Cornelius,
              For one who acknowledges that Gambia and Gambian fora 
are not significant in determining policy, you seem to be spending an 
awful lot of time trying to defend the indefensible. Gambians on this 
forum are more sober and sophisticated than the half-baked American and 
other gullible audiences who swallow Zionist propaganda hook, line and 
sinker. So relax, take a cool bottle of coke, look in the mirror, smile 
and get ready to defend your position on Zionism or go peddle your 
Zionist propaganda elsewhere. In this vein, answer the following 
questions (not through links to Zionist propaganda sites because we are 
sophisticated and can see through the mistruths, half-truths etc.) 
about Zionism and tell us your opinion or views. You wrote in a reply 
to Habib that Zionism is not a racist policy. In your opinion,

1. What is Zionism?
2. What are its prinipal tenets?
3. Why is it not racist?
4. Why do the Jews have a claim to the land of Palestine including the 
part dubbed Israel?
5. How is Israel a democracy? 
6. Do the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have the same rights 
as Jews living in the same land? If not, why?
7. Why do "Jews" who were not born anywhere near Palestine and Israel 
have an automatic right to have Israeli citizenship and move to Israel 
whilst Palestinians whose land was confiscated do not have a right to 
return to their confiscated lands? Is this right or fair? If so, tell 
us why.
8a. Why has Israel not respected or implemented UN resolutions against 
it but propagates together with its puppet, the US, for the respect and 
implementation of resolutions against other countries?
8b. If Israel refuses to implement resolutions against it, should 
other countries be forced to comply with the implementation of UN 
resolutions? Why?
9. After Olmert publicly claimed Israeli possession of nuclear weapons 
(after decades of lies), why should Israel not be forced to comply with 
the same laws and guidelines being forced on Iran, North Korea etc? If 
not, why?
10. According to international law, why should Iran not pursue its 
nuclear program? What are the basis for the illegal and hypocritical 
stance against the country?
11. Why should the US (the only country to have used nuclear weapons 
against another based for the most part on racist considerations), 
Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia and France have nuclear 
weapons and not Iran? On what basis?
12. How were the Jews treated by Arabs before Israel was created? How 
did the Europeans treat them? How do the Jews treat the Arabs today? 
Compare the way the Jews were teated by the Arabs and the way they are 
treating the Arabs today.
13. Is criticizing "Israel" and "Zionism" anti-semiticism and racism? 
If it is, on what basis? Is criticizing Arabs and Muslims by calling 
them "fanatics", "terrorists" etc. anti-semitism and racism? If yes, on 
what basis?
14. Did the founders of Israel use terror tactics such as bombings 
etc.? 
15. Does Israel practice Apartheid? If not, can you prove it?
16. If I come to house and steal your tv, stereo, money etc. because 
somebody in Mongolia gave me told me that I can take them, am I 
entitled to your property? If not, why should Israel be entitled to 
Palestinian land because the Europeans with the their racist and 
imperialist tendencies sat in London, Washington etc. and decided to 
draw up a list of countries including Uganda to give to Jews for what 
Europeans did to them? Why should Palestinians pay for European guilt?
17. Should someone be punished for a crime committed by someone else? 
Is it in line with legality and natural justice? If no, why does Israel 
punish the families of suicide bombers by bulldozing their houses when 
in most cases the families are not even aware that the bombers were 
planning to do what they did. How can you justify this?
18. Who has actually wipe a country from the map? Is it Israel or is 
it Iran?
19. Are the Europeans who live in today's Israel the descendants of 
the original Jews who lived there? If not, why should they have a claim 
to the land? Just assuming that "are" the descendants, why should they 
have a right to reclaim land they lost more than two thousand years 
ago? Is this logical? If it is, do the native Indians in America have a 
right to claim their land from Europeans who stole their it and expel 
them to Europe? Do the Aborigines have a right to expel the British 
unwanted criminals who were shipped to Australia as punishment back to 
Britain? If these people do not have a right to expel the thieves who 
stole their land just a few hundred years ago, why should "Jews" have a 
right to reclaim land lost thousands of years ago?
20. Is Irael committing genocide and ethnic cleansing in the occupied 
territories? Was genocide and ethnic cleansing committed in the former 
Yugoslavia? Was genocide and ethnic cleansing committed in Rwanda? How 
do the practices practiced in these countries differ from what Israel 
is doing in the occupied terroritories? 

Take your time, answer these questions and convince us.
                                                                                                       
Buharry.
----Original Message----
From: [log in to unmask]
Date: May 29, 2007 7:50:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subj: Re: Zionism as a Racist Ideology

Whilst brother Habib talks about Oil, I wonder who would protect Saudi 
Arabia, if there was an absolute need of oil and the Saudis refused.
Who would protect Mecca?

The solution for you would be a one-state solution, with two political 
parties representing the Palsetinians:

The Islamic Dawa Party and HAMAS led by Khaled Mashaal

http://www.google.se/search?
hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBR_enSE222SE222&q=Jews+for+Allah

versus Manhigut Yehudit, led by Moshe Feiglin

One State, which the Dawa Party - four wives per man, full time, would 
overpopulate within one generation.

Shall we leave it there?
> 
> From: Momodou Buharry Gassama <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2007/05/29 ti PM 02:18:24 CEST
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Ämne: FWD: Zionism as a Racist Ideology
> 
> Zionism as a Racist Ideology
> Reviving an Old Theme to Prevent Palestinian Ethnicide
> By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
> 
> During a presentation on the Palestinian-Israeli situation in 2001, 
an 
> American-Israeli acquaintance of ours began with a typical attack 
on 
> the Palestinians. Taking the overused line that "Palestinians never 
> miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," he asserted snidely 
that, 
> if only the Palestinians had had any decency and not been so all-
fired 
> interested in pushing the Jews into the sea in 1948, they would 
have 
> accepted the UN partition of Palestine. Those Palestinians who 
became 
> refugees would instead have remained peacefully in their homes, and 
the 
> state of Palestine could in the year 2001 be celebrating the 53rd 
> anniversary of its independence. Everything could have been 
sweetness 
> and light, he contended, but here the Palestinians were, then a 
year 
> into a deadly intifada, still stateless, still hostile, and still 
> trying, he claimed, to push the Jews into the sea.
> 
> It was a common line but with a new and intriguing twist: what if 
the 
> Palestinians had accepted partition; would they in fact have lived 
in a 
> state at peace since 1948? It was enough to make the audience stop 
and 
> think. But later in the talk, the speaker tripped himself up by 
> claiming, in a tone of deep alarm, that Palestinian insistence on 
the 
> right of return for Palestinian refugees displaced when Israel was 
> created would spell the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. He 
did 
> not realize the inherent contradiction in his two assertions (until 
we 
> later pointed it out to him, with no little glee). You cannot have 
it 
> both ways, we told him: you cannot claim that, if Palestinians had 
not 
> left the areas that became Israel in 1948, they would now be living 
> peaceably, some inside and some alongside a Jewish-majority state, 
and 
> then also claim that, if they returned now, Israel would lose its 
> Jewish majority and its essential identity as a Jewish state.*
> 
> This exchange, and the massive propaganda effort by and on behalf 
of 
> Israel to demonstrate the threat to Israel's Jewish character posed 
by 
> the Palestinians' right of return, actually reveal the dirty little 
> secret of Zionism. In its drive to establish and maintain a state 
in 
> which Jews are always the majority, Zionism absolutely required 
that 
> Palestinians, as non-Jews, be made to leave in 1948 and never be 
> allowed to return. The dirty little secret is that this is blatant 
> racism.
