead of Truman, they would have also recognized Israel.
Another interesting post.
Not so sure it’s a movie for THIS Sunday afternoon. The movie soft-pedals the book in many ways, and the book itself was pretty sympathetic. The truth, as the Brits well know, is a bit different.
Hertzl's novel which inspired so many zionists depicted Israel as a socialist utopia.
Hertzl leaned socialist (he talked about a "third way" but we know from Blair and Clinton that that's just code for liberal-socialism)...those who came after him were more hard-core.
Thanks for the info on Taft.
Always interesting.
Hope all’s well....
Hertzl leaned socialist (he talked about a "third way" but we know from Blair and Clinton that that's just code for liberal-socialism)...those who came after him were more hard-core.
Herzl's novel was entitled Altneuland (tr. "Old New Land") and famously presented a utopian Jewish state that didn't seem in the least bit Jewish (as I said, he was secular). He saw it operating on a system he called "mutualism," which may not be capitalism but isn't socialism either (some anti-capitalist right wingers advocate things like mutualism, communitarianism, agrarianism, and distributism).
Herzl's idea was a Jewish home for Jews in the ancient land. His utopian novel was a silly and enthusiastic picture of what this future state would be like, but there was absolutely nothing practical about it. Furthermore it wasn't socialism as it had always been practiced and advocated. That came later, during the Second `Aliyah.
Much of Herzl's initial support actually came from Orthodox Jews in eastern Europe. After his death the socialists came to dominate, and their Marxism and hostility to Judaism turned most Orthodox Jews against Zionism for some time.
I reiterate: Herzl was secular, but not a socialist. His utopian novel had very little, if anything, to do with the actual work of the early Zionist Organization. The socialists of the Second `Aliyah came to dominate Zionism after Herzl's death.
There were even fascist Zionists for a little while in the early Thirties, you know.
These beliefs would not be held by the "right-wingers" associated with conservatism today and would be considered socialist, for example, on FR.
I believe that these beliefs would fall more into the "Clinton-Blair" mold which if adopted leads to more and more State control (as happened after Herzl I might add).
No suprise. These were the poorer Jews, many of whom were attracted to the socialist and communist mindset.
(some anti-capitalist right wingers advocate things like mutualism, communitarianism, agrarianism, and distributism).
These beliefs would not be held by the "right-wingers" associated with conservatism today and would be considered socialist, for example, on FR.
I believe that these beliefs would fall more into the "Clinton-Blair" mold which if adopted leads to more and more State control (as happened after Herzl I might add).
You are very naive. European rightism has always been very, very different from American rightism. The European Right has always been statist and anti-individualist and regarded capitalism as subversive and revolutionary. And I'm not talking about Blair and Clinton. I'm talking about Spanish Falangism, British distributism (Chesterton and Belloc), and national syndicalism (there is an American National Syndicalist party online that actually links to the John Birch Society).
Herzl never ran a state in his entire life and is not implicated in the socialism of the Second `Aliyah, much less for the socialism of the early State of Israel (on whose government his utopian book had no influence on whatsoever).
Much of Herzl's initial support actually came from Orthodox Jews in eastern Europe
No suprise. These were the poorer Jews, many of whom were attracted to the socialist and communist mindset.
Evidently your anti-Semitic bias is so strong that it prevents you from reading anything I have written in response to you.
Theodor Herzl was not a socialist. His early Eastern Europeans supporters were Orthodox Jews, not Communists. And socialism first entered the Zionist Movement with the Second `Aliyah which didn't begin until after Herzl's death. How many times am I going to say this only for you to ignore it and continue bleating anti-Semitism?
I no longer consider you a sincere person. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you don't believe in the Protocols as well.
Good riddance to you.
Truman just happened to be the one in office when the Israel issue came to the fore after WW2. Also one has to take into account that the Republican Party of the 1930s was often quite anti-Semitic. That’s why so many Jews were FDR supporting Democrats. And most Orthodox Jews were opposed to Israel as they saw it as a Secular state and they regarded the Messiah as the only one who could spearhead a new Israel. Read Chaim Potok’s novel ‘The Chosen’.
Do you believe that reading what you write must automatically equate to believing what you write? Since you have volleyed the first ad homimems I will reply by saying that you have quite a large view of yourself.
your anti-Semitic bias
Acknowledging that some Jews are socialist does not equate to anti-semitism in the same way that acknowledging that some blacks are socialist does not equate to racism. If I say some whites are socialist I'm prejudiced against white people? Don't be absurd.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you don't believe in the Protocols as well.
Hyperventilate much? /rolling eyes upward
That’s not what I said (see #5). If you want to pick a fight, or show off how much you know, at least be accurate in your representation.
You said it wouldn’t be made today. That’s exactly what you said.
Only in Poland did the Nazis say that if a family harboured Jews, the ENTIRE family would be executed. Yet many were saved.
On November 10, 1941, the death penalty was expanded by Hans Frank to apply to Poles who helped Jews "in any way: by taking them in for the night, giving them a lift in a vehicle of any kind" or "feed[ing] runaway Jews or sell[ing] them foodstuffs."
25% of those in the Vad Yesham are Poles. Don't forget Żegota the Polish Council to Aid Jews. Żegota's express purpose was to aid the country's Jews and find places of safety for them in occupied Poland.
Leon Uris' characterization of Polish conduct in WWII is utterly wrong -- and seems the sum of attitudes of a person looking in. In contrast Szpilman (the Pianist) described better his countrymen's attitude to Jewish Poles
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.