Event, 10/7: "Iraq, Palestine & the Middle East: Where Do We Go Now?"

DR. HATEM BAZIAN, UC BERKELEY SCHOLAR, IS AN *EXCELLENT*, INCISIVE, EXTREMELY KNOWLEDGEABLE, AND LIVELY SPEAKER!

HE GIVES PUBLIC LECTURES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

ALISON WEIR IS ALSO A VERY GOOD SPEAKER.

* DON'T MISS THIS EVENT! *

YOU WON'T FALL ASLEEP! -- THAT'S FOR SURE!


-


( ALL YOU YAPPY ZIONIST COWARDS HERE AT INDYBAY:

COME 'N BRRRING IT ONNN !!!

COME **TRY** AND STUMP THE SPEAKERS ! )

I'm not going, as I am several thousand km far from there.

And if I went I would allow the speakers to speak without calling them names.

Just like JA called out to the crowd at the Pipes speech at Berkeley: "You bunch of fucking racist Jews"

Now thats liberal progressive speech for ya!

called out to the crowd at the Pipes speech at Berkeley: "You fucking nigger! We Zionists 'll kill the bunch of you all!!"

Now that's right-wing Zionist speech for ya!

;-)

Berkeley Daily Planet
February 24-26, 2004 Edition

"TRUTH TO POWER"

In its February 13-16, 2004, weekend edition, the Berkeley Daily Planet printed a defamatory letter to the editor written against me, an African American progressive activist, by a conservative pro-Israel individual named Dan Spitzer.

That letter contained an absolutely false allegation about a statement that Spitzer purported I made while engaged in a public protest at the February 10th, UC Berkeley campus speech of right-wing, pro-Israel media pundit Daniel Pipes. Spitzer pathetically claimed that I screamed, “You're all a bunch of filthy Jewish liars.”

As the anti-racist, anti-Zionist, Jewish-American essayist and public lecturer Tim Wise (read online) noted, "[Zionists] can’t be expected to place a very high premium on truth" and, obviously, no lie is too brazen.

As I understand it, it is general newspaper policy to refrain from printing an undocumented -- and especially defamatory -- accusation such as a second-hand, unverified quote.

Of course, I did not say what Spitzer claimed, as many witnesses to the event can readily attest. In fact, it was I who urged the Daily Planet, in their published apology to me for printing Spitzer’s letter, to seek to obtain a recording of the event from Berkeley Hillel. Such a recording would directly demonstrate the falseness of his accusation.

[In fact, if Dan Spitzer's accusation were true, no one would even have to ask Hillel for an audio record copy of the event: an audio record would be readily provided. Such a record has never been provided.]

My actual verbal protest against Pipes was only one voice amongst numerous others speaking out from both the campus and the community. Pipes is a highly controversial and divisive figure, well-known as the American voice for the most reactionary anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim elements in the far right-wing of Israel’s conservative (Ariel Sharon’s) Likud Party.

Pipes is also a founder of CampusWatch, a right-wing ideological organization that engages in McCarthyist intimidations of academics. It attacks the very free speech and academic freedom that Berkeley Hillel pretends to champion in this case. CampusWatch attacks, particularly, those who politically criticize Israel or Zionism (its fundamentalist, apartheid ideology), or for their so-called “un-Americanism.”

Pipes has taken the position that the Middle East peace process should be abandoned altogether. He believes that Israel should pursue the most extreme military action until the Palestinians are totally crushed as a viable, indigenous people and abjectly surrender all claims to their homeland and self-determination. He also characterizes the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs, internationally and in the Muslim and Arab-American community, as either actual or potential terrorists.

Given his background, it is shocking and shameful that his Hillel sponsors -- who are keen to count (typically including any political criticism of Israel) every single incidence of hate speech against Bay Area Jews -- would invite a hate speaker like Daniel Pipes to campus.

This invitation prompted a February 10th formal letter to the Daily Californian, signed by many Jews and others in the university community, objecting to Hillel’s invitation to Pipes in the strongest possible terms. The letter described Pipes as “vilely xenophobic” and “echo[ing] messages directed against Jews in the past.” The signatories to the letter included Professor Emerita Bluma Goldstein, who lost over 30 members of her family in the Holocaust, but who nonetheless morally rejects the imposition of nationalist Zionism in Palestine.

It was Albert Einstein who once said, "It would be my greatest sadness to see Jews do to Palestinian Arabs much of what Nazis did to Jews."

I, especially as an African American, consider Pipes’ notorious anti-Arab racist views and extreme anti-Muslim bigotries -- which he again espoused that evening -- morally unacceptable. Thus, my conscience compelled me to be included in the many ethnically and religiously diverse (including Jews, Muslims, Christians, other faiths, and secular) voices of objection to Pipes’ hate speech.

In a highly visible, nonviolent form of potential civil disobedience, with the voluntary expectation of being escorted out, I proclaimed to Pipes individually, stating: "You're a racist Jew [implicitly noting the irony] and you should be *ashamed* of yourself. Gandhi opposed Zionism. Nelson Mandela opposes Zionism. Desmond Tutu opposes Zionism. Paul Robeson opposed Zionism. You're the Jewish David Duke!"

Thus, I did not, contrary to Spitzer’s false quote, engage in invective or derogatory remarks about Jewish people as a group. I noted Pipes’ Jewishness to emphasize the tragic irony of such a person engaging in the same sort of racist and bigoted behavior which Jews themselves have suffered under throughout history, and which goes against the traditions and philosophy of the Jewish faith.

As for right-wing Spitzer duplicitously invoking Mario Savio: First, Savio was not a racist or a bigot. Second, Savio championed the meaningful free speech rights of those who politically dissent -- those without state or corporate media backing -- to speak truth to Power; he didn’t champion Power’s right to free speech, which it inherently has. Third, Savio said that when a system becomes so heinously oppressive, people of conscience must throw themselves upon the gears of that onerous system. In a small but visible way, that’s what we protesters did. Savio also said that protest should be principled, not necessarily polite.

Not one word of Pipes’ prepared speech went unspoken: he still had his (otherwise media-ubiquitous) “free speech.” No protester attempted to actually stop him from speaking. But, we people of conscience will not let an evident racist/bigot like Pipes carry on without inconvenient interruptions for truth. Pipes wasn’t engaged in free speech, he was engaged in hate speech.

There’s a clear message here: if you’re a notorious racist, bigot, or oppressor, don’t come to Berkeley.


Joseph Anderson
Berkeley, CA

Have you lifted a finger or even went to a single protest against the massacre of the Black population in Darfur, Sudan. After all, as a African-American progressive activist, why are you neglecting your people, or is the Arab-Israeli conflict way too important. 30,000 dead in Sudan, 4,000 dead in the Middle East.

Also, please answer this: in the 1970s when there were large protests for the freedom for soviet Jews, did you march to support the Jews of the USSR?

You must have been one of those arch-ZioNaziNuts who showed up at the Palestinian human rights conference last week in S.F., trying to bait me with the same question.

See:

A PERSONAL REPORT-BACK FROM THE OAKLAND "ANTI-SEMITISM" CONFERENCE
by Joseph Anderson Monday, Aug. 23, 2004
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/08/1692778.php

Ooops! -- Correction on article and link:

You must have been one of those arch-ZioNaziNuts who showed up at the Palestinian human rights conference last week in S.F., trying to bait me with the same question.

See:

A PERSONAL REPORT-BACK FROM THE S.F. PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONFERENCE
by Joseph Anderson Sunday, Oct. 03, 2004
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1697523.php

I happen to know JA personally and can testify that he -along with his close friend Jeffrey Blankfort, a longtime admirer of Joseph Stalin and of the Soviet system- were strong supporters of the persecution of Soviet Jews. They saw them as "zionist scum" who should be physically destroyed, as well as frequently employing more colorful anti-Jewish epithets (as they still regularly do in private settings). And as you saw in JA's non-response, he fully supports the murder of Black Africans when their attackers are his fellow Muslims.

You must have been *ANOTHER* one of those CRETINOUS ARCH-ZIO-NAZI-NUTS who showed up at the Palestinian human rights conference last week in S.F.

*FUNNY*, though, I didn't see any of you ZIO-*COWARDS* there to challenge Dr. Bazian last night at the packed, standing-room-only event.

BAWWWK! BUK-BUK-BUK---BUK-BUK-BUK...!!

HAHAHA!!

Clear and unambigious proof that they are TRUE! The only proper response to Nazis like him is to rope him to a tree and set him on fire with gasoline. Or better yet, behead him as his fellow Muslims are so fond of doing!

Tens of thousands of your people in Sudan are asking you why you continue to remain silent, while they are being massacred by the thousands???

Will you answer them?

A proud Israeli
By Ismail Khaldi October 03, 2004

Ismail Khaldi is an Israeli Bedouin, who graduated from Tel Aviv University with an MA in political science. He served with Israel Police, IDF, and the Defense Ministry, and worked at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv.

Two years ago, a few proud Bedouin Israeli citizens like myself asked: what is our position and status in the State of Israel in the midst of its current situation? After all, Bedouins are part of Israel's success story. During current times, when Israel is being attacked and accused of being a racist state, an 'aggressor and an oppressor', we decided that the smallest and probably most effective thing we could do is to spread our story as part of Israeli society.

I, Ishmael Khaldi, am Israeli. I served with the IDF, with the Israel police, and with the Israeli Defense Ministry. In the last year, I have lost two Bedouin friends on army duty (God bless their memory) defending the State of Israel. My friends and family feel that we have a common destiny with the Jewish people in Israel: our grandparents created this land with Jewish immigrants who arrived during the 1920s, '30s and '40s to build a democracy.