> 
> But didn't we finish with that old Zionism-is-racism issue over a 
> decade ago, when in 1991 the UN repealed a 1975 General Assembly 
> resolution that defined Zionism as "a form of racism or racial 
> discrimination"? Hadn't we Americans always rejected this resolution 
as 
> odious anti-Semitism, and didn't we, under the aegis of the first 
Bush 
> administration, finally prevail on the rest of the world community 
to 
> agree that it was not only inaccurate but downright evil to label 
> Zionism as racist? Why bring it up again, now?
> 
> The UN General Assembly based its 1975 anti-Zionist resolution on 
the 
> UN's own definition of racial discrimination, adopted in 1965. 
> According to the International Convention on the Elimination of All 
> Forms of Racial Discrimination, racial discrimination is "any 
> distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, 
> colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose 
or 
> effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or 
> exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental 
freedoms 
> in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of 
> public life." As a definition of racism and racial discrimination, 
this 
> statement is unassailable and, if one is honest about what Zionism 
is 
> and what it signifies, the statement is an accurate definition of 
> Zionism. But in 1975, in the political atmosphere prevailing at the 
> time, putting forth such a definition was utterly self-defeating.
> 
> So would a formal resolution be in today's political atmosphere. 
But 
> enough has changed over the last decade or more that talk about 
Zionism 
> as a system that either is inherently racist or at least fosters 
racism 
> is increasingly possible and increasingly necessary. Despite the 
> vehement knee-jerk opposition to any such discussion throughout the 
> United States, serious scholars elsewhere and serious Israelis have 
> begun increasingly to examine Zionism critically, and there is much 
> greater receptivity to the notion that no real peace will be forged 
in 
> Palestine-Israel unless the bases of Zionism are examined and in 
some 
> way altered. It is for this reason that honestly labeling Zionism as 
a 
> racist political philosophy is so necessary: unless the world's, 
and 
> particularly the United States', blind support for Israel as an 
> exclusivist Jewish state is undermined, unless the blind acceptance 
of 
> Zionism as a noble ideology is undermined, and unless it is 
recognized 
> that Israel's drive to maintain dominion over the occupied 
Palestinian 
> territories is motivated by an exclusivist, racist ideology, no one 
> will ever gain the political strength or the political will 
necessary 
> to force Israel to relinquish territory and permit establishment of 
a 
> truly sovereign and independent Palestinian state in a part of 
> Palestine.
> 
> Recognizing Zionism's Racism
> 
> A racist ideology need not always manifest itself as such, and, if 
the 
> circumstances are right, it need not always actually practice racism 
to 
> maintain itself. For decades after its creation, the circumstances 
were 
> right for Israel. If one forgot, as most people did, the fact that 
> 750,000 Palestinians (non-Jews) had left their homeland under 
duress, 
> thus making room for a Jewish-majority state, everyone could accept 
> Israel as a genuine democracy, even to a certain extent for that 
small 
> minority of Palestinians who had remained after 1948. That minority 
was 
> not large enough to threaten Israel's Jewish majority; it faced 
> considerable discrimination, but because Israeli Arabs could vote, 
this 
> discrimination was viewed not as institutional, state-mandated 
racism 
> but as the kind of discrimination, deplorable but not 
> institutionalized, faced by blacks in the United States. The 
occupation 
> of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, with their two million 
> (soon to become more than three million) Palestinian inhabitants, 
was 
> seen to be temporary, its end awaiting only the Arabs' readiness to 
> accept Israel's existence.
> 
> In these "right" circumstances, the issue of racism rarely arose, 
and 
> the UN's labeling of Israel's fundamental ideology as racist came 
> across to Americans and most westerners as nasty and vindictive. 
> Outside the third world, Israel had come to be regarded as the 
> perpetual innocent, not aggressive, certainly not racist, and 
desirous 
> of nothing more than a peace agreement that would allow it to mind 
its 
> own business inside its original borders in a democratic state. By 
the 
> time the Zionism-is-racism resolution was rescinded in 1991, even 
the 
> PLO had officially recognized Israel's right to exist in peace 
inside 
> its 1967 borders, with its Jewish majority uncontested. In fact, 
this 
> very acceptance of Israel by its principal adversary played no 
small 
> part in facilitating the U.S. effort to garner support for 
overturning 
> the resolution. (The fact of U.S. global dominance in the wake of 
the 
> first Gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union earlier in 
1991, 
> and the atmosphere of optimism about prospects for peace created by 
the 
> Madrid peace conference in October also played a significant part 
in 
> winning over a majority of the UN when the Zionism resolution was 
> brought to a vote of the General Assembly in December.)
> 
> Realities are very different today, and a recognition of Zionism's 
> racist bases, as well as an understanding of the racist policies 
being 
> played out in the occupied territories are essential if there is to 
be 
> any hope at all of achieving a peaceful, just, and stable resolution 
of 
> the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The egg of Palestine has been 
> permanently scrambled, and it is now increasingly the case that, as 
> Zionism is recognized as the driving force in the occupied 
territories 
> as well as inside Israel proper, pre-1967 Israel can no longer be 
> considered in isolation. It can no longer be allowed simply to go 
its 
> own way as a Jewish-majority state, a state in which the 
circumstances 
> are "right" for ignoring Zionism's fundamental racism.
> 
> As Israel increasingly inserts itself into the occupied 
territories, 
> and as Israeli settlers, Israeli settlements, and Israeli-only 
roads 
> proliferate and a state infrastructure benefiting only Jews takes 
over 
> more and more territory, it becomes no longer possible to ignore 
the 
> racist underpinnings of the Zionist ideology that directs this 
> enterprise. It is no longer possible today to wink at the permanence 
of 
> Zionism's thrust beyond Israel's pre-1967 borders. It is now clear 
that 
> Israel's control over the occupied territories is, and has all 
along 
> been intended to be, a drive to assert exclusive Jewish control, 
taming 
> the Palestinians into submission and squeezing them into ever 
smaller, 
> more disconnected segments of land or, failing that, forcing them 
to 
> leave Palestine altogether. It is totally obvious to anyone who 
spends 
> time on the ground in Palestine-Israel that the animating force 
behind 
> the policies of the present and all past Israeli governments in 
Israel 
> and in the occupied West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem has always 
been 
> a determination to assure the predominance of Jews over 
Palestinians. 
> Such policies can only be described as racist, and we should stop 
> trying any longer to avoid the word.
