Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Should We Support Israel?

Expand Messages
  • World View
    SHOULD PEOPLE OPPOSED TO BIGOTRY AND ANTI-SEMITISM SUPPORT ISRAEL? by John Spritzler February 6, 2005 [newdemocracyworld.org]
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 4, 2005
      SHOULD PEOPLE OPPOSED TO BIGOTRY AND ANTI-SEMITISM SUPPORT ISRAEL?
      by John Spritzler
      February 6, 2005
      [newdemocracyworld.org]

      http://newdemocracyworld.org/War/Should-People.htm ]

      (This article was originally published by AxisofLogic.org at
      http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_15281.shtml )

      "Ben-Gurion, argued: "If I knew that it would be possible to save
      all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and
      only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt
      for the second alternative. For we must take into account not only
      the lives of these children but also the history of the people of
      Israel."

      "Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential
      nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders,
      an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest."

      "Einstein had asked him: 'What about the Arabs if Palestine were
      given to the Jews?' And Weizman said: 'What Arabs? They are hardly
      of any consequence.'"

      Rabbi Wise in the United States and Chaim Weizmann in Europe gave
      top priority not to saving European Jewry, but to ensuring the
      future existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, a project that was
      never in fact, or even believed by Zionist leaders to be, a
      potential salvation of Europe's Jews.

      Zionism is interested in seeing to it that the Jews suffer, so that
      they will leave their homes and come to Israel. This is why each
      glimmer of anti-Semitism fills the hearts of Zionists with relief.
      Zionism needs Jews in order to boost the Jewish population and
      military strength of Israel, not for their own sake ...

      Many people, despite knowing that Palestinians got the wrong end of
      the stick when the Jewish state of Israel was carved out of their
      country, support Israel for one reason: they oppose bigotry and
      especially anti-Semitism which led to the Holocaust and the deaths
      of more than five million European Jews. The dogma of Zionism has
      been established in the minds of many: If one hates bigotry and anti-
      Semitism then one must support the idea of a Jewish state and
      everything necessary to ensure its existence in the face of its
      enemies, no matter the consequences.

      But this Zionist dogma is both morally and practically wrong. It is
      wrong for two fundamental reasons.

      * The project of a Jewish state in Palestine -- by which the Zionist
      movement means a state in which Jews must always be a large
      majority, and in which only Jews constitute the ultimate sovereign
      authority -- is based on discrimination against Palestinians. This
      is why sincere Jewish leaders like Albert Einstein opposed a Jewish
      state.

      * Jewish leaders of the Zionist movement, in their drive to
      establish and strengthen a Jewish state, have systematically
      betrayed ordinary Jews, especially during the Holocaust, with crimes
      that deserve to be labeled anti-Semitic. The real reason these
      Zionist leaders want the Jewish state of Israel to exist is because
      it enables them to be a powerful and privileged elite, at the
      expense of everybody else, both Jews and non-Jews.



      One Doesn't Win the Fight Against Bigotry With More Bigotry

      Albert Einstein, on April 17, 1938, in a speech at the Commodore
      Hotel in New York City, said:

      "I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the
      basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish
      state. Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the
      essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with
      borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how
      modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain --
      especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our
      own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even
      without a Jewish state." [1]

      In January, 1946, in a reply to the question of whether refugee
      settlement in Palestine demanded a Jewish state, Einstein told the
      Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,

      "The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand
      why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-minded and economic
      obstacles. I believe it is bad. I have always been against it." [2]

      On December 4, 1948 Einstein, Hanna Arendt and a number of other
      eminent Jews co-signed a letter to the New York Times on the
      occasion of (future Israeli prime minister) Menachem Begin's visit
      to the United States. The letter began as follows:

      "Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the
      emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom
      Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its
      organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the
      Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and
      following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing,
      chauvinist organization in Palestine.

      "The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the
      United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of
      American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and
      to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the
      United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their
      names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who
      oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr.
      Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and
      support to the movement he represents."

      Alfred M. Lilienthal, in What Price Israel? , recounts that on April
      1, 1952, in a message to the Children of Palestine, Inc.,
      Einstein "spoke of the necessity to curb 'a kind of nationalism'
      which has arisen in Israel 'if only to permit a friendly and
      fruitful co-existence with the Arabs.'" Lilienthal also relates a
      personal conversation with Einstein: "Dr Einstein told me that,
      strangely enough, he had never been a Zionist and had never favored
      the creation of the State of Israel. Also, he told me of a
      significant conversation with [Chaim] Weizmann [leader of the World
      Zionist Organization.] Einstein had asked him: 'What about the Arabs
      if Palestine were given to the Jews?' And Weizman said: 'What Arabs?
      They are hardly of any consequence.'" [3]

      Judah Magnes, the first Chancellor of Israel's Hebrew University,
      opposed the "Jewish state" idea because, as he expressed it in his
      diary in 1942, "The slogan 'Jewish state' (or commonwealth) is
      equivalent, in effect, to a declaration of war by the Jews on the
      Arabs." [4]

      For Zionist leaders, contempt for Arabs was at the core of their
      outlook, because they understood perfectly well that they were
      leading an unprovoked attack on Palestinians which could only be
      justified by demeaning Palestinians as less than fully human.
      Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, told the Political
      Committee of his party, Mapai, in 1938,

      "When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend
      ourselves -- that is only half the truth. As regards our security
      and life we defend ourselves...But the fighting is only one aspect
      of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And
      politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." [5]