Because of this connection to the State of Israel, I cannot stand on the sidelines during Israel's time of need. I feel that I must speak up and be heard.

I recently returned from a two-month campus speaking tour in North America, mostly organized by Hasbara Fellowships. This was the fourth tour I had done over the past year. I've traveled the United States coast to coast (of course, being a Bedouin nomad, I mainly took Greyhound!) and flew for a ten day tour across Canada.

The tour was certainly miraculous - a Bedouin shepherd who had never been to any major city before, all of sudden found himself in downtown Manhattan! It proved to be one of the most adventurous, challenging and enriching experiences of my life.

I came to the U.S. and Canada to speak on college campuses about Israel, as one who certainly holds a perspective that is rarely heard - a proud Israeli that is not Jewish. I came to share one man's tale of Israel's culture, society and politics from the perspective of a Bedouin minority in the Jewish State.

Arriving in North America, committed to defending Israel from the poisonous venom of hatred and attacks that I had heard much about, I expected to see the same commitment on campuses among the Jewish students. Unfortunately, this wasn't the case.

I had heard much about the struggle of pro-Israel student activists, attempting to counter the unbalanced, biased and false accusations made against Israel. I had not come to North America to preach that Israel was perfect. As all Israelis know, Israel has problems like all nations of the world. Still, many students tried to stop me from speaking. There were even students who had the audacity to compare me to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, making false claims that I was doing the same for Israel.

The United States has always been described as being the 'land of the free' and a home for free speech. How can New Hampshire's slogan read, "live free or die" if the student union is allowed to ban me from telling a cultural story? I can't believe that the hatred for Israel is so strong that student governments are able to defy their own dignity as free American citizens, in order that the truth about Israel should remain a secret.

The deep-seated hatred manifested itself clearly throughout the country with the many loaded questions asked by anti-Israel students. For example, a Muslim student at Rutgers University completely ignored the fact that Israel is a free state and asked, "how could you support a Hebrew state if you're not Jewish?" Another questioner asked, "don't you think that if Israel didn't exist, then the Palestinians wouldn't have any problems?"

In Milwaukee, I was asked "how many Palestinian old men and women have you humiliated while serving in the Israeli police?" How can such a question be asked? Only if the truth were known, that Israeli soldiers have on many occasions helped Palestinians.

The situation I encountered on many of the campuses in North America and Canada was horrifying. I was not as shocked by the Arab questioners as I was with the personal threats, and the severe apathy of the majority of Jewish students.

In my years of speaking to people, I've never received threats or personal attacks like I did speaking on campuses. There were threatening incidents at both the University of Florida and at California State University. Both were chilling. The crowd in Florida was one full of anger and hatred, yet I had to stand before them unsure of the enemy who had sent threats earlier that day. In California I spoke facing a young student who wore a T-shirt with a swastika on it, chewing on a piece of paper as some sort of protest against my talk.

Even more upsetting, I expected to see many more Jewish students aware of the situation in Israel, but that wasn't the case. I expected the Jewish students to realize that the situation was not only affecting Israel and Israelis, but Jews all over the world.

On the other hand, the Arab students and their supporters knew almost all the last minute news clips from the Middle East. How can Israel's voice be heard if the Jewish students don't have the facts or the knowledge to speak up? I don't take the mass of Jewish students to task for not agreeing with all of Israel's policies, but I do take them to task for not caring about Israel or what happens there. It is the apathy which allows the anti-Israel propaganda to strengthen itself more and more over time.

As a personal aside, sixty years after the horrors of the Holocaust, Israel is going through one of the most critical times in its history. More than 60 years after my grandparents joined their destiny to that of the Jews coming to the Land of Israel, I feel that history is somehow moving backwards. Antisemitism and hatred towards Israel is soaring. Comparing me, a Muslim Bedouin who supports Israel, to the Nazis is just another clear piece of evidence.

And yet, 60 years after the horrors of the Holocaust, I felt that on campus, the Jewish voice is silent. Where are the Jewish students fighting back? My commitment in these crucial days, while Israel is struggling for its right to exist, is to continue the heritage of my grandparents and to stand together to fight for the State of Israel.

History will not tolerate us if we keep our voice silent. We must roll up our sleeves once again to build a better future for Israel and all of its loyal citizens. Israel's right to exist is my right and my people's right, just as Israel's destiny is our destiny.

But just as history demands for me to fight for Israel, history also will not tolerate a generation of Jews who don't care.

http://israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Views%5El151&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&

All European colonialist enterprises try/tried to -- or did -- recruit non-European native figureheads, collaborators, compradors, or small ethnic groups (in a 'divide & conquer' strategy) in its perpetration of white-supremacy (in Israel, Jewish, instead of Christian) in the so-called 3rd World.

The Nazis recruited/encouraged *Jewish* figureheads, collaborators, and compradors in its pursuit of Christian white-supremacy in Eruope. That didn't make Nazism or the Jewish Holocaust right, now did it?

Permit me an observation and please don't start barking at me.

Hitler didn't want Christianism. In fact, the nazis practised strange rituals, as if it was an exoteric religion, which had nothing to do with Christianism.

I forgot another point. Hitler wanted to make all the European slaves, for us to work for Germany, even if we are white and Christians.

There you go with your white-supremacist recruit uncle toms style of thinking. If you think this type of rationale is still prevalent, then i am sorry, no one can help you there.


Listen.....Marcus Garvey, the famous leader of the black movement sought a return of Blacks to Africa so that they could build their empire. Please tell me how Herzl's dream of a Jewish State is any different. He wanted the JEws, who were discriminated just like the Blacks were, to become masters of their destiny and not live at the mercy of the other countries.

It seems you have some issues that are more complicated then I previously thought. With your style of thinking, any possible peaceful solution to the conflict is impossible. You thinking is just like those of Hamas, who state that Jews should go back to Europe, have no business being anywhere in the middle east, that they are a supremacist state bent on world domination.

Its kind of ironic that the extreme left, just like you JA, often sound a lot like the extreme right like David Irving and Pat Buchanan. If I were to go to the website of Mecha, or aztlan, which consider themselves leftist....I will find Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.....not to mention Al-Awda...organization that support violent attacks on Israelis.

On a personal note: My family in Russia was discriminated against. My dad was refused admission to Graduate school because the school fulfilled a quota on the number of Jews admitted. My mom was told numerous times that if she doesnt like to stand in the long lines, she should go to Israel. Although my family moved to the US, many other Jewish families moved to Israel. And now what do we hear from the likes of JA,"Israel is racist, Jews displaced the Arabs, and should not even live there"

JA. tell that to the Holocaust survivor I met while on a visit to in Israel, whose family was killed because they had no where to go. THere was no Jewish state to bring them in and keep them safe..... Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish State where every single Jew can go to to find safe haven from those who discriminate against him/her. And there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do, no matter how many protests you attend, that will change that. This is because people understand the importance of Israel, why after 2000 years of homelessness, the Jewish people now have a place they can call home.

"Marcus Garvey, the famous leader of the black movement sought a return of Blacks to Africa so that they could build their empire"
Which would have resulted in... what?
Liberia was settled (earlier than Garvey) by African Americans and they ended up becomming the rulling class over the native population. Israel is a little different in that the settlers (before the migration of Middle Eastern Jews in the late 40s) looked different form the native population and had little respect for the native culture; although if modern African AMericans tried to take over an African country the culture differences would be equally as large.

The problem with the founding of Israel wasn't the goal, it was that there was a native population that Israel had to ethnically cleanse to create a Jewish state. If Romani in Europe decided they had enough of the racism against them and decided that they were going to found a state where they could live in peace, I doubt too many would be opposed to the goal, but there would be a question of location. If they moved to Texas, forced people out of their homes and declared a Romani state, would those in Texas be supportive or opposed to the state? Would opposition to a state be racist or just a natural reaction to being forced from one's home?

AntiSemitism in the Middle East has always existed but in its modern form its a product of the racist attitudes of European settlers and the events of the late 40s. Opposition to the existence of Israel isnt antiSemitic but it is now an impossibility (like kicking Europeans out of N America is impossible even though any reading of history will make most condemn how it was taken from the Native American population).

The reason MOST OF THE WORLD is bothered by Israel today has little if anything to do with how Israel was founded or its being a Jewish state. The reason most of the world supports the Palestinians is because of what has being going on in Gaza and the West Bank for the past 30+ years; a native population is denied representation and live under a foreign occupation as second class citizens. It doesnteven really matter how the occupation started in that most Palestinians were born under the occupation and had no say in being born without rights. Israel proper does give nonwhites and nonJews rights, but this doesnt excuse the denial of rights in the West Bank and Gaza.

Why does this conflict draw more attention than other conflicts? Its unique in several ways. One reason for the importance of the region for various religions, but the other is because its really the last major holdout of European colonialist segregation. Where else does a largely foreign wealthy population govern over millions denying the native population a vote or any say in their destiny? Tibet isnt given a vote and its a foreign occupation, but since nobody in China gets a vote it doesnt have the same feel (and China doesnt go around putting up signs in BART stations about how great a democracy it is) Now that South Africa is free, a world raised on stories of the horrors of European racist colonialism focuses on Israel since he horrors of the past can be seen taking place today. The racism of Israel supoprters is really apparent in their responses to this type of criticism. One often hears that "Palestinians blew their chance at a state when Arafat rejected an offer" as if the freedom of a whole people is no longer valid because of this. It sounds a lot like the talk one heard during Aparthied where the US right justified the opression because the South African blacks had such bad leaders (Winnie Mandela and necklacing was always brought up). Even the accusations that supporters of Palestinians support suicide bombings reminds me of the Republicans who showed up at screenings of Biko with tires aorund themselves accusing all opponents of aparthied of wanting to burn people alive.