> 
> When you are on the ground in Palestine, you can see Zionism 
> physically imprinted on the landscape. Not only can you see that 
there 
> are settlements, built on land confiscated from Palestinians, where 
> Palestinians may not live. Not only can you see roads in the 
occupied 
> territories, again built on land taken from Palestinians, where 
> Palestinians may not drive. Not only can you observe that water in 
the 
> occupied territories is allocated, by Israeli governmental 
authorities, 
> so inequitably that Israeli settlers are allocated five times the 
> amount per capita as are Palestinians and, in periods of drought, 
> Palestinians stand in line for drinking water while Israeli 
settlements 
> enjoy lush gardens and swimming pools. Not only can you stand and 
watch 
> as Israeli bulldozers flatten Palestinian olive groves and other 
> agricultural land, destroy Palestinian wells, and demolish 
Palestinian 
> homes to make way for the separation wall that Israel is 
constructing 
> across the length and breadth of the West Bank. The wall fences off 
> Palestinians from Israelis, supposedly to provide greater security 
for 
> Israelis but in fact in order to cage Palestinians, to define a 
border 
> for Israel that will exclude a maximum number of Palestinians.
> 
> But, if this is not enough to demonstrate the inherent racism of 
> Israel's occupation, you can also drive through Palestinian towns 
and 
> Palestinian neighborhoods in and near Jerusalem and see what is 
perhaps 
> the most cruelly racist policy in Zionism's arsenal: house 
demolitions, 
> the preeminent symbol of Zionism's drive to maintain Jewish 
> predominance. Virtually every street has a house or houses reduced 
to 
> rubble, one floor pancaked onto another or simply a pile of broken 
> concrete bulldozed into an incoherent heap. Jeff Halper, founder 
and 
> head of the non-governmental Israeli Committee Against House 
> Demolitions (ICAHD), an anthropologist and scholar of the 
occupation, 
> has observed that Zionist and Israeli leaders going back 80 years 
have 
> all conveyed what he calls "The Message" to Palestinians. The 
Message, 
> Halper says, is "Submit. Only when you abandon your dreams for an 
> independent state of your own, and accept that Palestine has become 
the 
> Land of Israel, will we relent [i.e., stop attacking 
Palestinians]." 
> The deeper meaning of The Message, as carried by the bulldozers so 
> ubiquitous in targeted Palestinian neighborhoods today, is that 
"You 
> [Palestinians] do not belong here. We uprooted you from your homes 
in 
> 1948and now we will uproot you from all of the Land of Israel."
> 
> In the end, Halper says, the advance of Zionism has been a process 
of 
> displacement, and house demolitions have been "at the center of the 
> Israeli struggle against the Palestinians" since 1948. Halper 
> enumerates a steady history of destruction: in the first six years 
of 
> Israel's existence, it systematically razed 418 Palestinian 
villages 
> inside Israel, fully 85 percent of the villages existing before 
1948; 
> since the occupation began in 1967, Israel has demolished 11,000 
> Palestinian homes. More homes are now being demolished in the path 
of 
> Israel's "separation wall." It is estimated that more than 4,000 
homes 
> have been destroyed in the last two years alone.
> 
> The vast majority of these house demolitions, 95 percent, have 
nothing 
> whatever to do with fighting terrorism, but are designed 
specifically 
> to displace non-Jews and assure the advance of Zionism. In 
Jerusalem, 
> from the beginning of the occupation of the eastern sector of the 
city 
> in 1967, Israeli authorities have designed zoning plans specifically 
to 
> prevent the growth of the Palestinian population. Maintaining the 
> "Jewish character" of the city at the level existing in 1967 (71 
> percent Jewish, 29 percent Palestinian) required that Israel draw 
> zoning boundaries to prevent Palestinian expansion beyond existing 
> neighborhoods, expropriate Palestinian-owned lands, confiscate the 
> Jerusalem residency permits of any Palestinian who cannot prove 
that 
> Jerusalem is his "center of life," limit city services to 
Palestinian 
> areas, limit development in Palestinian neighborhoods, refuse to 
issue 
> residential building permits to Palestinians, and demolish 
Palestinian 
> homes that are built without permits. None of these strictures is 
> imposed on Jews. According to ICAHD, the housing shortage in 
> Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem is approximately 25,000 
units, 
> and 2,000 demolition orders are pending.
> 
> Halper has written that the human suffering involved in the 
> destruction of a family home is incalculable. A home "is one's 
symbolic 
> center, the site of one's most intimate personal life and an 
expression 
> of one's status. It is a refuge, it is the physical representation 
of 
> the family,maintainingcontinuity on one's ancestral land." Land 
> expropriation is "an attack on one's very being and identity." 
Zionist 
> governments, past and present, have understood this well, although 
not 
> with the compassion or empathy that Halper conveys, and this attack 
on 
> the "very being and identity" of non-Jews has been precisely the 
> animating force behind Zionism.
> 
> Zionism's racism has, of course, been fundamental to Israel itself 
> since its establishment in 1948. The Israeli government pursues 
> policies against its own Bedouin minority very similar to its 
actions 
> in the occupied territories. The Bedouin population has been 
forcibly 
> relocated and squeezed into small areas in the Negev, again with 
the 
> intent of forcing an exodus, and half of the 140,000 Bedouin in the 
> Negev live in villages that the Israeli government does not 
recognize 
> and does not provide services for. Every Bedouin home in an 
> unrecognized village is slated for demolition; all homes, and the 
very 
> presence of Bedouin in them, are officially illegal.
> 
> The problem of the Bedouins' unrecognized villages is only the 
partial 
> evidence of a racist policy that has prevailed since Israel's 
> foundation. After Zionist/Israeli leaders assured that the non-Jews 
(i.
> e., the Palestinians) making up the majority of Palestine's 
population 
> (a two-thirds majority at the time) departed the scene in 1948, 
Israeli 
> governments institutionalized favoritism toward Jews by law. As a 
> Zionist state, Israel has always identified itself as the state of 
the 
> Jews: as a state not of its Jewish and Palestinian citizens, but of 
all 
> Jews everywhere in the world. The institutions of state guarantee 
the 
> rights of and provide benefits for Jews. The Law of Return gives 
> automatic citizenship to Jews from anywhere in the world, but to no 
> other people. Some 92 percent of the land of Israel is state land, 
held 
> by the Jewish National Fund "in trust" for the Jewish people; 
> Palestinians may not purchase this land, even though most of it was 
> Palestinian land before 1948, and in most instances they may not 
even 
> lease the land. Both the Jewish National Fund, which deals with 
land 
> acquisition and development, and the Jewish Agency, which deals 
> primarily with Jewish immigration and immigrant absorption, have 
> existed since before the state's establishment and now perform 
their 
> duties specifically for Jews under an official mandate from the 
Israeli 
> government.
