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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