---"AntiSemitism in the Middle East has always existed but in its modern form its a product of the racist attitudes of European settlers and the events of the late 40s"

ANother bout of Anti-semitism apologising gone wild.

-----"The reason most of the world supports the Palestinians is because of what has being going on in Gaza and the West Bank for the past 30+ years; a native population is denied representation and live under a foreign occupation as second class citizens."

the Palestine National Authority is an autonomous entity that governs 98% of the Arab population in the West Bank and Gaza. It was founded out of the Oslo Accords that was praised by all the world, including the UN. As far as foreign occupation, the Israeli tanks would not be in Jenin, Ramallah, and Nablus if the PA police would assert its authority and its monopoly for being the only armed force in the PA territories and dismantle Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, PFLP, DFLP, PFLP-GC, among others, and prevent them from launching attacks at Israel.

Whats going on in Gaza would not be happening if the Palestinian terrorist groups didnt fire 400 missiles at a population center in Sderot, Israel. They have themselves to blame.

over 60 percent of the Israeli Population is indigineous to the Middle East: they hail from Yemen, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Egypt, among others. So much for european settler colonialist BS that is thrown around here left and right.

After the Israeli government broke the back of the PA, supporters of Israel now claim it is a "government" and should be doing more? The West Bank and Gaza are rulled over by Israel and while Israel agreed to limited autonomy during portions of the Peace Process, the PA never got the powers of an actual government (even under the best agreement presented to Arafat, Israel's airforce would still have control over Palestinians skys and there was no talk of water rights, but it never even got to that point).

A Palestinians state is probably no longer possible due to settlements, a lack of a Palestinians leadership and the like SO that only leaves one logical outcome. PALESTINIANS MUST BE GIVEN A VOTE IN ISRAEL. Either Palestinians should have autonomy, settlementsin the West Bank should be removed and Israel should have no say in what happens in the territories, or Palestinians are part of Israel and they must be given a vote.
You can keep blaming Palestiniasn for violence and Palestinians can keep blaming Israel for violence (and some neutral outsiders can blame both sides) but in the end it doesnt matter who is to blame since the result is a lack of freedom for Palestinians with recent Jewish immigrants who settle in the West Bank being given a vote, while Palestinians who have lived in the area for generations have no say in the government that rules over them.

"over 60 percent of the Israeli Population is indigineous to the Middle East: they hail from Yemen, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Egypt, among others. So much for european settler colonialist BS that is thrown around here left and right."

Thats true, but when the conflict started it was almost only Eurupean settlers (who openly disliked the native Jewish population and didnt allow them in many of the early settlements). The immigration from the Middle East occured pretty late. Arab-Israeli tensions started in a similar manner to other forms of anticolonial tensions, but when Israel came close to forming a state, the growing antiSemitism in the region forced Jews to Israel in large numbers creatiing that 60% number.

One can debate in circles about how things got to where they ae now, but the situation now is what is bothering people. Israelis claim to be a modern European style democracy that isnt racist and give some Arab ISralis a vote. But, Israel rules over the West Bank and Gaza and doesnt consider the peopel living on that land Israelis and refuses to give them equal rights. Whats more Israel is settling many Israelis in the West Bank and gives children born there a vote in the Israeli election even while it denies Palestinains a vote.

The charges of antiSemitism are really scandalous since they dillute the term to the point where it now had no meaning except for opposition to Sharon. Why are Jews hated in the Middle East? Its pretty much the same answer of gets if one were to ask why many blacks went beyond hating aparthd to hating whites. Was there some antiSemitism in the Middle East before 1900? Sure, but it was a lot less than in Europe. Was there anti-White sentiments in S Africa before the white settlement? The long term effects of using accusations of antiSemitism to justify denial of voting rights, mass killings of Palestinians during raids and the like is a real growth in antiSemitism.

>>>"when the conflict started it was almost only European settlers (who openly disliked the native Jewish population and didnt allow them in many of the early settlements)."<<<

There were (and are) two main groups of indigenous Jews in the Land of Israel: Ashkenazim, whose forefathers hail from much of the European continent; and the non-Ashkenazim whose forefathers hail from Muslim lands and the Holy Land itself. Only the non-Ashkenazi indigenous Jews were disliked by the Ashkenazi immigrants from Eastern Europe. It's true they were rather hostile toward the Jewish Yemenite immigrants and discriminated against them.

>>>"The immigration from the Middle East occured pretty late."<<<

Not quite. I've mentioned above the Jewish Yemenite immigration which began in 1881; there was immigration during the late 19th century on a much smaller scale by Jews from Morroco for instance, too.

>>>"Arab-Israeli tensions started in a similar manner to other forms of anticolonial tensions,"<<<

Pretty wrong. The Jewish immigrants weren't dispossessing local Arabs, lies and revisionism notwithstanding.

>>>"One can debate in circles about how things got to where they ae now, but the situation now is what is bothering people."<<<

If only that were totally true. The debates around Zionist and "Palestinian" history on this site alone are ample rebuke of your contention.

>>>"Israel... gives some Arab ISralis a vote."<<<

No, *all* Arab Israelis get a vote.

>>>But, Israel rules over the West Bank and Gaza"<<<

This domination could have ended in '00 or '01 if it weren't for Arafat's stupidity.

>>>"Whats more Israel is settling many Israelis in the West Bank"<<<

Correction: most Jews that settle in the disputed territories do that of their own free will. The Israeli gov. doesn't make the decision for them. They are grown adults who decide where to move.

>>>"The charges of antiSemitism are really scandalous since they dillute the term to the point where it now had no meaning except for opposition to Sharon."<<<

That's patently and ludicrously false. While it's true that some Jews have been cheapening the concept of anti-Semitism by using it without clear merit or for inappropriate ends, there is widespread anti-Semitic venom in Arab society in general and Palestinian society in particular. The facts concerning anti-Semitism remain regardless of excesses in the utilization of the term or the misconceptions of the anti-Israel crowd.

>>>" Why are Jews hated in the Middle East? Its pretty much the same answer of gets if one were to ask why many blacks went beyond hating aparthd to hating whites.
Was there some antiSemitism in the Middle East before 1900? Sure, but it was a lot less than in Europe. Was there anti-White sentiments in S Africa before the white settlement?"<<<

You undermined your own argument by admitting there was "some" anti-Semitism in the Mid East before the 20th century.
Though it can be argued anti-Semitism in the Mideast prior to 1900 was much less prevalent than in Europe, this racism wasn't exactly a benign phenomenon in the day-to-day lives of the Middle East's Jewish populations.

>>>" The long term effects of using accusations of antiSemitism to justify denial of voting rights, mass killings of Palestinians during raids and the like is a real growth in antiSemitism"<<<

Except there is no mass killings of Palestinians in the course of raids. The reference point against which to measure casualties during IDF operations shouldn't be zero, but rather "to what extent does the IDF engage in indiscriminate killing? The examples of American air bombardments in Afghanistan and Iraq should help give us some much needed perspective: how many innocents are killed when American (or British) fighter jets target one or a few combatants?

>>>"Liberia was settled (earlier than Garvey) by African Americans and they ended up becomming the rulling class over the native population. Israel is a little different in that the settlers (before the migration of Middle Eastern Jews in the late 40s) looked different form the native population and had little respect for the native culture"<<<

I've already related above that a Jewish immigration from Yemen began in 1881 and that the native Jewish population consisted of many Jews indigenous to the land. "hmmm" manifests his ignorance of the facts concerning the physical variety of complexions, facial features and the like among Ashkenazi ("European") Jews; there have always been many such Jews that could be mistaken for Arabs or "Arab-Jews" (which include many individuals that, in turn, can (and have been!) mistaken for Ashkenazi Jews)! Moreover, the non-Jewish natives included quite a few white people who hardly looked different than Ashkenazi Jews.
Furthermore, since the appearance of socialist Zionism in the Land of Israel from the early 1900s, there was a genuine, and rather successful, Zionist quest of self sufficiency. It rapidly disintegrated following the Six Day War.

>>>"The problem with the founding of Israel wasn't the goal, it was that there was a native population that Israel had to ethnically cleanse to create a Jewish state."<<<

This is a lie. It won't be made true no matter how often and how much you repeat it.

>>>"If Romani in Europe decided they had enough of the racism against them and decided that they were going to found a state where they could live in peace, I doubt too many would be opposed to the goal, but there would be a question of location. If they moved to Texas, forced people out of their homes and declared a Romani state, would those in Texas be supportive or opposed to the state? Would opposition to a state be racist or just a natural reaction to being forced from one's home?

Except there were no cases of forcing Arabs out, except in Lydia, Ramle and maybe Deir Yassin. In fact, the Zionist authorities in many cities issued pleas for the Arabs to stay put rather than leave their homes. So your analogy is invalid. The only question is, what will it take to make you people face and internalize these facts? Some of you have something like cognitive dissonance while others won't be persuaded by even the most damning proof as they think they're being duped by conspiracy theorists.

>>>"AntiSemitism in the Middle East has always existed but in its modern form its a product of the racist attitudes of European settlers and the events of the late 40s."<<<

That's not totally true. For example, the anti-Semitism by al-Husseini and Iz a-Din al-Qassam was rooted in inexplicable anti-Jew hatred and transcended mere opposition to any racist mindsets among Zionist immigrants from Europe. Need I remind you that al-Husseini and his supporters were avid Nazi supporters?

>>>" Opposition to the existence of Israel isnt antiSemitic but it is now an impossibility (like kicking Europeans out of N America is impossible even though any reading of history will make most condemn how it was taken from the Native American population)."<<<

The problem with the benign form of anti-Zionism, i.e the one not resting on anti-Semitism, is that it's based on wrong and faulty premises, such as the falsehood that Israeli forces drove out forcefully hundreds of thousands.