      Not only was the Zionist project an unprovoked attack on
      Palestinians, it was an attack which, contrary to popular belief,
      did not in any way represent a serious effort to save Jews from
      European anti-Semitism. This will become more clear when we look at
      the role of Zionist leaders in betraying Jews during and after the
      Holocaust. For now, suffice it to say that Jews at this time had no
      particular need to go to Palestine as opposed to seeking safety in
      other parts of the world, and many who did go there would rather
      have gone elsewhere but were prevented from doing so by Zionist
      leaders. Indeed, from the American-occupied Displaced Persons camps
      in Germany, Zionists forcibly drafted 7,800 Jews who did not want to
      immigrate to Palestine, and shipped them to Palestine against their
      will to fight in the Israeli military in 1948.[6]

      Furthermore, what Jews during the years of Nazi rule did need, had
      absolutely nothing to do with their Zionist leaders' pre-occupation
      with creating a Jewish state in Palestine. Underdeveloped Palestine,
      the size of New Jersey, was incapable of absorbing anything more
      than a tiny fraction of the European Jewish population threatened by
      Hitler. The Zionist leadership quite consciously had no plan to save
      European Jewry at all, and they admitted that Palestine was no
      solution. Thus, the World Zionist Organization's head, Chaim
      Weizmann, told the British Peel Commission in 1937 that he knew
      backward Palestine could not sustain all of Europe's Jews and that
      he therefore only wanted Britain to admit two million young Jews
      into Palestine. Weizmann then told the Zionist Congress later that
      year,

      "The old ones will pass; they will bear their fate, or they will
      not. They were dust, economic and moral dust, in a cruel world ...
      Two millions, and perhaps less; "Scheerith Hapleta" – only a branch
      will survive. They had to accept it. The rest they must leave to the
      future – to their youth. If they feel and suffer, they will find the
      way, "Beacharith Hajamin" [at the end of times]." [7]

      A realistic attempt to save European Jewry from Hitler would have
      involved, among other things, opening the closed doors to Jewish
      immigration, especially in the United States, and rescue operations
      in Europe. But the Zionist leadership did not do, or even genuinely
      attempt to do, what was required to succeed in these crucial areas.
      Zionist ideological opposition to rescue efforts will be examined
      below. What about opening America up to Jewish immigration?
      America's most prominent Zionist leader, Rabbi Stephen Wise, did
      indeed publicly expose the crimes of the Nazis, but he never
      publicly exposed President Roosevelt's crime of enforcing rather
      than changing America's restrictive immigration laws that consigned
      European Jews to their death (nor did he expose FDR's crime of
      failing to carry out rescue operations in Europe.) One can speculate
      about Wise's motives, but the fact is that a serious campaign to
      educate Americans about the plight of the Jews and the need for
      allowing them to enter the United States would have mobilized the
      very people that constituted Roosevelt's electoral base -- Americans
      who viewed FDR as the man who would make the country more equal,
      democratic and just. Roosevelt would have been under tremendous
      pressure to yield on this issue had Zionist leaders boldly and
      publicly confronted him on it and exposed his role in denying
      European Jews a haven in the U.S. American Zionists had the money,
      the control or access to the mass media, and the organizational
      skills to do this. But Rabbi Wise in the United States and Chaim
      Weizmann in Europe gave top priority not to saving European Jewry,
      but to ensuring the future existence of a Jewish state in Palestine,
      a project that was never in fact, or even believed by Zionist
      leaders to be, a potential salvation of Europe's Jews.

      Therefore, the claim by Zionists that the Holocaust required them to
      take over Palestine for the Jews to survive is just not true.
      Israeli leaders justify everything Israel does to Palestinians in
      the name of security, but it is only the security of a Jewish state
      based on discrimination against Palestinians, not the security of
      Jewish people who want to live as equals among non-Jews throughout
      the world, which motivates Israeli leaders. The pro-Zionist Israeli
      historian, Benny Morris, describes how "security" came to have this
      narrow meaning in Zionist discourse from the earliest years before
      the birth of the state of Israel, when the Zionist movement
      organized Jews to move to Palestine with the ultimate goal of making
      it a Jewish state.

      "Zionist ideology and practice were necessarily and elementally
      expansionist. Realizing Zionism meant organizing and dispatching
      settlement groups to Palestine. As each settlement took root, it
      became acutely aware of its isolation and vulnerability, and quite
      naturally sought the establishment of new Jewish settlements around
      it. This would make the original settlement more 'secure' -- but the
      new settlements now became the 'front line' and themselves
      needed 'new' settlements to safeguard them...Last, Zionism was
      politically expansionist in the sense that from the start, its aim
      was to turn all of Palestine (and in the movement's pre-1921 maps,
      the East Bank of the Jordan and the area south of the Litani River
      as well) into a Jewish state."

      Morris doesn't write very much about how the early settlements
      bought land from wealthy absentee Arab landowners and then evicted
      the local farmers who had lived there for generations. Nor does he
      dwell on the fact that Zionism was in principle opposed to Jewish
      businesses hiring non-Jewish labor whenever it could be avoided. On
      some points, however, Morris is quite candid.

      In a famous interview with Ha'aretz newspaper, Morris discusses how
      David Ben-Gurion deliberately "transferred" the Arab population out
      of Israel's new borders during the years from 1947 to 1949:

      BM: "Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that
      there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab
      minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be
      able to exist."

      Ha'aretz: "I don't hear you condemning him."

      BM: "Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a
      state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is
      impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a
      Jewish state would not have arisen here."