> 
> Creating Enemies
> 
> Although few dare to give the reality of house demolitions and 
state 
> institutions favoring Jews the label of racism, the phenomenon this 
> reality describes is unmistakably racist. There is no other term for 
a 
> process by which one people can achieve the essence of its 
political 
> philosophy only by suppressing another people, by which one people 
> guarantees its perpetual numerical superiority and its overwhelming 
> predominance over another people through a deliberate process of 
> repression and dispossession of those people. From the beginning, 
> Zionism has been based on the supremacy of the Jewish people, 
whether 
> this predominance was to be exercised in a full-fledged state or in 
> some other kind of political entity, and Zionism could never have 
> survived or certainly thrived in Palestine without ridding that land 
of 
> most of its native population. The early Zionists themselves knew 
this 
> (as did the Palestinians), even if naïve Americans have never quite 
> gotten it. Theodore Herzl, father of Zionism, talked from the 
beginning 
> of "spiriting" the native Palestinians out and across the border; 
> discussion of "transfer" was common among the Zionist leadership in 
> Palestine in the 1930s; talk of transfer is common today.
> 
> There has been a logical progression to the development of Zionism, 
> leading inevitably to general acceptance of the sense that, because 
> Jewish needs are paramount, Jews themselves are paramount. Zionism 
grew 
> out of the sense that Jews needed a refuge from persecution, which 
led 
> in turn to the belief that the refuge could be truly secure only if 
> Jews guaranteed their own safety, which meant that the refuge must 
be 
> exclusively or at least overwhelmingly Jewish, which meant in turn 
that 
> Jews and their demands were superior, taking precedence over any 
other 
> interests within that refuge. The mindset that in U.S. public 
discourse 
> tends to view the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from a perspective 
> almost exclusively focused on Israel arises out of this progression 
of 
> Zionist thinking. By the very nature of a mindset, virtually no one 
> examines the assumptions on which the Zionist mindset is based, and 
few 
> recognize the racist base on which it rests.
> 
> Israeli governments through the decades have never been so 
innocent. 
> Many officials in the current right-wing government are blatantly 
> racist. Israel's outspoken education minister, Limor Livnat, 
spelled 
> out the extreme right-wing defense of Zionism a year ago, when the 
> government proposed to legalize the right of Jewish communities in 
> Israel to exclude non-Jews. Livnat justified Israel's racism as a 
> matter of Jewish self-preservation. "We're involved here," she said 
in 
> a radio interview, "in a struggle for the existence of the State of 
> Israel as the state of the Jews, as opposed tothose who want to 
force 
> us to be a state of all its citizens." Israel is not "just another 
> state like all the other states," she protested. "We are not just a 
> state of all its citizens."
> 
> Livnat cautioned that Israel must be very watchful lest it find in 
> another few years that the Galilee and the Negev, two areas inside 
> Israel with large Arab populations, are "filled with Arab 
communities." 
> To emphasize the point, she reiterated that Israel's "special 
purpose 
> is our character as a Jewish state, our desire to preserve a Jewish 
> community and Jewish majority hereso that it does not become a state 
of 
> all its citizens." Livnat was speaking of Jewish self-preservation 
not 
> in terms of saving the Jews or Israel from a territorial threat of 
> military invasion by a marauding neighbor state, but in terms of 
> preserving Jews from the mere existence of another people within 
> spitting distance.
> 
> Most Zionists of a more moderate stripe might shudder at the 
> explicitness of Livnat's message and deny that Zionism is really 
like 
> this. But in fact this properly defines the racism that necessarily 
> underlies Zionism. Most centrist and leftist Zionists deny the 
reality 
> of Zionism's racism by trying to portray Zionism as a democratic 
system 
> and manufacturing enemies in order to be able to sustain the 
inherent 
> contradiction and hide or excuse the racism behind Zionism's drive 
for 
> predominance.
> 
> Indeed, the most pernicious aspect of a political philosophy like 
> Zionism that masquerades as democratic is that it requires an enemy 
in 
> order to survive and, where an enemy does not already exist, it 
> requires that one be created. In order to justify racist repression 
and 
> dispossession, particularly in a system purporting to be 
democratic, 
> those being repressed and displaced must be portrayed as murderous 
and 
> predatory. And in order to keep its own population in line, to 
prevent 
> a humane people from objecting to their own government's repressive 
> policies, it requires that fear be instilled in the population: fear 
of 
> "the other," fear of the terrorist, fear of the Jew-hater. The Jews 
of 
> Israel must always be made to believe that they are the preyed-
upon. 
> This justifies having forced these enemies to leave, it justifies 
> discriminating against those who remained, it justifies denying 
> democratic rights to those who later came under Israel's control in 
the 
> occupied territories.
> 
> Needing an enemy has meant that Zionism has from the beginning had 
to 
> create myths about Palestinians, painting Palestinians and all Arabs 
as 
> immutably hostile and intransigent. Thus the myth that in 1948 
> Palestinians left Palestine so that Arab armies could throw the 
Jews 
> into the sea; thus the continuing myth that Palestinians remain 
> determined to destroy Israel. Needing an enemy means that Zionism, 
as 
> one veteran Israeli peace activist recently put it, has removed the 
> Palestinians from history. Thus the myths that there is no such 
thing 
> as a Palestinian, or that Palestinians all immigrated in modern 
times 
> from other Arab countries, or that Jordan is Palestine and 
Palestinians 
> should find their state there.
> 
> Needing an enemy means that Zionism has had to make its negotiating 
> partner into a terrorist. It means that, for its own preservation, 
> Zionism has had to devise a need to ignore its partner/enemy or 
expel 
> him or assassinate him. It means that Zionism has had to reject any 
> conciliatory effort by the Palestinians and portray them as "never 
> missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity" to make peace. This 
> includes in particular rejecting that most conciliatory gesture, 
the 
> PLO's decision in 1988 to recognize Israel's existence, relinquish 
> Palestinian claims to the three-quarters of Palestine lying inside 
> Israel's pre-1967 borders, and even recognize Israel's "right" to 
exist 
> there.
> 
> Needing an enemy means, ultimately, that Zionism had to create the 
> myth of the "generous offer" at the Camp David summit in July 2000. 
It 
> was Zionist racism that painted the Palestinians as hopelessly 
> intransigent for refusing Israel's supposedly generous offer, 
actually 
> an impossible offer that would have maintained Zionism's hold on 
the 
> occupied territories and left the Palestinians with a disconnected, 
> indefensible, non-viable state. Then, when the intifada erupted 
(after 
> Palestinian demonstrators threw stones at Israeli police and the 
police 
> responded by shooting several demonstrators to death), it was 
Zionist 
> racism speaking when Israel put out the line that it was under 
siege 
> and in a battle for its very survival with Palestinians intent on 
> destroying it. When a few months later the issue of Palestinian 
> refugees and their "right of return" arose publicly, it was Zionist 
> racism speaking when Israel and its defenders, ignoring the several 
> ways in which Palestinian negotiators signaled their readiness to 
> compromise this demand, propagated the view that this too was 
intended 
> as a way to destroy Israel, by flooding it with non-Jews and 
destroying 
> its Jewish character.
> 
> The Zionist Dilemma
> 
> The supposed threat from "the other" is the eternal refuge of the 
> majority of Israelis and Israeli supporters in the United States. 