>>>"The reason MOST OF THE WORLD is bothered by Israel today has little if anything to do with Israel was being a Jewish state."<<<

Not quite, if facts play a real role...

>>>" The reason most of the world supports the Palestinians is because of what has being going on in Gaza and the West Bank for the past 30+ years; a native population is denied representation and live under a foreign occupation as second class citizens."<<<

A distinction should be made: it's one thing to support "ordinary" Palestinians (i.e. the "non-Hamasite"), quite another to support their leadership. So, to what extent do most people worldwide differentiate between the two? Secondly, how many people have accurate and comprehensive info regarding the conflict? A very small portion of the global population I'm afraid. Many keep deluding themselves most American media -- especially the mainstream ones -- are slanted in Israel's favor, while the reverse is true. To say nothing of most of the media in most other countries that are unmistakably more pro-Palestinian than the American. Therefore, much of the support the Palestinian side receives globally stems from media bias.

>>>" It doesnteven really matter how the occupation started in that most Palestinians were born under the occupation and had no say in being born without rights."<<<

But two other things do matter:

1. Israel took great pains to grant the Palestinians independence in the pretty recent past ('00/'01) and wasn't at fault for the fiasco that followed.

2. The PA denies its subjects many of their rights. Israel isn't at fault for this either, notwithstanding the ever present temptation to lay the blame on Israel anyway.

>>>"Why does this conflict draw more attention than other conflicts? Its unique in several ways. One reason is the importance of the region for various religions, but the other is because its really the last major holdout of European colonialist segregation."<<<

What about the French control of Corsica (see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/National%20Liberation%20Front%20of%20Corsica) and some Islands in the Pacific, or the last remnants of Spanish colonialism in Morocco -- the occupation of Ceuta and Melilla, two medium-sized cities on the southern coast of the Mediterranean, or Russian colonialism in the Cuacas region (notably in Chechenya) -- one of whose manifestations is the enforcement of teaching Russian as a main language (no small matter!)?

>>>"Where else does a largely foreign wealthy population govern over millions denying the native population a vote or any say in their destiny?"<<<

To characterize the Israeli Jewish population as wealthy is really exaggerated. Secondly, even though many Palestinians were born in the disputed territories, many others migrated there from Arab countries, not to mention most of their rather recent ancestors. So, the Palestinian populace there isn't a whole lot more native than the Israeli Jewish one. Thirdly, why aren't you complaining against or at least admitting the fact that the PA has denied their subjects democracy and most human rights since the mid 1990s? Additionally, if it weren't for the terrorists from Arafat down to the rank and file "gunman", Israel wouldn't have curtailed most civil Palestinian freedoms and wouldn't have hurt the PA.

>>>" Tibet isnt given a vote and its a foreign occupation, but since nobody in China gets a vote it doesnt have the same feel (and China doesnt go around putting up signs in BART stations about how great a democracy it is)"<<<

But let's at least not forget that many Chinese are living quite comfortably in the economic sense.
Believe me, China's propaganda machine operates on a much greater scale and by many more, and considerably more blunt, tactics than Israeli propaganda. The budget allocated by the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs for propaganda abroad amounts to only 30 million sheqels or dollars. Contrast that to the funds the Chinese gov. pours in to their propaganda efforts...Oh, what about all their propaganda around the next Olympiad in Beijin?

>>>"Now that South Africa is free, a world raised on stories of the horrors of European racist colonialism focuses on Israel since he horrors of the past can be seen taking place today. The racism of Israel supoprters is really apparent in their responses to this type of criticism. One often hears that "Palestinians blew their chance at a state when Arafat rejected an offer" as if the freedom of a whole people is no longer valid because of this."<<<

You're distorting the alleged claim into the contortions you're eager to superimpose on it. The real problem -- notwithstanding your being averse to face up to it -- is that the Palestinians won't get a state west of the Jordan river as long as they're led by the likes of Arafat and are made of so many people who are too anti-Semitically and anti-Israeli indoctrinated to allow a co-existence with Jews, who insist on committing terror against Israelis rather than nation building, unless Israel cedes the entire Holy Land through the "right of return" and gradually runs out of business as a Jewish state.

>>>" It sounds a lot like the talk one heard during Aparthied where the US right justified the opression because the South African blacks had such bad leaders."<<<

The big difference is that a massive phenomenon of officially sanctioned (or not) anti-White indoctrination to the degree of teaching that all Whites had no right to live in S. Africa hadn't existed.

>>>"Even the accusations that supporters of Palestinians support suicide bombings reminds me of the Republicans who showed up at screenings of Biko with tires aorund themselves accusing all opponents of aparthied of wanting to burn people alive."<<<

What do the mostly mendacious and hyped accusations against Israel supporters remind you of?

The antizionists claim that

-Israel kills Palestinians massively and indiscriminately

-the fight is unbalanced because Israel has so modern weaponry and a strong army.

I cannot understand both statements at the same time. Being so strong and aiming at massively killing Palestinians, why is it that there are still Palestinians left after so many years of massive killings?

First off, don't confuse the PA with the Palestinian government. The two aren't the same. The gov. is an Arafat puppet, devoid of real authority.

Secondly, PA forces like the police can do more; the problem is a bit more one of lack of will on Arafat's part than the PA's power. Arafat has amply proven he could send armed gunmen to silence this or that opponent or would-be opponent, so it's not altogether impossible for him to use force to stop rival factions from firing mortars and Qassam rockets had he wished.

>>>"Either Palestinians should have autonomy, settlementsin the West Bank should be removed and Israel should have no say in what happens in the territories, or Palestinians are part of Israel and they must be given a vote."<<<

I disagree that the disputed territories should be rendered Jew-free. *Most* of the ~400,000 Jews there aren't trouble makers and shouldn't be made to pay the price of Palestinian rejectionism and aggression (intifada). If it can be proven beyond doubt that some Jews had settled on stolen Arab property, by all means -- let these Jews be evicted. There's no reason to evict all others. It would be far more just to transfer out the Palestinians who engaged in terror and/or usurped Jewish property.

>>>"...in the end it doesnt matter who is to blame since the result is a lack of freedom for Palestinians with recent Jewish immigrants who settle in the West Bank being given a vote, while Palestinians who have lived in the area for generations have no say in the government that rules over them."<<<

I'm not the first to have proposed letting all Palestinians vote for the Jordanian parliament. Many of them still retain Jordanian citizenship and Jordan is a Palestinian state ~for many intents and purposes~. But then again, they wouldn't have a complete say until Jordan turns genuinely democratic. Hopefully this will be brought about in a few decades' time. If Iraq will have gone democratic, there's no reason Jordan should remain undemocratic for eternity.
It's really tragic the PA didn't give most of their citizens a say during the Oslo process.

bob: "over 60 percent of the Israeli Population is indigineous to the Middle East: they hail from Yemen, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Egypt, among others. So much for european settler colonialist BS that is thrown around"


BUT THEY WEREN'T INDIGENOUS TO **PALESTINE** -- IDIOT!!

In fact, the two largest Jewish communities were in Africa (Morocco) and Iraq (the largest Jewish population in the Middle East). So, if you go by your fallacious "indigenous argument", Israel 'should' have been established in Morocco or Iraq! In addition, nationalist/political Zionism was a *European* Jewish invention -- not an indigenous African or Middle Eastern invention -- and backed by *European* & *American* imperialist powers.

There was *NO* call for an ideologically ethno-exclusivist
Jewish[-supremacist] nation-state by non-European Jews -- that would 'logically' necessitate the ethnic cleansing of nearly a million Palestinians to start with -- and non-European Jews were not even consulted -- no more than the mostly Palestinian Arabs (Muslim, Christian, or secular) or the very small percentage of indigenous Palestinian Jews were -- about the matter.

And, as has been pointed out in indymedia threads many times, the European/white Jews were *very* racist against the dark-skin African and Middle Eastern Jews ("Arab or Black Jews") -- and especially the Palestinian Jews. In fact, Western (and often Central) European Jews were often *very*
racist against even some Eastern European or Slavic Jews. Many may know about the blood donations of black Jews in Israel being systematically poured into the sewers by white Jewish medical personnel, until it was discovered in an international scandal. And often white Jews were often very
racist against Black-Americans after Jews immigrated and became sociopolitically established in America (like establishing *Jewish* whites-only country clubs and the like, and becoming slum lords) -- contrary to their gross exageration, today, about their all being allies to Blacks in
the Civil Rights era.

But, it was the *leftist* (anti-racist, anti-Zionist) Jews (like Goodman and Schwerner) -- often scorned by the politically mainstream, Anglo-American-assimilating Jews -- who were, as a group, probably the Civil Rights movement's greatest allies.

The Zionist Jewish neocons (Jewish 'David Dukes' in suits) have become among the very worst political enemies of Black people -- demestically and internationally -- opposed to every single program (over the recent decades) that would meaningfully help Blacks and other traditional minorities
socially advance (or at least avoid the ravages of prison,
homelessness, inadequate health resources, substandard education, etc.) and often co-espousing pseudo-'scientific' or popular white theories of Black inferiority. (Jewish-American Michael Krasny of PBS radio affiliate in San Francisco, the main host of KQED-fm's "Forum" radio show immediately comes to mind with regard to the latter.)

You Zionists are a pretty pathetic lot.

>>>"And, as has been pointed out in indymedia threads many times, the European/white Jews were *very* racist against the dark-skin African and Middle Eastern Jews ("Arab or Black Jews") -- and especially the Palestinian Jews."<<<

I've already explained elsewhere on this board that the "Palestinian Jews" consisted of both Ashkenazi ("European") Jews and non-Ashkenazi Jews.