      This uprooting of the Palestinians was a crime against humanity
      under international law. It was bigotry on a massive scale. The
      Zionist (after May of 1948, Israeli) military forced at gunpoint or
      intimidated (especially as word spread of Israeli massacres of
      Palestinians in villages like Deir Yassin) approximately 750,000
      Palestinians (nearly all of those who lived inside what became the
      new state of Israel) into leaving their villages and towns of many
      generations. All of this was done in the name of "security," but for
      the security of a project in which, as David Ben-Gurion stated, the
      Zionists "are the aggressors and they [the Palestinians] defend
      themselves." And Israel today persists in the bigotry, employing
      the same excuse of "security." Israel refuses to allow the
      approximately four million Palestinian refugees to return to Israel-
      proper (i.e., the land inside the 1948 borders of Israel) where they
      or their forebears lived and owned property (subsequently
      confiscated by Israel) before fleeing in fear for their lives in the
      1947-9 years of violence and warfare which preceded and immediately
      followed the founding of the state of Israel.

      Ordinarily, when people flee their place of residence for their
      safety, the government allows them to return and retain possession
      of their land and other property. Thus, in 1991 when 50% of the
      mainly Jewish population of the city of Tel Aviv fled that city in
      fear of Iraqi SCUD missiles, the Israeli government did not bar them
      from returning later, nor did it confiscate their land and other
      property. Both the Palestinian refugees who fled for their lives in
      1947-9 and the Tel Aviv residents who fled for their lives in 1991
      were accused by Israeli officials of being disloyal to the state of
      Israel. Still, the Jews were allowed to return after 1991 but the
      non-Jews are still barred from returning after their flight for
      safety in 1947-9. The reason is simple. The state of Israel is
      officially committed to keeping a majority Jewish population. The
      Israeli Supreme Court has even ruled that nobody can run for
      membership in the Knesset (parliament) who challenges the idea that
      Israel is a Jewish state or who challenges the principle of
      preserving a Jewish majority. [8]

      Today there are about six million Jewish and one million non-Jewish
      Israeli citizens; of the non-Jewish citizens about 250,000 are
      classified as "present-absentees" (under the Absentees Property Law
      of 1950) in consequence of which they are denied -- forever -- all
      of their property rights which were valid until the creation of the
      Jewish state in 1948. A Jew, however, cannot be classified as
      a "present-absentee" in the Jewish state of Israel. Non-Jews inside
      the Jewish state of Israel are discriminated against in multiple
      ways, some de jure and many de facto. Non-Jews are excluded from
      Jews-only housing and are segregated in Arab villages and towns that
      receive far less from the government than Jewish ones. The
      difference between the Jewish and non-Jewish living environments is
      like the difference between an inner city ghetto in the United
      States and an upscale suburban residential area.

      Any state -- be it a Muslim, Christian, Mormon, Black or White
      state – which, like Israel, defines itself as the state of a
      particular religion, race, or ethnic group must, logically and
      inevitably, discriminate against people within its borders who are
      not of the favored race, religion or ethnicity and deny them their
      full human rights. This is why Israel makes Palestinians prisoners
      inside of refugee camps and inside areas surrounded by military
      checkpoints, why it subjects them to harsh curfews, excludes them
      from Jews-only roads, makes them homeless by destroying their homes
      with bulldozers, robs them of their land, deprives them of their
      livelihoods, orders soldiers to shoot them, keeps them unemployed
      and bars them from reaching medical care. It is the same reason why
      apartheid South Africa treated non-whites so terribly. Doing it in
      the name of religion is no better than doing it in the name of race.

      Israel deflects attention from these fundamental violations of human
      rights by pointing out that it does not implement "petty apartheid":
      non-Jewish Israeli citizens can use the same parks and busses and
      drinking fountains as Jewish citizens. Israel also makes the
      specious argument that, "The French have France and the Germans have
      Germany, so why shouldn't the Jews have a Jewish state?" Pro-Israel
      advocates do not acknowledge the simple fact that when somebody
      becomes a citizen of Germany they are legally a German, but when
      somebody becomes a citizen of Israel they are not legally a Jew, and
      it makes all difference in the world. Nor do they acknowledge that
      four million people, presently in refugee camps, who would otherwise
      be citizens of Israel are denied such citizenship purely because
      they are non-Jews and because of Israeli ethnic cleansing.



      The Root of the Conflict is the Existence of a Jewish State

      World leaders and the western mass media have framed the
      Israel/Palestine conflict in a way that takes, as uncontroversial,
      the premise that there should be a Jewish state of Israel in
      Palestine, the only question being whether or not Israel should
      occupy the remaining parts of Palestine (Gaza, West Bank, East
      Jerusalem) that it seized in the 1967 war and, if so, how should it
      exercise its occupation. In this essentially Zionist framework, the
      goal that good people should strive for is "peace" based,
      presumably, upon some compromise which would secure the existence of
      the Jewish state of Israel and yet have the blessing of Palestinian
      leaders. In this framework Palestinian leaders who are not amenable
      to such a compromise because they oppose the existence of a Jewish
      state in Palestine are, by definition, "extremists" or "militants"
      who, no matter how much support they may have from the Palestinian
      people, cannot be acknowledged as their genuine representatives.

