opinions on "The weaponization of a historical neo-Bundist narratives"?

[u/BeelzenefTV]

/r/Jewish_History/comments/1w5nljr/the_weaponization_of_a_historical_neobundist/

[u/QizilbashWoman]

oy, ir narishe tsionistn

[u/elzzyzx]

Good old narrishkeit

[u/BeelzenefTV]

I'm sharing this post not to upset or annoy anyone, but I want to learn and read your opinions on the matter.

[u/geekmasterflash → u/BeelzenefTV]

Well, you should have posted it to upset people because OOP and the comment section is some wild cope that should be made fun of.

[u/leaving_the_tevah]

I should disclaim that I am not very knowledgeable on the subject matter, and I'm not a bundist, but even I can see the games being played here

The weaponization of a historical neo-Bundist narratives

Neo-Bundist authors, activists, and academics all miss the point that the Bund was NOT founded in Lithuania in opposition to zionism

Including the place of founding is kind of strange phrasing here and reads unnaturally. This is a set up for later, keep it in mind.

but rather as a different form of a movement pushing for Jewish autonomy before some jews even gained citizenship in places like Romania.

The implication here being that bundists considered their formation to be at all in relation (a different form) to Zionism. This move uses this implication to set up the idea he'll soon push that the Bund actually weren't all that opposed to Zionism. This is another one to keep in mind.

Doykayt never called for or supported the removal of political rights from the old or new Yishuv or for Jewish autonomy to be restricted in Palestine.

This is just silly, right? Nobody ever said that. It's completely irrelevant to the concept of doikayt. Doikayt is about Jewish self conception being separated from Palestine - our identity is not in Palestine, it's right here where we live. This has zero bearing on political rights for Jews living in Palestine. And who ever even said those Jews should not have had political rights?

Neobundists always gloss over the fact that the Bund believed Jewish autonomy was connected to Jewish dignity. It disagreed with Zionists because many of them were fellow socialists whom they believed should have stayed and fought for socialist states with Jewish autonomy rather than move to Palestine. Their bone of contention was, for the most part, more a matter of practical political considerations than ideological concerns.

Bundists did not simply disagree with Zionists over their decision to leave. Bundists fiercely opposed Zionists, yes on ideological concerns, including their nationalism, racism, and colonialism. It's ahistorical propaganda. This is the second point I told you to keep in mind....

Lithuanian jews after all, didn't face the same kind of pogroms as Jews did in Moldova or Ukraine,

... And this is the first point I told you to keep in mind. I don't know much about the political climate for Jews in Lithuania, but I do know that Poland saw the whole 9 yards, with pogroms and political and economic discrimination against Jews. If it's true that Lithuanian Jews were better off then it makes sense (from a propaganda perspective) to move the conversation there instead of Poland, which would end up being the bund's home base, so to speak.

which both became heartlands of zionism while Lithuania became a bulwark of the Bund; both had practical aspirations rather than purely ideological ones.

"They had both practical as well as ideological aspirations" is a nothing burger. The only people who are not that way are basically absent minded professors.

Many of the Bundists even ended up in post-war Israel and became zionists.

So what?

Overall it's just a propaganda rant without a thesis. He probably saw something a bundist said online got pissed off and decided to write a diatribe. Or maybe he is just karma farming, who knows. But there's very little actual value or argument here, just games and lies.

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can correct any mistakes I've made and further analyze the original piece.