Btw, here's a more accurate definition for Ashkenazi Jews as opposed to non-Ashkenazi: the former group originated in Christian dominated lands (not necessarily European) whereas the latter originated in Muslim dominated lands. Accordingly, the Iberian peninsula's Jews in the Middle ages weren't Ashkenazi. It's important to bear in mind that the main division to Ashkenazi Jews as opposed to the rest occurred in the Middle Ages.

>>>"Many may know about the blood donations of black Jews in Israel being systematically poured into the sewers by white Jewish medical personnel, until it was discovered in an international scandal"<<<

No, it was discovered incidentally by one Ethiopian Jew who had donated blood (in vain, of course).

as opposed to non-Ashkenazi: the Ashkenazi group originated in European Christian dominated lands whereas the non-Ashkenazi originated in Muslim dominated lands (even European ones). Accordingly, the Iberian peninsula's Jews in the Middle ages weren't Ashkenazi.
It's important to bear in mind that the main division to Ashkenazi Jews as opposed to the rest occurred in the Middle Ages.

Do JA's arguments stem from his hatred of the Jews, or his love for the Palestinians???

He never answered the questions asked earlier: Why do the thousands of his people die in a genocide perpetrated by Arabs in Sudan, and he doesnt do squat but ramble on and on about the the evils of zionism?, unless he thinks its the mossad commiting murder and rape against the Blacks.

Your ramblings about the white-Jews being racist is a diservice to the likes of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel who walked hand in hand with MLk, who himself was a supporter of Israel.

What about the Nation of Islam, and the anti-semtism and anti-white racism that is spewed from the mouth of Loius Farrakhan? DO you condemn it?

What about Brooklyn's Crown Heights riots in 1991 when Yankel Rosenbaum was stabbed to death in a four-day orgy of violence and looting directed at the Hasidic Jews.

As far as displacing the palestinians, if a genocidal war was launched against the JEws of Palestine and the solution was either death or kicking the genocidal arabs east about 60 miles, than so be it. Benny Morris, the famous historian, seems to agree with this argument.

I am waiting for your response, JA

IT'S HARDLY THE FIRST TIME.

KIND OF INVALIDATES YOUR WHOLE POINT, DOESN'T IT.

CARE FOR SOME *CROW*, NON-CRITICAL THINKIFIER?

KEEP WONDERING.

As usual no response, because he knows his arguments dont hold any water

JA's arguments DO stem from his demonstrable hatred of Jews-evidenced throughout this site-and his frequently expressed desire for the extermination of Jewish people. He has a long criminal record by the way; I am told that he himself took part in the Crown Heights pogroms that you mention which resulted in the savage murder of Yankel Rosenbaum and a state of terror for the entire Jewish community.

"Many may know about the blood donations of black Jews in Israel being systematically poured into the sewers"

JA, in his neverending attempts at race-baiting once again shows his ignorance. Black Jews in Israel are allowed to donate blood and that bood is just as good as any other.

On the other hand, Ethiopian immigrants are barred from giving blood, as Africans are in every modern country (including the USA) due to the high prevalence of HIV.

The problem is that the Ethiopians were not told of this as it was believed that they would not understand. Normally, people who can not donate blood are told of this at the time of donation.

Black Jews not born in Ethiopia (including the descendants of Ethiopian immigrants) give blood like everybody else.

One more race baiting lie of JA bites the dust.

Next!

"On the other hand, Ethiopian immigrants are barred from giving blood, as Africans are in every modern country (including the USA) due to the high prevalence of HIV.

The problem is that the Ethiopians were not told of this as it was believed that they would not understand."

Would the _white_ Jews understand?

When he's too afraid to deal with questions raised by another, his recourse is to indulge in childish behavior like deriding my alias and the fact I make mistakes.

I at least have the guts to admit my mistakes. JA is just a disgusting spineless and hypocritical double standard wielding bigot.

You erred somewhat. As of the 2nd half of 1996, most blood donations by Ethiopian Jews in Israel are allowed and accepted.

"Would the _white_ Jews understand?"

If they came from a preindustrial civilization, living in mud huts, and with no exposure to technology like the Ethiopians, probably not. It wouldn't matter if they were Jews or not.

The point is that there was paternalistic condescension towards a group that wanted to give back to a society that had given them their freedom. It wasn't about race. It wasn't about religion. It was about an industrialized society making assumptions about a preindustrial people that they were in the process of absorbing. It was wrong, it was regrettable, and it has since been corrected.

To "Blood Libel?" from non-CT: "You erred somewhat."

"somewhat"!? -- it's not his first time either! I knew that, but I just let it stand, until I could find time to dig up the Haaretz article to prove you *both* wrong on your facts or details!


B.S., errr, B.L.: "If they came from a preindustrial civilization, living in mud huts, and with no exposure to technology like the Ethiopians, probably not."

Yeah, you *know* them pre-industrial paleolithic mudhut jungle bunnies!! News about radio, tv, automobiles, viruses and germs hasn't gotten to them yet! They still think it's the *witch* doctors doins'! *NOPE*...., NO WHITE JEWISH *RACISM* THERE!!


B.S. "The point is that there was paternalistic condescension..."

YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN -- IN, AHEM, *SPADES*!!!


B.L. "...condescension towards a group that wanted to give back to a society that had given them their freedom."

Where's the garbage can...?: I think I'm gonna *BARF*!!

Is that why Israel resisted so long in even *recognizing* black Jews as Jews!? -- MAKING *FUN* OF THEM!! Until it was too unavoidable to not recognize them! And then Israel figured it could make the better thing of an otherwise unwanted situation and bring them in as a PR gambit to pretend that Zionism [still predicated on Jewish ethnicity] was not racism! Is that why black African Jews rioted in Jerusalem, against their being systematically, civically, and institutionally discriminated against? -- a riot so sudden and violent that it shocked most white Israeli Jews? Is that why even Sephardic Jews claim that they are practically 'invisible' -- and often discriminated against -- among white Jews? Is that why there's all those black Jews all isolated out in the Negev desert?


non-CT: "deriding my alias [NOW IF A *ZIONIST* HAS TO HIDE BEHIND AN ALIAS IN THE U.S.(!!), YOU *KNOW* THEY'RE A LOUZZY STINNKINN' LYINN' **COWWWARD**] and the fact I make mistakes."

YOU (GUYS) JUST MAKE IT ALLL TOO **EASY** TO DO!!

HAHAHA!!!

Israel and White Supremacy
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2002

by Aaron Michael Love

In 1945 Jan Smuts, then prime minister of South Africa appealed to the UN for an article on human rights to be included in the United Nations Charter. This incident, cited in W.E.B Du Bois's remarkable book The World and Africa, is a powerful reminder of the contradiction in the European conception of freedom. Freedom only applies absolutely to the white man, temporarily excluding the complications of class and of course, gender. Du Bois argued that the Atlantic slave trade produced this schism materially and culturally, although its origins no doubt go much farther back in European history. He concludes, "nothing so vividly illustrates the twisted contradiction of thought in the minds of white men."

Much ink has been spilled bemoaning the Zionist lobby in the United States. The success of this lobby in the Washington and media establishment, in terms of its limited objectives, is no doubt spectacular. However, it is a strange success, which has made strange bedfellows when considering the history of anti-Jewish racism in the U.S. After all, how could such a lobby hold sway over the Christian Right, Waspish conservative think tanks and a Congress filled with southern gentlemen?

The answer is the Zionist organizations do not hold sway over anyone and to imply otherwise, as some do, has the unintended consequence of flirting on the margins of a major Fascist conceit. Instead, the answer can be found in the history of white supremacy and imperialism within the United States and Europe themselves. In other words, Zionist Apartheid is seen as an old fashioned war on people of color and, as such is perfectly attune to the historical psyche of white America. Rather than trying to "liberate" American foreign policy from Zionist influence, I think it would be much more fruitful to ask why Americans, particularly the political, business class, and certain sectors of the white middle class, love Israel so much.

In an indispensable article, "Antisemitism: Real and Imagined", Tim Wise writes, "Zionism is a form of white supremacy". There are few places where Zionism is placed firmly within the operation of whiteness, though it has been indirectly touched on many times before, most notably in discussions of the relationship between Ashkenazi and Sephardim and Mizrahim Jews in Israel. Indeed, as one Israeli Black Panther put it in 1972, "We must reach a situation in which we shall fight together with the Arabs against the establishment. We are the only ones who can constitute a bridge of peace with the Arabs in the context of a struggle against the establishment." Zionism, like white supremacy, albeit in different keys, is a war against savage Arabs and only a less savage Arab and African Jew.

My experience as a divestment and solidarity organizer over the last couple of years has brought me first hand knowledge of the Zionist paradox in the Jewish community. More than once, young Jews approached us, confessing they struggle to maintain a Jewish identity outside of whiteness, revealing young minds trying to grasp with the irony of an alliance between Jews and White Supremacy. Micah Bazant has spoken of "the Jewish establishment" giving "tremendous lip-service to the concern of Jewish assimilation" but instead contributes "to assimilation of the worst kind." He explains, "they claim to value real Jewish traditions of social justice and tikkun olam, but in fact they have sold out and assimilated to U.S. values of capitalism, racism and imperialism."

Zionism developed in a time of reinvigorated white supremacy in the latter part of the nineteenth century when European states were busily dividing up the land of Africa and Asia. In the confrontation with the indigenous people of Palestine, its ideology belongs within the history of European racial theories and, like the Afrikaner ideology of Jan Smuts, has little problem with seeing itself in the forefront of democracy and civilization in the Middle East while at the same time implementing and justifying the complete and utter subjugation of one its most prominent people.