      This "peace is the goal" framework is morally bankrupt. Its premise
      is that a Jewish state, based entirely on bigotry and racial
      discrimination and violent ethnic cleansing, must be preserved at
      all costs. It treats the uprooting of Palestinians and the denial of
      their most basic human rights as the necessary price that must be
      paid (by, as Chaim Weizmann called them, Arabs "hardly of any
      consequence") so that Zionists can have their Jewish state. Compare
      this kind of thinking with the way Americans would react if Zionist
      leaders declared one of the states in the United States, say, New
      Jersey, to be the location of a new Jewish state. (The founder of
      the modern Zionist movement, Theodor Herzl, was ready to accept
      Uganda as the location of the Jewish state, so it's not as if the
      Biblical claim to Palestine is central to the logic of the movement.
      And given the fact that the Holocaust was a not an Arab phenomenon,
      New Jersey is no less logical a choice than Palestine. )

      Imagine the headlines if the Zionists militarily drove the native
      New Jerseyans out of Newark, Atlantic City, Asbury Park, Cherry Hill
      and most other towns and cities in the state and into refugee camps
      on the West Bank of the Delaware River, in other words the state of
      Pennsylvania. Would Americans object when the Zionists seized all of
      the New Jerseyans' "abandoned" property, including not only their
      land and homes but all moveable property, bank accounts, and even
      shares in businesses? What would the pundits say as the Zionists
      made the few Americans who remained in New Jersey second class
      citizens in the new Jewish state? Would they accuse Americans who
      resisted violently of being "terrorists" who opposed "even the
      existence" of a Jewish state? Would newspaper editorials justify the
      expulsion of the Americans by endorsing the arguments offered by the
      Zionists: "We are taking in an equivalent number of Jews from
      Pennsylvania and New York so why don't those Christian states take
      in the Christian American refugees from New Jersey and we'll just
      call it an even swap?" Would there be bi-partisan agreement that
      the Zionists really did have a strong case -- New Jersey, after
      all, is only just a tiny sliver of the whole Christian North
      American continent, so what's the big deal?

      How would good Americans, opposed to anti-Semitism and bigotry,
      respond to the Zionists' argument (and this is, indeed, their
      argument for what they are doing in Palestine!) that everything they
      were doing to the New Jersey natives was necessary because Jews
      cannot live safely as a minority in another country when they merely
      have equal rights? Would Americans familiar with the history of
      nearly six million Jews in the United States say, "Oh, sure, except
      for the Jewish state of New Jersey now, Jews elsewhere in the United
      States have never been truly safe."?

      What would Americans think when they heard the Zionists insist
      that, "No, equal rights are not enough. We Jews need to be the
      sovereign power in our own state with a large Jewish majority,
      because all of you non-Jews are, deep down, anti-Semites."?

      Would the mass media maintain that, in order to be deemed
      a "moderate" and "responsible" American leader one must bless the
      violent expulsion of Americans from their homes in New Jersey, and
      bless the conversion of New Jersey into a virtually Jews-only state
      where only Jews are first class citizens? Would opinion leaders get
      tangled up in trying to explain why the Frenchmen who killed
      occupying Germans during World War II were heroes of the Resistance
      but Americans who kill Jews occupying their former homes in New
      Jersey are evil terrorists?

      After the Jewish state subsequently proceeds to occupy all of
      Pennsylvania and establish armed check points and Jews-only roads
      and military law against Americans, purely for security reasons of
      course, would the mass media declare that the only real question to
      be negotiated is whether the new Jewish state should occupy, besides
      New Jersey, Pennsylvania as well, or whether the Zionists should
      only rule in New Jersey? What would Americans think of a "Peace"
      movement among the Jews in New Jersey which advocated giving
      Pennsylvania back to the United States in exchange for a peace
      agreement that would recognize the new Jewish state in New Jersey
      and deny the human rights (articles 13 and 17 of the Universal
      Declaration of Human Rights, to be specific) of the expelled
      Americans to return to their homes and regain their property?

      How would Americans opposed to bigotry and anti-Semitism react to
      the warnings from the Zionists that, in response to their simple
      desire to have a Jewish state, "just as the French have France and
      the Chinese have China," rampant anti-Semitism was breaking out all
      over the East Coast and therefore all foes of anti-Semitism must
      rally to the defense of the new Jewish state? Would the public buy
      the canard that wanting one's basic human rights not to be violated
      is "anti-Semitism?"

      Simply shifting the location, mentally, away from an Arab one
      reveals what is actually going on in Palestine. Precisely because
      the Zionist project of a Jewish state is so fundamentally based on
      bigotry against Palestinians, it produces the very anti-Jewish anger
      that it then points to as a justification for everything it does --
      exactly as it has used the need for "security" since the earliest
      Zionist settlements. The result -- for anybody who wants to see a
      world based on equality and solidarity and democracy and not
      racial/ethnic fear, mistrust, bigotry and war -- is catastrophic.

      By integrating all Jews in Israel into a society that is entirely
      based on racist principles -- that Jews should live on land taken
      away from non-Jews, that Arab villages should be plowed under and
      made to vanish without a trace, that the state should be for "the
      Jews" rather than for all of its people, and that people should be
      identified as a "problem" merely because they are not Jewish
      (especially if they might become a majority!) -- the Zionist project
      makes Jewish civilians seem to many Palestinians, quite
      understandably, just as culpable in the oppression of Palestinians
      as are Israeli soldiers who carry out the actual violence and
      terror.