The 
> common line is that "We Israelis and friends of Israel long for 
peace, 
> we support Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, we have 
> always supported giving the Palestinians self-government. But 
'they' 
> hate us, they want to destroy Israel. Wasn't this obvious when 
Arafat 
> turned his back on Israel's generous offer? Wasn't this obvious 
when 
> Arafat started the intifada? Wasn't this obvious when Arafat 
demanded 
> that the Palestinians be given the right of return, which would 
destroy 
> Israel as a Jewish state? We have already made concession after 
> concession. How can we give them any further concessions when they 
> would only fight for more and more until Israel is gone?" This line 
> relieves Israel of any responsibility to make concessions or move 
> toward serious negotiations; it relieves Israelis of any need to 
treat 
> Palestinians as equals; it relieves Israelis and their defenders of 
any 
> need to think; it justifies racism, while calling it something else.
> 
> Increasing numbers of Israelis themselves (some of whom have long 
been 
> non-Zionists, some of whom are only now beginning to see the 
problem 
> with Zionism) are recognizing the inherent racism of their nation's 
> raison d'etre. During the years of the peace process, and indeed 
for 
> the last decade and a half since the PLO formally recognized 
Israel's 
> existence, the Israeli left could ignore the problems of Zionism 
while 
> pursuing efforts to promote the establishment of an independent 
> Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza that would coexist with 
> Israel. Zionism continued to be more or less a non-issue: Israel 
could 
> organize itself in any way it chose inside its own borders, and the 
> Palestinian state could fulfill Palestinian national aspirations 
inside 
> its new borders.
> 
> Few of those nettlesome issues surrounding Zionism, such as how 
much 
> democracy Zionism can allow to non-Jews without destroying its 
reason 
> for being, would arise in a two-state situation. The issue of 
Zionism's 
> responsibility for the Palestinians' dispossession could also be 
put 
> aside. As Haim Hanegbi, a non-Zionist Israeli who recently went back 
to 
> the fold of single-state binationalism (and who is a long-time 
cohort 
> of Uri Avnery in the Gush Shalom movement), said in a recent 
interview 
> with the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, the promise of mutual 
recognition 
> offered by the Oslo peace process mesmerized him and others in the 
> peace movement and so "in the mid-1990s I had second thoughts about 
my 
> traditional [binational] approach. I didn't think it was my task to 
go 
> to Ramallah and present the Palestinians with the list of Zionist 
> wrongs and tell them not to forget what our fathers did to their 
> fathers." Nor were the Palestinians themselves reminding Zionists 
of 
> these wrongs at the time.
> 
> As new wrongs in the occupied territories increasingly recall old 
> wrongs from half a century ago, however, and as Zionism finds that 
it 
> cannot cope with end-of-conflict demands like the Palestinians' 
> insistence that Israel accept their right of return by 
acknowledging 
> its role in their dispossession, more and more Israelis are coming 
to 
> accept the reality that Zionism can never escape its past. It is 
> becoming increasingly clear to many Israelis that Israel has 
absorbed 
> so much of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem into itself that 
the 
> Jewish and the Palestinian peoples can never be separated fairly. 
The 
> separation wall, says Hanegbi, "is the great despairing solution of 
the 
> Jewish-Zionist society. It is the last desperate act of those who 
> cannot confront the Palestinian issue. Of those who are compelled 
to 
> push the Palestinian issue out of their lives and out of their 
> consciousness." For Hanegbi, born in Palestine before 1948, 
> Palestinians "were always part of my landscape," and without them, 
> "this is a barren country, a disabled country."
> 
> Old-line Zionist Meron Benvenisti, who has also moved to support 
for 
> binationalism, used almost identical metaphors in a Ha'aretz 
interview 
> run alongside Hanegbi's. Also Palestine-born and a contemporary of 
> Hanegbi, Benvenisti believes "this is a country in which there were 
> always Arabs. This is a country in which the Arabs are the 
landscape, 
> the natives.I don't see myself living here without them. In my 
eyes, 
> without Arabs this is a barren land."
> 
> Both men discuss the evolution of their thinking over the decades, 
and 
> both describe a period in which, after the triumph of Zionism, they 
> unthinkingly accepted its dispossession of the Palestinians. Each 
man 
> describes the Palestinians simply disappearing when he was an 
> adolescent ("They just sort of evaporated," says Hanegbi), and 
> Benvenisti recalls a long period in which the Palestinian "tragedy 
> simply did not penetrate my consciousness." But both speak in very 
un-
> Zionist terms of equality. Benvenisti touches on the crux of the 
> Zionist dilemma. "This is where I am different from my friends in 
the 
> left," he says, "because I am truly a native son of immigrants, who 
is 
> drawn to the Arab culture and the Arabic language because it is 
here. 
> It is the land.Whereas the right, certainly, but the left too hates 
> Arabs. The Arabs bother them; they complicate things. The subject 
> generates moral questions and that generates cultural unease."
> 
> Hanegbi goes farther. "I am not a psychologist," he says, "but I 
think 
> that everyone who lives with the contradictions of Zionism condemns 
> himself to protracted madness. It's impossible to live like this. 
It's 
> impossible to live with such a tremendous wrong. It's impossible to 
> live with such conflicting moral criteria. When I see not only the 
> settlements and the occupation and the suppression, but now also 
the 
> insane wall that the Israelis are trying to hide behind, I have to 
> conclude that there is something very deep here in our attitude to 
the 
> indigenous people of this land that drives us out of our minds."
> 
> While some thoughtful Israelis like these men struggle with 
> philosophical questions of existence and identity and the 
collective 
> Jewish conscience, few American defenders of Israel seem troubled 
by 
> such deep issues. Racism is often banal. Most of those who practice 
it, 
> and most of those who support Israel as a Zionist state, would be 
> horrified to be accused of racism, because their racist practices 
have 
> become commonplace. They do not even think about what they do. We 
> recently encountered a typical American supporter of Israel who 
would 
> have argued vigorously if we had accused her of racism. During a 
> presentation we were giving to a class, this (non-Jewish) woman rose 
to 
> ask a question that went roughly like this: "I want to ask about 
the 
> failure of the other Arabs to take care of the Palestinians. I must 
say 
> I sympathize with Israel because Israel simply wants to have a 
secure 
> state, but the other Arabs have refused to take the Palestinians 
in, 
> and so they sit in camps and their hostility toward Israel just 
> festers."
> 
> This is an extremely common American, and Israeli, perception, the 
> idea being that if the Arab states would only absorb the 
Palestinians 
> so that they became Lebanese or Syrians or Jordanians, they would 
> forget about being Palestinian, forget that Israel had displaced 
and 
> dispossessed them, and forget about "wanting to destroy Israel." 
Israel 
> would then be able simply to go about its own business and live in 
> peace, as it so desperately wants to do. This woman's assumption 
was 
> that it is acceptable for Israel to have established itself as a 
Jewish 
> state at the expense of (i.e., after the ethnic cleansing of) the 
> land's non-Jewish inhabitants, that any Palestinian objection to 
this 
> reality is illegitimate, and that all subsequent animosity toward 
> Israel is ultimately the fault of neighboring Arab states who failed 
to 
> smother the Palestinians' resistance by anesthetizing them to their 
> plight and erasing their identity and their collective memory of 
> Palestine.