However, to understand Israel/Palestine as defined systematically by racial oppression has yet to be elaborated on its own. This is odd, given that the racial oppression of the Palestinian people is at the heart of the matter; all other things--land laws, religion, pass laws, racially designated roads and neighborhoods, etc.--are symptoms. This should not come as any surprise: the racial definition of the Zionist project existed from the very beginning. Theodor Herzel in his 1896 pamphlet "The Jewish State" wrote it would "form a part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism." This is the same Herzel who stated that Zionist colonization would be "representatives of Western civilization," bringing "cleanliness, order and the well-established customs of the Occident to this plague-ridden, blighted corner of the Orient." Recall Chomsky memorably quoting Chaim Weizmann, first president of Israel, as saying of Palestine, "there are several hundred thousand negroes there but that this matter has no significance."

How little has changed. With the African liberation movements abroad and the civil rights struggle at home, the white supremacist war on African people has entered a new stage, but the war on the Arab has found its triumphant moment. In that story we hear about the Arab resistance to modernity in the infamous "Arab street", mitigated, of course, by friendly but nervous ruling classes. In the stirring street, like in the Intifada, we are told you find the irrational and the superstitious, not a working toward self-determination and freedom. And who holds the key to holding back this self-evident preternatural violence of the Palestinian and the Arab? Whether it is Bernard Lewis, the New York Times, the Heritage Foundation, Al Gore, the ADL or American Jewish Council Ads on Fox News, the answer is the Zionist State. Counterpoised to the Arab and the Palestinian in particular there is democracy, technology, Judeo-Christian values, the opera and shopping malls. Apartheid Palestine/Israel is necessary exactly because the Palestinian rejects all of these things. They hate "us". Unfortunately, the more honest imperialists say, this is a world of civilization and barbarism: Israel the white European nation in a sea of dark savagery.

That Israel should be in the vanguard of whiteness is actually a credit to the more than five decade old Palestinian struggle. The Palestinian struggle is on the fault-line of freedom and oppression and, as such, is in the forefront of the struggle against white supremacy and imperialism in the world today. Is it any wonder that the white supremacist imperialists holler the most when Palestine/Israel is brought up? It is exactly here that their "twisted contradiction" is most likely to be exposed. Apartheid Israel/Palestine is just another solution to the "problem of the color line." It is a solution that did not begin in 1948 but some 400 years ago and is still with us very much today.

Indeed, we have the rulers of the "western" world as proof. The idea of a Zionist lobby duping State Department officials, ignorant Congress people, the EU or UN bureaucrats, ignores the role of white supremacy. This complicates the popular Leftist view that America and Europe's largely unconditional support of the Zionist state is like a functional balance sheet: tallying the price between keeping a bully on the Middle East block, "a strategic asset", and bad relations with the wider Arab public. We should recall what Du Bois was trying to tell the Left in his day: race and class are not separable categories in modern world history.

But the implications go beyond the exigencies of Leftist anti-imperialism to the heart of the Palestinian struggle and solidarity itself. Typically, Palestine/Israel is argued in terms of an abstract discourse of "human rights", "UN resolutions", and "international law". This is problematic on several grounds. First, on a psychological level, the basic effrontery of Apartheid to human dignity is lost. On a more practical level, most Americans do not connect immediately to the Palestinian struggle because the direct connections to their historical experience are not revealed or emphasized. Further, rights, laws and resolutions bring a kind of equivalence to the Palestinian and Jewish experience in Israel/Palestine. The Zionist state can cite almost as many rights, laws and resolutions as their opponents. Even worse the application of these things, like the UN itself, is dominated by the United States. What is missing is a sense of right and wrong, of abnormality, and a lack of understanding the deep connections of the Palestinian struggle with the operation of the American historical psyche.

The importance of understanding white supremacy could also be important for the Palestinian struggle in Palestine/Israel. Israel Shahak wrote in his brilliant article:

"Analysis of Israeli policies: the priority of the ideological factor," that eventually, "the Palestinians are bound to perceive themselves first and foremost as victims of Israeli legal discrimination, applied against them by virtue of their being non-Jews. When this occurs, Israel's domestic and international position can be expected to become highly unstable."

Oppression-political, economic, legal, cultural-on the basis of race is what most intimately connects all Palestinians, at a most basic level, living throughout Palestine/Israel. If Shahak's observation is politically formulated and used in a struggle to trump the Zionist, white supremacist vision and enforcement of separation and expropriation, meanwhile coupled with an effective solidarity campaign to politically and economically isolate Israel, the Zionist state will eventually "become highly unstable" indeed.

I do not think this can be overstated at this time. Like the U.S. commitment to Israel, the Zionist commitment to the West Bank and Gaza exists over and above balance sheet considerations. Returning to Shahak's article, a particular passage is worth quoting in full:

"In other words, empirical evidence (valid as anything in politics can be valid) shows that Israeli policies are primarily ideologically motivated and that the ideology by which they are motivated is totalitarian in nature. This ideology can be easily known since it is enshrined in the writings of the founders of Labor Zionism, and it can be easily inferred from Israeli laws, regulations and pursued policies. Those who, like Arafat, his henchmen and most Palestinian intellectuals, have through all these years failed to make an intellectual effort to seriously study this ideology, have only themselves to blame for being stunned by all the developments of the 20 months after Oslo."

As I have tried to briefly lay out, the Zionist Apartheid project finds its force and appeal through its own conception of whiteness, not because Zionist organizations find better ways to get the ear of the white man. It is fully assimilated into this framework and all of its self-justification refers back to the matrix of white supremacy and empire. One cannot battle Zionism without battling white supremacy and the U.S. establishment--they are intimately linked. Seeking the ear of the establishment without speaking the truth about their racism underestimates their psychological and historical relationship with Apartheid. This means a solidarity built on an alliance with those who have been in the forefront of fighting white supremacy.

The brilliance of Du Bois's book is to show exactly how the "West" can be for human rights and for an unrelenting war on Arabs and, in particular, Palestinians. It explains how Jan Smuts in Du Bois's day or Shimon Peres in ours can lecture us on "human rights" and get away with it. Perhaps, most importantly, white supremacy reframes the Palestinian struggle in a historical continuum that better explains the reflexive support among a broad swathe of the American and European public for the Zionist adventure. It equally reframes it within a tradition that has deep reserves for overcoming the contradictions of race, freedom and oppression in European and American history with universal ideas of equality, democracy and fraternity, previously only thought available to the white man.

http://raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1037324713,24836,.shtml

Say what? Anti-Semites? Who, us anti-Zionists? Us?

We have nothing against Jews as such. We just hate Zionism and Zionists. We think Israel does not have a right to exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such. Heavens to Mergatroyd. Marx Forbid. We are humanists. Progressives. Peace lovers.

Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism and Israeli policies. The two have nothing to do with one another. Venus and Mars. Night and day. Trust us.

Sure, we think the only country on the earth that must be annihilated is Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Sure, we think that the only children on earth whose being blown up is okay if it serves a good cause are Jewish children. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Sure, we think that if Palestinians have legitimate grievances this entitles them to mass murder Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Naturally, we think that the only people on earth who should never be allowed to exercise the right of self-defense are the Jews. Jews should only resolve the aggression against them through capitulation, never through self-defense. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.



We only denounce racist apartheid in the one country in the Middle East that is not a racist apartheid country. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.


We refuse to acknowledge the Jews as a people, and think they are only a religion. We do not have an answer to how people who do not practice the Jewish religion can still be regarded as Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that all peoples have the right to self-determination, except Jews, and including even the make-pretend "Palestinian people". But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.


Nuts and bolts are packed into Arab suicide/homicidal explosive charges
so as to murder and maim as many Jews as possible.

We hate it when people blame the victims, except of course when people blame the Jews for the jihads and terrorist campaigns against them. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think the only country in the Middle East that is a fascist anti-democratic one is the one that has free elections. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We demand that the only country in the Middle East with free speech, free press or free courts be destroyed. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We oppose military aggression, except when it is directed at Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

..


We really understand suicide bombers who murder bus loads of Jewish children and we insist that their demands be met in full. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

..


We do not think that Jews have any human rights that need to be respected, and especially not the right to ride a bus without being murdered. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

..


Yossi Beilin, Michael Lerner, Ron Pundak, Amira Hass, Norman Finklestein

Israel Shamir, Joel Beinin,Shimon Peres, Noam Chomsky, Ruth Hauser
They act like enemies of Israel because they ARE enemies of Israel!


There are Jewish, leftist anti-Zionists and we consider this proof that anti-Zionists could not possibly be anti-Semitic; not even the ones who cheer when Jews are mass murdered. These are the only Jews we think need be acknowledged or respected. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

.

We think the only conflict on earth that must be solved through dismembering one of the parties to that conflict is the one involving Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think murder proves how righteous and just the cause of the murderer is, except when it comes to murderers of Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think the Jews are entitled to their own state and must submit to being a minority in a Rwanda-style “bi-national state”, although no other state on earth, including the 22 Arab countries, should be similarly expected to be deprived of its sovereignty. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.
..
We think that Israel’s having a Jewish majority and a star on its flag makes it a racist apartheid state. We do not think any other country having an ethnic-religious majority or having crosses or crescents or “Allah Akbar” on its flag is racist or needs dismemberment. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We condemn the “mistreatment” of women in the only country of the Middle East in which they are not mistreated. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.



We condemn the “mistreatment” of minorities in the only country in the Middle East in which minorities are not brutally suppressed and mass murdered. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We demand equal citizen rights, which is why the only country in the Middle East in need of extermination is the only one in which such rights exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We have no trouble with the fact that there is no freedom of religion in any Arab countries. But we are mad as hell at Israel for violating religious freedom, and never mind that we are never quite sure where or when it does so. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.