      This is so because Israel, like ancient Sparta, is a highly
      militarized society in which virtually all Jews serve in the
      military or serve it indirectly, and opposition by Jews in Israel to
      the Zionist project of a Jewish state (to whatever extent such
      opposition may or may not exist) is not visible to Palestinians.
      (Certainly the Israeli "Peace Movement" does not constitute such
      opposition, since its aim is to preserve the Jewish state with
      a "land for peace" deal.) Zionist leaders have succeeded in
      convincing many Israeli Jews that Palestinians are inherently their
      enemy. (In the next section we will explore why they would want to
      do this.) According to an article in the October 2002 issue of
      Outpost (published by Americans for a Safe Israel), "A recent public
      opinion poll found that more than one-third of Israelis favor the
      transfer of Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza [i.e. the occupied
      territories] to neighboring Arab countries. That figure may rise or
      fall in response to specific events in the months to come, but one
      thing is now undeniably clear: the transfer solution is a serious
      proposition that can no longer be ignored." Another source
      reports, "Polls conducted in February 2002 in Israel demonstrated
      that 46% of respondents supported the transfer of Arabs from Judea,
      Samaria and Gaza, while 60% were inclined towards the transfer of
      Arabs from Israel proper." [9]

      In this context, some Palestinians inevitably draw the conclusion
      that the entire Jewish population of Israel is their enemy, that
      they need to defeat their enemy by any means necessary, and that
      even friendships between Palestinians and Israeli Jews are a form of
      collaboration with the enemy which must be stopped (just as many
      people in WWII France viewed friendships with Germans as
      collaboration.) A scientific poll by the Palestinian Center for
      Policy and Survey Research, conducted September 23-26, 2004, based
      on 1319 adults interviewed face to face in the West Bank (824) and
      the Gaza Strip (495) in 120 randomly selected locations, concluded
      that, "The growing perception of threat and insecurity is reflected
      on attitudes towards armed attacks against Israelis. The poll shows
      a large percentage supporting bombing attacks inside Israel,
      including the Beer Shiva attack of early September which received
      the support of 77%." [10] (See also this author's Right and Wrong
      Responses to Palestinian Suicide Bombers for further discussion of
      this topic.)

      Israel's Zionist leaders do everything possible to make all Jews
      view themselves as, and seem to Palestinians as, the implacable
      enemy of non-Jews in Palestine. Is this Zionist project one that any
      sensible person opposed to bigotry and anti-Semitism would want to
      support? Albert Einstein certainly answered this question with a
      resounding "No." Was he stupid? Was he a "self-hating Jew?" Was he
      an anti-Semite? Or, on the other hand, is it not time for good
      people to reconsider their well-intentioned but misguided reasons
      for supporting the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine?



      The Anti-Semitism of Zionism's Leaders

      It is a common misconception that Zionism is about combating anti-
      Semitism. Yes, Zionists point to anti-Semitism all of the time, and
      even have organizations like the American Anti-Defamation League
      (ADL) whose main purpose is to expose anti-Semitism (which according
      to their twisted logic includes opposition to the existence of a
      Jewish state.) But pointing to anti-Semitism to legitimize the
      Zionist project of a Jewish state is one thing; aiming to defeat
      anti-Semitism (or at least to help Jews defend themselves against
      it) is another thing altogether.

      The founder of the modern Zionist movement, Theodor Herzl, had
      absolutely no intention of defeating anti-Semitism. He wrote in his
      diary in June, 1885, "In Paris, as I have said, I achieved a freer
      attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand
      historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness
      and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism." In 1946 the
      American Zionist Emergency Council re-published Herzl's famous book,
      The Jewish State (originally published in1896) with a brief
      biography of Herzl stating that shortly before writing the famous
      book, "the realization flashed upon Herzl that anti-Semitism was
      deep-rooted in the heart of the people -- so deep, indeed, that it
      was impossible to hope for its disappearance within a measurable
      period of time." [11] In The Jewish State Herzl writes, "The nations
      in whose midst Jews live are all either covertly or openly Anti-
      Semitic" [12] and "Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by
      hour among the nations; indeed, it is bound to increase, because the
      causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed." [13]

      It is noteworthy that Herzl's generalization about all non-Jews (and
      its modern version focused especially on Arabs), regarding them
      without distinction as inalterably anti-Semitic, is one of the last
      surviving derogatory racial/ethnic stereotypes (along with the
      demeaning stereotype of poor southern whites as "Rednecks")
      tolerated by people in the United States who consider themselves to
      be "progressive." Unfortunately, not everybody who quickly condemns
      the KKK's anti-black racism is as quick to condemn the demeaning
      stereotype of Arabs by pro-Zionists or of poor southern whites by
      hip late night TV comedians.

      A typical contemporary expression of this Zionist view of anti-
      Semitism as innate and eternal among non-Jews is the following
      statement by Raffi Bilek, head of the University College (London)
      campus group Friends of Israel, which appeared in The Brown Daily
      Herald on Tuesday, April 9, 2002:

      "So while the Jew is an accepted member of American society today,
      history has shown us time and again (England, 1290; France, 1306;
      Spain, 1492; Germany, 1933-1945) that a previously benign government
      will turn around and try to expel or eradicate its Jewish
      population. In 1948, the State of Israel was created as a definitive
      answer to those who would try again."

      Far from aiming to defeat anti-Semitism, Zionist leaders aim, on
      the contrary, to use anti-Semitism (along with anti-Zionism which
      they lump together with it.) for their purposes. They use it to
      justify their project of a Jewish state. They claim that Jews all
      over the world can never be truly safe unless they have a homeland
      of their own, namely the Jewish state of Israel. Jews, they say,
      cannot live as a minority in other nations, as equals among equals,
      because non-Jews (gentiles) are innately anti-Semitic, and while
      their anti-Semitism may not manifest itself today it might very well
      erupt tomorrow.

      If anti-Semitism were to suddenly vanish from the world overnight,
      it would be a disaster for Zionist leaders. Their Jewish state would
      have no rationale for existing.