> 
> When later in the class the subject arose of Israel ending the 
> occupation, this same woman spoke up to object that, if Israel did 
give 
> up control over the West Bank and Gaza, it would be economically 
> disadvantaged, at least in the agricultural sector. "Wouldn't this 
> leave Israel as just a desert?" she wondered. Apart from the fact 
that 
> the answer is a clear "no" (Israel's agricultural capability inside 
its 
> 1967 borders is quite high, and most of Israel is not desert), the 
> woman's question was again based on the automatic assumption that 
> Israel's interests take precedence over those of anyone else and 
that, 
> in order to enhance its own agricultural economy (or, presumably, 
for 
> any other perceived gain), Israel has the right to conquer and take 
> permanent possession of another people's land.
> 
> The notion that the Jewish/Zionist state of Israel has a greater 
right 
> to possess the land, or a greater right to security, or a greater 
right 
> to a thriving economy, than the people who are native to that land 
is 
> extremely racist, but this woman would probably object strenuously 
to 
> having it pointed out that this is a Jewish supremacist viewpoint 
> identical to past justifications for white South Africa's apartheid 
> regime and to the rationale for all European colonial (racist) 
systems 
> that exploited the human and natural resources of Africa, the 
Middle 
> East, and Asia over the centuries for the sole benefit of the 
> colonizers. Racism must necessarily be blind to its own immorality; 
the 
> burden of conscience is otherwise too great. This is the banality 
of 
> evil.
> 
> (Unconsciously, of course, many Americans also seem to believe that 
> the shameful policies of the U.S. government toward Native 
Americans 
> somehow make it acceptable for the government of Israel to pursue 
> equally shameful policies toward the Palestinians. The U.S. needs 
to 
> face its racist policies head on as much as it needs to confront 
the 
> racism of its foremost partner, Israel.)
> 
> This woman's view is so very typical, something you hear constantly 
in 
> casual conversation and casual encounters at social occasions, that 
it 
> hardly seems significant. But this very banality is precisely the 
evil 
> of it; what is evil is the very fact that it is "hardly 
significant" 
> that Zionism by its nature is racist and that this reality goes 
> unnoticed by decent people who count themselves defenders of 
Israel. 
> The universal acceptability of a system that is at heart racist but 
> proclaims itself to be benign, even noble, and the license this 
> acceptability gives Israel to oppress another people, are striking 
> testimony to the selectivity of the human conscience and its 
general 
> disinterest in human questions of justice and human rights except 
when 
> these are politically useful.
> 
> Countering the Counter-Arguments
> 
> To put some perspective on this issue, a few clarifying questions 
must 
> be addressed. Many opponents of the occupation would argue that, 
> although Israel's policies in the occupied territories are racist 
in 
> practice, they are an abuse of Zionism and that racism is not 
inherent 
> in it. This seems to be the position of several prominent 
commentators 
> who have recently denounced Israel severely for what it does in the 
> West Bank and Gaza but fail to recognize the racism in what Israel 
did 
> upon its establishment in 1948. In a recent bitter denunciation of 
> Zionist policies today, Avraham Burg, a former Knesset speaker, 
> lamented that Zionism had become corrupted by ruling as an occupier 
> over another people, and he longed for the days of Israel's youth 
when 
> "our national destiny" was "as a light unto the nations and a 
society 
> of peace, justice and equality." These are nice words, and it is 
> heartening to hear credible mainstream Israelis so clearly 
denouncing 
> the occupation, but Burg's assumption that before the occupation 
> Zionism followed "a just path" and always had "an ethical 
leadership" 
> ignores the unjust and unethical policy of ethnic cleansing that 
> allowed Israel to become a so-called Jewish democracy in the first 
> place.
> 
> Acknowledging the racist underpinnings of an ideology so long held 
up 
> as the embodiment of justice and ethics appears to be impossible 
for 
> many of the most intellectual of Israelis and Israeli defenders. 
Many 
> who strongly oppose Israel's policies in the occupied territories 
> still, despite their opposition, go through considerable contortions 
to 
> "prove" that Israel itself is not racist. Rabbi Michael Lerner, 
editor 
> of the Jewish magazine Tikkun and a long-time opponent of the 
> occupation, rejects the notion that Zionism is racist on the narrow 
> grounds that Jewishness is only a religious identity and that 
Israel 
> welcomes Jews of all races and ethnicities and therefore cannot be 
> called racist. But this confuses the point. Preference toward a 
> particular religion, which is the only aspect of racism that Lerner 
has 
> addressed and which he acknowledges occurs in Israel, is no more 
> acceptable than preference on ethnic grounds.
> 
> But most important, racism has to do primarily with those 
> discriminated against, not with those who do the discriminating. 
Using 
> Lerner's reasoning, apartheid South Africa might also not be 
considered 
> racist because it welcomed whites of all ethnicities. But its 
inherent 
> evil lay in the fact that its very openness to whites discriminated 
> against blacks. Discrimination against any people on the basis of 
> "race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin" is the major 
> characteristic of racism as the UN defines it. Discrimination 
against 
> Palestinians and other non-Jews, simply because they are not Jews, 
is 
> the basis on which Israel constitutes itself. Lerner seems to 
believe 
> that, because the Palestinian citizens of Israel have the vote and 
are 
> represented in the Knesset, there is no racial or ethnic 
discrimination 
> in Israel. But, apart from skipping over the institutional racism 
that 
> keeps Palestinian Israelis in perpetual second-class citizenship, 
this 
> argument ignores the more essential reality that Israel reached its 
> present ethnic balance, the point at which it could comfortably 
allow 
> Palestinians to vote without endangering its Jewish character, only 
> because in 1948 three-quarters of a million Palestinians were forced 
to 
> leave what became the Jewish state of Israel.
> 
> More questions need to be addressed. Is every Israeli or every Jew 
a 
> racist? Most assuredly not, as the examples of Jeff Halper, Haim 
> Hanegbi, Meron Benvenisti, and many others like them strikingly 
> illustrate. Is every Zionist a racist? Probably not, if one accepts 
> ignorance as an exonerating factor. No doubt the vast majority of 
> Israelis, most very good-hearted people, are not consciously racist 
but 
> "go along" unquestioningly, having been born into or moved to an 
> apparently democratic state and never examined the issue closely, 
and 
> having bought into the line fed them by every Israeli government 
from 
> the beginning, that Palestinians and other Arabs are enemies and 
that 
> whatever actions Israel takes against Palestinians are necessary to 
> guarantee the personal security of Israelis.
> 
> Is it anti-Semitic to say that Zionism is a racist system? 
Certainly 
> not. Political criticism is not ethnic or religious hatred. Stating 
a 
> reality about a government's political system or its political 
conduct 
> says nothing about the qualities of its citizens or its friends. 
Racism 
> is not a part of the genetic makeup of Jews, any more than it was a 
> part of the genetic makeup of Germans when Hitler ran a racist 
regime. 
> Nor do Zionism's claim to speak for all Jews everywhere and 
Israel's 
> claim to be the state of all Jews everywhere make all Jews 
Zionists. 