So how can you possibly say we are anti-Semites? We are simply anti-Zionists. We seek peace and justice, that’s all. And surely that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

The nature of Zionism has been one of the hot topics at the UN conference against racism, but it has always been controversial, writes Derek Brown

Zionism is all things to all people. To some, it is the noblest of causes. To others, it is a curse.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary offers a tersely neutral definition: "A movement for [originally] the reestablishment of a Jewish nationhood in Palestine, and [since 1948] the development of the State of Israel."

The Political Dictionary of the State of Israel is understandably more garrulous. Its account of Zionism covers three-and-a-half pages, beginning with: "The movement for national revival and independence of the Jewish people in Eretz Yizrael [Hebrew for the land of Israel]. The name Zionism was coined by the Viennese Jewish writer Nathan Birnbaum (1863-1937) in 1885, and is derived from the word "Zion" - one of the biblical names for Jerusalem."

There has always been intense debate about the definition and the nature of Zionism, as the Political Dictionary makes clear. From the first stirrings of the movement in the mid-19th century, there has been constant reinterpretation of what and even where the Jewish homeland should be.

Some believed it should be based on religious principles, others that it should be a secular state. Some argued that there should be no state at all, but rather a Jewish cultural base in Palestine. And others, hungering for an empty land which Jews could call their own, seriously pursued the bizarre "Uganda plan" which envisaged recreating Israel in British East Africa.

The Uganda plan was finally rejected by the seventh Zionist congress in 1905, but the movement continued to be wracked by dissent. In the first world war, some Zionist leaders favoured a pro-British policy, to the dismay of pro-German Zionists in the United States.

Later, as the tempo of Jewish emigration to Palestine picked up, there were fierce disputes about the pace of movement towards nationhood.

Even after the bloody birth of the state of Israel in 1948, Zionism has continued to elude an exact definition. As the Political Dictionary puts it: "Since 1948 Zionism has been broadened to imply the identification of world Jewry with Israel ... Zionism has also given financial, political and moral support to the Jewish state."

To blur matters still further, there have always been Jews who are not Zionist. Many orthodox religious Jews, even in Israel, believe that the creation by man of a Jewish state is an implicit usurpation of God's role.

And there are many liberal Jews, both in Israel and the diaspora, who are distinctly queasy about the 1967 conquest and subsequent occupation and colonisation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and who dislike the equation of Zionism with Israeli expansionism.

Anti-Zionism is also an ambiguous term, and of course depends on which view of Zionism is being opposed.

Most Arabs could be considered anti-Zionist because they dislike the very existence of the state of Israel. Others - Jews as well as gentiles - might describe themselves as anti-Zionist because they disapprove not of Israel, but of its policies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/unracism/story/0,1099,546868,00.html

The Zionist claim to Palestine is based on the implicitly racist notion that Palestinian people have no history. Like European colonizers of the last century, the Zionist project is one of denying the history of the people being colonized, so as to deny them political rights. Lilienthal even argues that it could be more likely that Palestinians of today have more genealogical relationship to the ancient people of Palestine than acknowledged by the west. The idea that Jesus was a Palestinian is not merely a slogan.

The Zionist claim to "ancient Israel" is also driven by mythology as Keith Whitelam points out in his book "The invention of ancient Israel and the silencing of Palestinian history".(Routledge, 1997). The silencing of Palestinian history is part of the project of creating the myth of "ancient Israel," quite comparable to the Hindutva project of creating a mythical "Hindu" past. Both are averse to historical, archaeological, or ethnographic evidence unless it confirms or supports some aspect of their body of presuppositions. The basic nationalist narrative of Zionism contends that the occupation of Palestine mirrors the conquest of Canaan in the biblical narrative. This is based on no evidence except the Bible and anything that lends support to selective ethnocentric interpretations of the Bible. There is a growing body of evidence that the narrow Bible-based interpretation with its pre-configured creation, "ancient Israel," is only a nationalistic project and not a real historically based study. In the context of Zionism's racism, this is then nothing less than a racial nationalistic project, seeking to justify and legitimate the colonization and oppression of a people. Many Israeli scholars are themselves questioning the myths of ancient "Israel," as more material evidence comes in from archaeology, and history. [ed.'s note: see for example Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts (Free Press, 2001)]

Israeli racists and their Zionist friends around the world are terrified at the prospects of being identified with racism, even though they practice it with a fervor reminiscent of the Belgians in 19th century Congo, or British in 18th century India; mythical racial-religious narratives, ideas of racial purity, racial chauvinism, racial hatred towards the indigenous inhabitants of the land, terror inflicted on the "conquered" people, creating race based institutions, stealing more land by invoking the exclusive myths of one faith, as if that is enough to legitimize the invasion and usurpation of another peoples' lands, dishing out justice to Jews only and injustice to Palestinians only, requiring Palestinians to carry markers of identity just as the Nazis required Jews to carry markers of identity; these are only some of the features of the self-proclaimed "Jewish state," a racist conception in itself since, 20 percent of the citizens of Israel are actually non Jewish Palestinians.

The racialization of Jewish identity is an outcome of European fascism and Zionism played a central role in assisting Nazism to change the Jewish minority of Germany into a "racial" minority, keeping with Hitler's assertion that the Jews constituted a separate "nation" which he of course defined in terms of a "race." There is ample evidence that Zionism was not interested in saving the lives of Jews in Europe as much as it was in usurping Palestine and establishing a "racial" state in Palestine, something accomplished with considerable support and encouragement from the Nazi regime itself. [ed.'s note: see Leni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (Lawrence Hill, 1993); Yehuda Bauer, American Jewry and the Holocaust (Wayne State University Press, 1981); The Holocaust Victims Accuse:
Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, edited by the Neturei Karta, an organization of anti-Zionist Jews who support the goal of a secular democracy rather than a Jewish state.] These are facts that are terribly inconvenient to the Zionist establishment, because they underline the fundamentally racist character of the ideology of Zionism. To the present day, Zionists are unapologetic in their racism and many statements from leading "lights" of Israel attest to the fact that Israeli Zionism is first and foremost a racist ideology. More evidently, the practice of racism permeates everything including the colonization of Palestinian land, the brutal treatment of Palestinians, including children, and the unapologetic arrogance displayed to critics, reminiscent of the worst racists from Hitler to Botha.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/rajaharishswamy1.html

White, Zionist and Hindu Racism; the Durban question
http://www.geocities.com/virodhi2001/durban.html

White supremacy, Zionism and Hindu racism are part of the same project to deny hundreds of millions of people the right to be free, and ought to be fought vigorously and defeated by their victims ... Palestinians, Black Americans and India's Dalits and oppressed masses have to see that their struggle is one struggle against the forces of global fascism, three of whose stellar representatives excel in the grotesque practice of human subjugation and racist tyranny. It is necessary to expose these three villains and build solidarity among the victims. Solidarity is not wishful thinking but a much need survival strategy, and the only road to defeating the oppressors of the global fascist axis.

Blacks Split on Zionism

The pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. has been vociferous in its efforts to line up mainstream civil rights groups or their representatives to accept without criticism all Israeli policies concerning the Palestinians. And this has been successful, even when these policies constitute horrific acts of violence in defiance of UN resolutions condemning Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It was shameful to see, for example, NAACP Board Member Julian Bond's name on a full-page N.Y. Times ad condemning the Palestinian response last year to Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to a Palestinian holy site, Temple Mount, and total silence on the slaughter of Palestinian men, women and children that has since ensued.

http://www.whiteprivilege.com/archives/2001/08/30/durban_zionism_zimbabwe_dennis_brutus_racism_and_privilege

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

RECALLING its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous" and its expression of alarm at "the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures",

RECALLING ALSO that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1953, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism,

TAKING NOTE of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace 1975, proclaimed by the World Conference of the Intenrational Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that "international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, Zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination",

TAKING NOTE ALSO of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a comon imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being",

TAKING NOTE ALSO of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperalist ideology,

DETERMINES that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unga3379.html

OR, one COULD just swallow whatever drivel the above choose to drop and recognize that the international bodies that have spoken on this thread and elsewhere around the world, internationally acclaimed and recognized Jewish scholars, writers, Rabbis, decorated veterans, and others regarding the crimes of the Israeli regime are all....

ANTI-JEWISH!

(Not "Anti-Semitic" for then they would be opposed to ALL Semitic peoples, for those who can read the English language with comprehension!)

By the way, lest I forget, I stand corrected and hereby set the record straight:

Israel Shamir, that Jewish author and decorated Israeli veteran whose works have been translated into so many languages, was NOT an "elected member of the Knesset..." as I stated earlier, he did however work for the Socialist Party in Israel. My personal confusion based on earlier received information that I misunderstood.

Thanks for pointing that out to me!

Oh, and heres one for you, Sefarad;

"....against foreigners...blah blah"

Well, I am actually glad you insist on an answer Sefarad, and here it is:

I have lived and worked 35 of my 50+ years in foreign cultures and speak four foreign languages as well as English. I have held the highest positions within international business, in marketing and sales as well as logistics, entailing the marshalling of multiple (sometimes as many as 23 different international project groups) multinational groups from every culture (as well as religion) in Europe excepting the Balkan states.

Does that answer your ignorant (as in uninformed) question?

Try again, Sefarad. You could, if you applied yourself, do much better, of this I am certain. One becomes known by the company one keeps.