      Thus, for Zionism's leaders, it is a terrible thing when Jews and
      non-Jews in Israel/Palestine want to marry each other. God forbid!
      Jewish Israelis and non-Jewish Palestinians do marry each other, not
      in large numbers, but in large enough numbers that the Israeli
      Knesset, on August 1, 2003, felt obliged to enact a law to block
      Palestinians who marry Israelis from becoming Israeli citizens or
      residents. When an Israeli Jew and an Israeli non-Jew decide to get
      married, they are heading down a path made deliberately very
      difficult by Israel's rulers. Israel, by virtue of the Jurisdiction
      of Rabbinical Courts (Marriage and Divorce) Law of 1953, only
      recognizes marriages performed by the official state religious
      courts: the Jewish orthodox Rabbinical, the Islamic Shari'a and the
      Christian Ecclesiastic courts, which do not perform "mixed"
      marriages. A "mixed" couple's marriage, typically performed outside
      of Israel, is not recognized by Israel. Yet despite all of these
      obstacles, there are married couples, consisting of a non-Jewish
      Arab Palestinian and a Jew, in Israel. Each one of these marriages
      puts the lie to the Zionist claim that Arabs are innately anti-
      Semitic..

      Does this mean that, because Zionist leaders fear the end of anti-
      Semitism, they are necessarily anti-Semitic? I will leave this
      abstract logical inference for the reader to ponder. But based on
      the actual historical deeds of Zionist leaders one can make a strong
      case that, indeed, they were in the past, and remain today, anti-
      Semites. Let us walk backwards in time, from recent years back to
      the years of the Holocaust, to see why this is so.

      First, let's see what Zionist leaders did to help Russian Jews who
      feared anti-Semitism in the early 1990's. The Israeli reporter,
      Bo'az Evron, writing in the April 4, 1991 Israeli newspaper, Yediot
      Ahronot, actually described Israel's policy toward Soviet Jews as,
      in his own words, "anti-Semitic":

      "The new Jewish immigrants are, in fact, refugees fleeing a country
      fast falling apart ... Israeli and Zionist emissaries have left no
      stone unturned in prodding the nations of the world to deny entry to
      Jewish refugees, so as to force them to settle in Israel...But this
      means that the nations of the world, at Israel's prodding, have
      consciously embarked upon a policy of discrimination against the
      Jewish refugees. Incontestably, it is an anti-Semitic policy which
      in a different context could not fail to provoke outrage. Only
      because the gates have been locked, and [the Soviet Jews] have
      nowhere else to go, can we celebrate the 'immigration miracle.'

      "If they were guided by the best interests of these Jews, the
      [Israeli] government and the Jewish Agency would seek to open all
      the doors in the world to everyone wishing to leave the USSR... But
      who cares about the best interests of these Jews? They concern
      Shamir and Sharon only insofar as they can populate the settlements,
      or serve as a pretext for grabbing more land in the West Bank, or
      become soldiers in future wars ...

      "Here the great secret of Zionism in the past few generations stands
      revealed. Long ago, Zionism ceased its concern for what is good for
      the Jews. Quite the contrary, Zionism is interested in seeing to it
      that the Jews suffer, so that they will leave their homes and come
      to Israel. This is why each glimmer of anti-Semitism fills the
      hearts of Zionists with relief. Zionism needs Jews in order to boost
      the Jewish population and military strength of Israel, not for their
      own sake ... As human beings, they are of no concern to either the
      State of Israel or the Zionist Movement." [14]

      Now let's step back to the period just after World War II when many
      Jews were in Displaced Persons [DP] camps in Europe trying to make a
      new life for themselves somewhere where they could be safe.
      Conditions in the camps were so bad that survival itself was in
      question. Malnutrition and disease were severe, while shelter and
      heating in the winter were extremely inadequate. Making matters even
      worse for Jews was the fact that anti-Semitic German police raided
      the camps more and more frequently as local government was
      transferred by the Allies to Germans.

      As late as 1948 there were "between 100,000 and 114,000 displaced
      Jews in the American Zone of Germany. From among that group, more
      than 55,000 applications for emigration to the United States had
      been filed by the fall of 1947; and a majority of these people
      specified a preference of going anywhere but Palestine." About this
      time, Rabbi Klausner, a U.S. Army rabbi, gave a report about the
      Jews in the DP camps to "the Zionist-controlled American Jewish
      Conference" in which he stated:

      "I am convinced that the people must be forced to go to
      Palestine...By 'force' I suggest a program...The first step in such
      a program...is the adoption of the principle that it is the
      conviction of the world Jewish community that these people must go
      to Palestine...Those who are not interested are no longer to be
      wards of the Jewish community to be maintained in camps, fed and
      clothed without their having to make any contribution to their own
      subsistence. To effect this program, it becomes necessary for the
      Jewish community at large to reverse its policy and instead of
      creating comforts for the Displaced Persons to make them as
      uncomfortable as possible." [15]

      In 1948 the Zionist military force, the Haganah, tried to recruit
      Jewish DPs to go to Palestine and fight Arabs. At first they tried a
      voluntary recruitment drive, which was a failure, in part
      because "[T]he elevated tensions in the Arab-Jewish conflict
      increased doubts about 'aliyah [immigration to Palestine], and as a
      result, more camp dwellers distanced themselves from the Zionist
      movement, and became reluctant to be drafted or immigrate to
      Palestine." Yehuda Ben-David, the Haganah deputy commander in
      Germany, reported back to his superiors that "the Jews of the camps"
      were, themselves, the problem: "Their acquaintance with Zionist
      values is limited and superficial." In Austria, the Zionist Gordonia-
      Young Maccabean youth movement was charged with recruiting for the
      Haganah and they reported, "the mobilization operation among camp
      Jews is unsuccessful...There are some volunteers among the Romanian
      refugees...but for Polish Jews there is hardly any hope. The
      corruption of these Jews is so great that they are totally
      uninterested in the people's campaign [in Palestine]. Recently, the
      JDC [American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee] began registering
      people who would like to go to America, and hundreds of camp Jews
      have registered." [16]