> Zionism did not ask for or receive the consent of universal Jewry 
to 
> speak in its name; therefore labeling Zionism as racist does not 
label 
> all Jews and cannot be called anti-Semitic.
> 
> Why It Matters
> 
> Are there other racist systems, and are there governing systems and 
> political philosophies, racist or not, that are worse than Zionism? 
Of 
> course, but this fact does not relieve Zionism of culpability. 
(Racism 
> obviously exists in the United States and in times past was 
pervasive 
> throughout the country, but, unlike Israel, the U.S. is not a 
racist 
> governing system, based on racist foundations and depending for its 
> raison d'etre on a racist philosophy.) Many defenders of Israel 
> (Michael Lerner and columnist Thomas Friedman come to mind) contend 
> that when Israel is "singled out" for criticism not also leveled at 
> oppressive regimes elsewhere, the attackers are exhibiting a 
special 
> hatred for Jews. Anyone who does not also criticize Saddam Hussein 
or 
> Kim Jong Il or Bashar al-Assad for atrocities far greater than 
> Israel's, they charge, is showing that he is less concerned to 
uphold 
> absolute values than to tear down Israel because it is Jewish. But 
this 
> charge ignores several factors that demand criticism of Zionist 
racism. 
> First, because the U.S. government supports Zionism and its racist 
> policy on a continuing basis and props up Zionism's military 
machine 
> with massive amounts of military aid, it is wholly appropriate for 
> Americans (indeed, it is incumbent on Americans) to call greater 
> attention to Zionism's racism than, for instance, to North Korea's 
> appalling cruelties. The United States does not assist in North 
Korea's 
> atrocities, but it does underwrite Zionism's brutality.
> 
> There is also a strong moral reason for denouncing Zionism as 
racist. 
> Zionism advertises itself, and actually congratulates itself, as a 
> uniquely moral system that stands as a "light unto the nations," 
> putting itself forward as in a real sense the very embodiment of 
the 
> values Americans hold dear. Many Zionist friends of Israel would 
have 
> us believe that Zionism is us, and in many ways it is: most 
Americans, 
> seeing Israelis as "like us," have grown up with the notion that 
Israel 
> is a noble enterprise and that the ideology that spawned it is of 
the 
> highest moral order. Substantial numbers of Americans, non-Jews as 
well 
> as Jews, feel an emotional and psychological bond with Israel and 
> Zionism that goes far beyond the ties to any other foreign ally. 
One 
> scholar, describing the U.S.-Israeli tie, refers to Israel as part 
of 
> the "being" of the United States. Precisely because of the intimacy 
of 
> the relationship, it is imperative that Zionism's hypocrisy be 
exposed, 
> that Americans not give aid and comfort to, or even remain 
associated 
> with, a morally repugnant system that uses racism to exalt one 
people 
> over all others while masquerading as something better than it is. 
The 
> United States can remain supportive of Israel as a nation without 
any 
> longer associating itself with Israel's racism.
> 
> Finally, there are critical practical reasons for acknowledging 
> Zionism's racism and enunciating a U.S. policy clearly opposed to 
> racism everywhere and to the repressive Israeli policies that arise 
> from Zionist racism. Now more than at any time since the United 
States 
> positioned itself as an enthusiastic supporter of Zionism, U.S. 
> endorsement, and indeed facilitation, of Israel's racist policies 
put 
> this country at great risk for terrorism on a massive scale. 
Terrorism 
> arises, not as President Bush would have us believe from "hatred of 
our 
> liberties," but from hatred of our oppressive, killing policies 
> throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, and in a major way from our 
> support for Israel's severe oppression of the Palestinians. 
Terrorism 
> is never acceptable, but it is explainable, and it is usually 
> avoidable. Supporting the oppression of Palestinians that arises 
from 
> Israel's racism only encourages terrorism.
> 
> It is time to begin openly expressing revulsion at the racism 
against 
> Palestinians that the United States has been supporting for decades. 
It 
> is time to sound an alarm about the near irreversibility of 
Israel's 
> absorption of the occupied territories into Israel, about the fact 
that 
> this arises from a fundamentally racist ideology, about the fact 
that 
> this racism is leading to the ethnicide of an entire nation of 
people, 
> and about the fact that it is very likely to produce horrific 
terrorist 
> retaliation against the U.S. because of its unquestioning support. 
Many 
> who are intimately familiar with the situation on the ground are 
> already sounding an alarm, usually without using the word racism 
but 
> using other inflammatory terms. Israeli commentator Ran HaCohen 
> recently observed that "Israel's atrocities have now intensified to 
an 
> extent unimaginable in previous decades." Land confiscation, 
curfew, 
> the "gradual pushing of Palestinians from areas designated for 
Jews" 
> have accompanied the occupation all along, he wrote, but the level 
of 
> oppression now "is quite another story.[This is] an eliminationist 
> policy on the verge of genocide."
> 
> The Foundation for Middle East Peace, a Washington-based 
institution 
> that has tracked Israeli settlement-building for decades, came to 
much 
> the same conclusion, although using less attention-getting language, 
in 
> its most recent bimonthly newsletter. Israel, it wrote, is 
"undertaking 
> massive, unprecedented efforts beyond the construction of new 
> settlement housing, which proceeds apace, to put the question of 
its 
> control of these areas beyond the reach of diplomacy." Israel's 
> actions, particularly the "relentless" increase in territorial 
control, 
> the foundation concluded, have "compromised not only the prospect 
for 
> genuine Palestinian independence but also, in ways not seen in 
Israel's 
> 36-year occupation, the very sustainability of everyday Palestinian 
> life."
> 
> It signals a remarkable change when Israeli commentators and 
normally 
> staid foundations begin using terms like "unprecedented," 
"unimaginable 
> in previous decades," "in ways not seen in Israel's 36-year 
> occupation," even words like "eliminationist" and "genocide." While 
the 
> Bush administration, every Democratic presidential candidate 
> (including, to some degree, even the most progressive), Congress, 
and 
> the mainstream U.S. media blithely ignore the extent of the 
destruction 
> in Palestine, more and more voices outside the United States and 
> outside the mainstream in the U.S. are finally coming to recognize 
that 
> Israel is squeezing the life out of the Palestinian nation. Those 
who 
> see this reality should begin to expose not only the reality but 
the 
> racism that is at its root.
> 
> Some very thoughtful Israelis, including Haim Hanegbi, Meron 
> Benvenisti, and activists like Jeff Halper, have come to the 
conclusion 
> that Israel has absorbed so much of the occupied territories that a 
> separate, truly independent Palestinian state can never be 
established 
> in the West Bank and Gaza. They now regard a binational solution as 
the 
> only way. In theory, this would mean an end to Zionism (and Zionist 
> racism) by allowing the Jewish and the Palestinian peoples to form 
a 
> single secular state in all of Palestine in which they live together 
in 
> equality and democracy, in which neither people is superior, in 
which 
> neither people identifies itself by its nationality or its religion 
but 
> rather simply by its citizenship. Impossible? Idealized? Pie-in-the-
> sky? Probably so but maybe not.