>>>"Only CT, gehrig, sfres, and of course...Sefarad know the truth OR, one COULD just swallow whatever drivel the above choose to drop and recognize that the international bodies that have spoken on this thread and elsewhere around the world, internationally acclaimed and recognized Jewish scholars, writers, Rabbis, decorated veterans, and others regarding the crimes of the Israeli regime are all.... ANTI-JEWISH! (Not "Anti-Semitic" for then they would be opposed to ALL Semitic peoples, for those who can read the English language with comprehension!)"<<<

Gee, I thought Sprye had passed the stage where he was taught that "anti-Semitic" only designates those who are against *Jewish* Semites. This crap peddler is more than a century behind the news -- the term "anti-Semitism" has taken on the perverted meaning Wilhelm Marr intended for it and in the process shed its original meaning. Therefore, a simpleton of Sprye's variety can't grasp that reading comprehension alone doesn't suffice to understand the term's meaning.

Sprye, there may be less readers buying into your reductionist silliness than you reckon. You have a tendency to flatten out multi-dimensional realities to two-dimensional ones or dichotomies. Yet you won't find me indulging in this intellectual disintegrity and attempt at intellectual blackmail.

>>>" My personal confusion [about Israel Shamir] was based on earlier received information that I misunderstood."<<<

Geez, it must have been written in a tongue other than English, wasn't it?


Now Sprye, I put a question to you on the other thread. Why don't you go answer it instead of spewing further rhetorical hogwash you yourself are aware is baloney.

RE: Blacks Split on Zionism

"The pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. has been vociferous in its efforts to line up mainstream civil rights groups or their representatives to accept without criticism all Israeli policies concerning the Palestinians. And this has been successful"

Well, yes and no. Black "leaders" (especially organizational executives and politicians) are *FORCED* by the Zionist/Israel lobby (whose members often *significantly*, if not critcally, fund Black organizations, like the NAACP and the National Urban League) to genuflect to the organized Zionist/pro-Israel Jewish lobby and kiss the rings of the lobby's leaders. But, most ordinary Blacks, Black intellectuals, and Black progressive political activists (past and present), and especially the Black grassroots, *KNOW* that Palestinians are an oppressed people of color, and are being *racistly* oppressed by "The (White) Man" over there (only much more brutally), the same "White Man" (only wearing yarmulkes/skullcaps instead of crosses) that has historically oppressed people of color over here -- and all over the world (especially the colonial world) -- for centuries. In short, ordinary/grassroots Blacks are not fooled by Black "leaders" who they know are forced to bend at the knee -- or the waist.

Even Oakland Congressional Representative Barbara Lee was force to congratulate -- in a formal letter -- *ARIEL SHARON* (that 'Man of Peace') -- *TWICE* -- upon his respective election as Israeli Prime Minister.


RE: "We have nothing against Jews as such." (by PH, Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2004 at 6:15 PM.)

Well, besides all the anti-Semitism that *Zionists* themselves have expediently encouraged and all the anti-Semite-baiting that *Zionists* have championed for over a century..., to borrow from the Black Panthers ("We don't hate white *people* -- we hate white *racism*!"): "Palestinians don't hate Jewish people -- they hate Jewish *racism*!"

But, *NO ONE* has a right to "self-determination" or so-called "self-defense" at the mass expense -- massacre, ethnic cleansing, and dispossession -- of another people! And being originally oppressed -- especially somewhere else (like in *Europe*!) -- doesn't give someone that right! It wouldn't give the "Gypsies"/Roma that right; it wouldn't give the "Untouchables"/Dalits that right; it wouldn't give gays that right; it wouldn't give women that right; it wouldnt' give *any* oppressed group that right! And it doesn't give *Jews* that right!


RE: "What is Zionism? Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2004 at 6:28 PM."

Actually, while seemingly neutral, the Shorter OED definition is actually quite satisfactory. But I would put it even simpler, briefer, and somewhat more precise -- simply put:

Zionism: Jewish (settler-)colonial nationalism; or the (typically Jewish) advocacy of an ideologically Jewish nation-state. (Ultimately established in Palestine.)

It's the inherent execution of Zionism that is not neutral. The first question -- inherently non-neutral -- was, "Where does one *put* that state? -- especially if an indigenous or native people are already living there!"


RE: " Zionism = Racism Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2004 at 6:33 PM."

*EXCELLENT* EXPOSITION.

I think you also know the truth, and what happens is that you cannot help but being xenofobic. It is in your genes.

Yo gehrig, 'CT'!!: No rebuttal???

--JA

Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism

Behind much criticism of Israel is a thinly veiled hatred of Jews

Emanuele Ottolenghi
Saturday November 29, 2003
The Guardian


Is there a link between the way Israel's case is presented and anti-semitism? Israel's advocates protest that behind criticisms of Israel there sometimes lurks a more sinister agenda, dangerously bordering on anti-semitism. Critics vehemently disagree. In their view, public attacks on Israel are neither misplaced nor the source of anti-Jewish sentiment: Israel's behaviour is reprehensible and so are those Jews who defend it.
Jewish defenders of Israel are then depicted by their critics as seeking an excuse to justify Israel, projecting Jewish paranoia and displaying a "typical" Jewish trait of "sticking together", even in defending the morally indefensible. Israel's advocates deserve the hostility they get, the argument goes; it is they who should engage in soul-searching.




There is no doubt that recent anti-semitism is linked to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And it is equally without doubt that Israeli policies sometimes deserve criticism. There is nothing wrong, or even remotely anti-semitic, in disapproving of Israeli policies. Nevertheless, this debate - with its insistence that there is a distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism - misses the crucial point of contention. Israel's advocates do not want to gag critics by brandishing the bogeyman of anti-semitism: rather, they are concerned about the form the criticism takes.
If Israel's critics are truly opposed to anti-semitism, they should not repeat traditional anti-semitic themes under the anti-Israel banner. When such themes - the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish symbols, or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery - are used to describe Israel's actions, concern should be voiced. Labour MP Tam Dalyell decried the influence of "a Jewish cabal" on British foreign policy-making; an Italian cartoonist last year depicted the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus "again". Is it necessary to evoke the Jewish conspiracy or depict Israelis as Christ-killers to denounce Israeli policies?

The fact that accusations of anti-semitism are dismissed as paranoia, even when anti-semitic imagery is at work, is a subterfuge. Israel deserves to be judged by the same standards adopted for others, not by the standards of utopia. Singling out Israel for an impossibly high standard not applied to any other country begs the question: why such different treatment?

Despite piqued disclaimers, some of Israel's critics use anti-semitic stereotypes. In fact, their disclaimers frequently offer a mask of respectability to otherwise socially unacceptable anti-semitism. Many equate Israel to Nazism, claiming that "yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators": last year, Louis de Bernières wrote in the Independent that "Israel has been adopting tactics which are reminiscent of the Nazis". This equation between victims and murderers denies the Holocaust. Worse still, it provides its retroactive justification: if Jews turned out to be so evil, perhaps they deserved what they got. Others speak of Zionist conspiracies to dominate the media, manipulate American foreign policy, rule the world and oppress the Arabs. By describing Israel as the root of all evil, they provide the linguistic mandate and the moral justification to destroy it. And by using anti-semitic instruments to achieve this goal, they give away their true anti-semitic face.

There is of course the open question of whether this applies to anti-Zionism. It is one thing to object to the consequences of Zionism, to suggest that the historical cost of its realisation was too high, or to claim that Jews are better off as a scattered, stateless minority. This is a serious argument, based on interests, moral claims, and an interpretation of history. But this is not anti-Zionism. To oppose Zionism in its essence and to refuse to accept its political offspring, Israel, as a legitimate entity, entails more. Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are.

It could be suggested that nationalism is a pernicious force. In which case one should oppose Palestinian nationalism as well. It could even be argued that though both claims are true and noble, it would have been better to pursue Jewish national rights elsewhere. But negating Zionism, by claiming that Zionism equals racism, goes further and denies the Jews the right to identify, understand and imagine themselves - and consequently behave as - a nation. Anti-Zionists deny Jews a right that they all too readily bestow on others, first of all Palestinians.

Were you outraged when Golda Meir claimed there were no Palestinians? You should be equally outraged at the insinuation that Jews are not a nation. Those who denounce Zionism sometimes explain Israel's policies as a product of its Jewish essence. In their view, not only should Israel act differently, it should cease being a Jewish state. Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-semitic prejudice only if Jews give up their distinctiveness as a nation: Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no rights, Jews as individuals are worthy of both. Supporters of this view love Jews, but not when Jews assert their national rights. Jews condemning Israel and rejecting Zionism earn their praise. Denouncing Israel becomes a passport to full integration. Noam Chomsky and his imitators are the new heroes, their Jewish pride and identity expressed solely through their shame for Israel's existence. Zionist Jews earn no respect, sympathy or protection. It is their expression of Jewish identity through identification with Israel that is under attack.

The argument that it is Israel's behaviour, and Jewish support for it, that invite prejudice sounds hollow at best and sinister at worst. That argument means that sympathy for Jews is conditional on the political views they espouse. This is hardly an expression of tolerance. It singles Jews out. It is anti-semitism.

Zionism reversed Jewish historical passivity to persecution and asserted the Jewish right to self-determination and independent survival. This is why anti-Zionists see it as a perversion of Jewish humanism. Zionism entails the difficulty of dealing with sometimes impossible moral dilemmas, which traditional Jewish passivity in the wake of historical persecution had never faced. By negating Zionism, the anti-semite is arguing that the Jew must always be the victim, for victims do no wrong and deserve our sympathy and support.

Israel errs like all other nations: it is normal. What anti-Zionists find so obscene is that Israel is neither martyr nor saint. Their outrage refuses legitimacy to a people's national liberation movement. Israel's stubborn refusal to comply with the invitation to commit national suicide and thereby regain a supposedly lost moral ground draws condemnation. Jews now have the right to self-determination, and that is what the anti-semite dislikes so much.

· Emanuele Ottolenghi is the Leone Ginzburg Fellow in Israel

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1095694,00.html#article_continue