      Next, the Haganah switched to a compulsory draft, which they were
      able to do because they had the backing of the Americans running the
      camps. In an operation that was "approved by Ben-Gurion" each camp's
      governing body (known by their Yiddish name as the Zentral
      Komitet ) "used all the power it had: Employees were fired,
      residents were evicted from their apartments, others were fined or
      denied the supplementary food rations that the JDC was distributing
      to all camp Jews; others were simply beaten up...Violent incidents
      were numerous. The archives are replete with hundreds of official
      documents describing brutal methods and actions carried out in an
      identical manner in a large number of camps in Germany and Austria,
      taking place mostly between March and August 1948...The archives
      also contain testimony about 'waves of Zionist harassment' in the
      camps..." The compulsory conscription was a success, because in the
      conflict between the Zionists and "thousands of Displaced Persons
      who make immigration plans to target countries other than Palestine"
      there "could only be one winner -- the side capable of using
      institutional violence." [17]

      The Yiddish Bulletin on May 19, 1950 wrote:

      "By pressing for an exodus of Jews from Europe; by insisting that
      Jewish D.P.s do not wish to go to any country outside of Israel; by
      not participating in the negotiations on behalf of the D.P.'s; and
      by refraining from a campaign of their own -- by all this they [the
      Zionists] certainly did not help to open the gates of America for
      Jews. In fact, they sacrificed the interests of living people --
      their brothers and sisters who went through a world of pain -- to
      the politics of their own movement." [18]

      Lastly, let us see what the Zionist leadership did to rescue Jews
      during the actual years of the Holocaust.

      On December 11, 1943, the Jewish Forward, largest Yiddish newspaper
      in the world, criticized the Zionist leaders, writing,

      "The Jewish Conference [a Zionist organization] is alive only when
      there is something in the air which has to do with a Commonwealth in
      Palestine, and it is asleep when it concerns rescue work for the
      Jews in the Diaspora." [19]

      Baruch Kimmerling, in his review of Yosef Grodzinsky's In the Shadow
      of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the
      Aftermath of World War II, writes:

      "Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders vetoed the immigration of
      1,000 orphans, who were in physical and emotional danger as a result
      of the harsh winter of 1945, from the camps in Germany to England,
      where the Jewish community had managed to secure them permits.
      Another group of roughly 500 children of camp inhabitants was
      barred, after Zionist intervention, from reaching France, whose
      rabbinical institutions had offered them safe haven." [20]

      The head of the World Zionist Organization's Zionist Rescue
      Committee in Budapest during the war, Rudolf Kastner, later a
      prominent member of Israel's government under Prime Minister Ben-
      Gurion, collaborated with the Nazis. In the years 1944-45, Kastner
      was made a V.I.P. by the Nazis and not required to wear a yellow
      Star of David because, in exchange for being allowed to hand pick
      1600 prominent Jews, including his own relatives and friends, to
      emigrate to Palestine, he helped Adolf Eichmann lure a half million
      Hungarian and Transylvanian Jews to their death without a fight by
      arranging for phony postcards "from other Jews" to convince them
      that the trains to the death camps were merely taking them to
      be "resettled." The betrayal was especially horrible because
      Eichmann only had "150 men and only a few thousand Hungarian
      soldiers at his disposal" and the Jews, had they known the truth,
      could have easily carried out a mass escape to territory that the
      Nazis did not occupy. These facts came out in a famous 1954 Israeli
      libel trial in which Kastner initially thought he could silence his
      accuser but, as the trial developed and witness after witness came
      forward to confirm the accusations, he began to shift his defense to
      the claim that he had only done what all top Zionist leaders of the
      time advocated. At this point Kastner was "conveniently"
      assassinated by persons unknown. [21]

      Zionist sabotage of rescue efforts was an established policy as
      early as 1942. In a letter to the Times (of London), June 6, 1961,
      Rabbi Dr. Solomon Schonfeld, Chairman of the wartime Rescue
      Committee established by the Chief Rabbi of Britain, describes how
      the Zionist leadership in Great Britain opposed efforts to rescue
      European Jews from the Holocaust. He writes that, contrary to the
      claims that the British government was "largely indifferent to and
      unwilling to take action in defense of the European Jews who were
      being massacred daily by the Nazis in spite of efforts by Zionist
      leaders to persuade the British Foreign Office to rouse itself into
      action on behalf of the victims...My experience in 1942-43 was
      wholly in favour of British readiness to help, openly,
      constructively and totally, and that this readiness met with
      opposition from Zionist leaders who insisted on rescue to Palestine
      as the only acceptable form of help." Rabbi Schonfeld goes on to
      describe how, in December, 1942, he and others formed a Council for
      Rescue from the Nazi Terror which initiated a Parliamentary Rescue
      Committee supported by leading members of both Houses, and how they
      submitted a motion to Parliament calling for the government "to
      declare its readiness to find temporary refuge in its own
      territories or in territories under its control for endangered
      persons who are able to leave those countries; to appeal to the
      governments of countries bordering on enemy and enemy-occupied
      countries to allow temporary asylum and transit facilities for such
      persons; to offer to those governments, so far as practicable, such
      help as may be needed to facilitate their cooperation; and to invite
      the other Allied governments to consider similar action." But this
      is what happened, according to the rabbi's letter:

      "As a result of widespread concern and the persistence of a few,
      this motion achieved within two weeks a total of 277 Parliamentary
      signatures of all parties. This purely humanitarian proposal met
      with sympathy from government circles, and I should add that
      H.M.Government did, in fact, issue some hundreds of Mauritius and
      other immigration permits -- indeed, in favour of any threatened
      Jewish family whom we could name. Already while the Parliamentary
      motion was gathering momentum, voices of dissent were heard from
      Zionist quarters: 'Why not Palestine?' The obvious answers that the
      most urgent concern was humanitarian and not political, that the
      Mufti-Nazi alliance ruled out Palestine for the immediate saving of
      lives and that Britain could not then add to her Middle East
      problems, were of no avail.