> 
> Other Israeli and Jewish activists and thinkers, such as Israel's 
Uri 
> Avnery and CounterPunch contributor Michael Neumann, have cogently 
> challenged the wisdom and the realism of trying to pursue 
binationalism 
> at the present time. But it is striking that their arguments center 
on 
> what will best assure a decent outcome for Palestinians. In fact, 
what 
> is most heartening about the newly emerging debate over the one- 
versus 
> the two-state solution is the fact that intelligent, compassionate 
> people have at long last been able to move beyond addressing Jewish 
> victimhood and how best to assure a future for Jews, to begin 
debating 
> how best to assure a future for both the Palestinian and the Jewish 
> people. Progressives in the U.S., both supporters and opponents of 
> present U.S. policies toward Israel, should encourage similar debate 
in 
> this country. If this requires loudly attacking AIPAC and its 
> intemperate charges of anti-Semitism, so be it.
> 
> We recently had occasion to raise the notion of Israeli racism, 
using 
> the actual hated word, at a gathering of about 25 or 30 (mostly) 
> progressive (mostly) Jews, and came away with two conclusions: 1) it 
is 
> a hard concept to bring people to face, but 2) we were not run out 
of 
> the room and, after the initial shock of hearing the word racist 
used 
> in connection with Zionism, most people in the room, with only a 
few 
> exceptions, took the idea aboard. Many specifically thanked us for 
what 
> we had said. One man, raised as a Jew and now a Muslim, came up to 
us 
> afterward to say that he thinks Zionism is nationalist rather than 
> racist (to which we argued that nationalism was the motivation but 
> racism is the resulting reality), but he acknowledged, with 
apparent 
> approbation, that referring to racism had a certain shock effect. 
Shock 
> effect is precisely what we wanted. The United States' complacent 
> support for everything Israel does will not be altered without 
shock.
> 
> When a powerful state kills hundreds of civilians from another 
ethnic 
> group; confiscates their land; builds vast housing complexes on 
that 
> land for the exclusive use of its own nationals; builds roads on 
that 
> land for the exclusive use of its own nationals; prevents expansion 
of 
> the other people's neighborhoods and towns; demolishes on a massive 
> scale houses belonging to the other people, in order either to 
prevent 
> that people's population growth, to induce them "voluntarily" to 
leave 
> their land altogether, or to provide "security" for its own 
nationals; 
> imprisons the other people in their own land behind checkpoints, 
> roadblocks, ditches, razor wire, electronic fences, and concrete 
walls; 
> squeezes the other people into ever smaller, disconnected segments 
of 
> land; cripples the productive capability of the other people by 
> destroying or separating them from their agricultural land, 
destroying 
> or confiscating their wells, preventing their industrial expansion, 
and 
> destroying their businesses; imprisons the leadership of the other 
> people and threatens to expel or assassinate that leadership; 
destroys 
> the security forces and the governing infrastructure of the other 
> people; destroys an entire population's census records, land 
registry 
> records, and school records; vandalizes the cultural headquarters 
and 
> the houses of worship of the other people by urinating, defecating, 
and 
> drawing graffiti on cultural and religious artifacts and symbols ­ 
when 
> one people does these things to another, a logical person can draw 
only 
> one conclusion: the powerful state is attempting to destroy the 
other 
> people, to push them into the sea, to ethnically cleanse them.
> 
> These kinds of atrocities, and particularly the scale of the 
> repression, did not spring full-blown out of some terrorist 
> provocations by Palestinians. These atrocities grew out of a 
political 
> philosophy that says whatever advances the interests of Jews is 
> acceptable as policy. This is a racist philosophy.
> 
> What Israel is doing to the Palestinians is not genocide, it is not 
a 
> holocaust, but it is, unmistakably, ethnicide. It is, unmistakably, 
> racism. Israel worries constantly, and its American friends worry, 
> about the destruction of Israel. We are all made to think always 
about 
> the existential threat to Israel, to the Jewish people. But the 
nation 
> in imminent danger of elimination today is not Israel but the 
> Palestinians. Such a policy of national destruction must not be 
allowed 
> to stand.
> 
> -----
> 
> * Assuming, according to the scenario put forth by our Israeli-
> American friend, that Palestinians had accepted the UN-mandated 
> establishment of a Jewish state in 1948, that no war had ensued, 
and 
> that no Palestinians had left Palestine, Israel would today 
encompass 
> only the 55 percent of Palestine allocated to it by the UN 
partition 
> resolution, not the 78 percent it possessed after successfully 
> prosecuting the 1948 war. It would have no sovereignty over 
Jerusalem, 
> which was designated by the UN as a separate international entity 
not 
> under the sovereignty of any nation. Its 5.4 million Jews (assuming 
the 
> same magnitude of Jewish immigration and natural increase) would be 
> sharing the state with approximately five million Palestinians 
> (assuming the same nine-fold rate of growth among the 560,000 
> Palestinians who inhabited the area designated for the Jewish state 
as 
> has occurred in the Palestinian population that actually remained 
in 
> Israel in 1948). Needless to say, this small, severely overcrowded, 
> binational state would not be the comfortable little Jewish 
democracy 
> that our friend seems to have envisioned.
> 
> Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis 
> side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as 
> National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of 
> Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, 
Southeast 
> Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was 
Director 
> of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-
person 
> unit.
> 
> Kathleen Christison also worked in the CIA, retiring in 1979. Since 
> then she has been mainly preoccupied by the issue of Palestine. She 
is 
> the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of 
Dispossession.
> 
> They are also contributors to CounterPunch's hot new book: The 
> Politics of Anti-Semitism.
> 
> The Christison's can be reached at: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weekend Edition Features for Oct. 25 / 26, 2003
> 
> Saul Landau
> Cui Bono? The Cuba Embargo as Rip Off
> 
> Noam Chomsky
> Empire of the Men of Best Quality
> 
> Bruce Jackson
> Midge Decter and the Taxi Driver
> 
> Brian Cloughley
> "Mow the Whole Place Down"
> 
> John Stanton
> The Pentagon's Love Affair with Land Mines
> 
> William S. Lind
> Bush's Bizarre Korean Gambit
> 
> Ben Tripp
> The Brown Paste on Bush's Shoes
> 
> Christopher Brauchli
> Divine Hatred
> 
> Dave Zirin
> An Interview with John Carlos
> 
> Agustin Velloso
> Oil in Equatorial Guinea: Where Trickle Down Doesn't Trickle
> 
> Josh Frank
> Howard Dean and Affirmative Action
> 
> Ron Jacobs
> Standing Up to El Diablo: the 1981 Blockade of Diablo Canyon
> 
> Strickler / Hermach
> Liar, Liar Forests on Fire
> 
> David Vest
> Jimmy T99 Nelson, a Blues Legend and the Songs that Made Him Famous
> 
> Adam Engel
> America, What It Is
> 
> Dr. Susan Block
> Christy Canyon, a Life in Porn
> 
> Poets' Basement
> Greeder, Albert & Guthrie
> 
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the 
Gambia-L Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> 
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.
org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> 

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the 
Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.
org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