      "At the Parliamentary meeting held on January 27, 1943, when the
      next steps were being energetically pursued by over 100 M.P.s and
      Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would
      oppose the motion on the grounds of its omitting to refer to
      Palestine. Some voices were raised in support of the Zionist view,
      there was considerable debate, and thereafter the motion was dead.
      Even the promoters exclaimed in desperation: If the Jews cannot
      agree among themselves, how can we help? It was useless to argue
      with a then current Zionist argument: 'Every nation has had its dead
      in the fight for its homeland -- the sufferers under Hitler are our
      dead in our fight'."

      Why did Zionist leaders sabotage rescue efforts? The answer is
      spelled out very clearly in a dramatic letter. In the autumn of 1942
      Nathan Schwalb (Dror) was representative of the Zionist He-Halutz
      (The Pioneer) organization in Geneva. At this time a Jewish rescue
      Working Group in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, was sending desperate
      appeals to He-Halutz for money to bribe senior Nazi officials to
      delay or prevent the transport of Czechoslovakian Jewry to Auschwitz
      and other death camps. Schwalb replied, in his letter to the rescue
      group, as follows:

      "Since we have the opportunity of this courier, we are writing to
      the group that they must always remember that matter which is the
      most important, which is the main issue that must always be before
      our eyes. After all, the allies will be victorious. After the
      victory, they will once again divide up the world between the
      nations as they did at the end of first war. Then they opened the
      way for us for the first step [the British Balfour Declaration of
      1917 supporting a Jewish homeland in Palestine -- JS] and now, as
      the war ends, we must do everything so that Eretz Yisroel [the Land
      of Israel -- JS] should become a Jewish state. Important steps have
      already been taken in this matter. As to the cry that comes from
      your country, we must be aware that all the nations of the Allies
      are spilling much blood and if we do not bring sacrifices, with what
      will we achieve the right to sit at the table when they make the
      distribution of nations and territories after the war? And so it
      would be foolish and impertinent on our side to ask the nations
      whose blood is being spilled for permission to send money into the
      land of their enemies in order to protect our own blood.
      Because 'rak b'dam tihyu lanu haaretz' ('only through blood will the
      land be ours'). As to yourselves -- members of the group -- 'atem
      taylu' ('you will get out'), and for this purpose we are providing
      you with funds by this courier." [22]

      One might dismiss this cruel letter from Nathan Schwalb as an
      aberration, unrepresentative of the Zionist leadership at higher
      levels. But it turns out that Schwalb was acting in accordance with
      the views of his superiors in the Zionist movement. In his book, In
      Days of Holocaust and Destruction, Yitzchak Greenbaum, Chairman of
      the (Zionist) Jewish Agency's Rescue Committee in Jerusalem,
      wrote, "when they asked me, couldn't you give money out of the
      United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I
      said, 'NO!' and I say again, 'NO!'...one should resist this wave
      which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance." In
      February, 1943, Greenbaum gave a speech in Tel Aviv on the
      subject, "The Diaspora and the Redemption" in which he said:

      "When they come to us with two plans -- the rescue of the masses of
      Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land [settling Jews in
      Palestine -- JS] -- I vote, without a second thought, for the
      redemption of the land...If there would be a possibility today of
      buying packages of food with the money of the Keren Hayesod (United
      Jewish Appeal) to send it through Lisbon, would we do such a thing?
      No! and once again No!" [23]

      Zionism's hostility to Jews trying to survive anywhere other than
      Palestine goes back at least to 1938 when, at a meeting of Labor
      Zionists in Great Britain, David Ben-Gurion, argued: "If I knew that
      it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing
      them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to
      Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative. For we must
      take into account not only the lives of these children but also the
      history of the people of Israel." These are the words of a fanatic,
      obsessed with the dream of becoming a ruler of a "state of his own"
      no matter how many innocent Jewish lives must be sacrificed for that
      end. One might dismiss Ben-Gurion's words about Jewish children as
      merely rhetoric unconnected to real-life decisions, but as we have
      seen, it turns out that Zionist leaders during the Holocaust did
      indeed act in accordance with Ben-Gurion's insistence that Jewish
      lives -- hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives -- are less important
      than achieving a Jewish state. Zionist leaders sabotaged efforts to
      rescue Jews in Europe during the Holocaust because they felt that
      the rescue of Jews threatened their goal of becoming masters of
      a "state of their own."

      Every ethnic/racial group contains individuals who aspire to be part
      of an elite ruling class, enjoying great privileges and power
      over "their own people." The Zionist movement enabled people like
      David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meier, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon,
      among others, to rise in the world and become elite rulers of a
      state which now possesses nuclear weapons and one of the most
      powerful armies in the world. To achieve this end, Zionist leaders
      have sacrificed the welfare of ordinary Jews at every opportunity.
      They point to anti-Semitism (or what they speciously label as anti-
      Semitism) in order to justify a Zionist project which has nothing to
      do with helping ordinary Jews achieve a safe and secure and happy
      life free from real anti-Semitic attacks.

      For some people, the motives for backing the Zionist project are
      purely dishonorable and elitist ones.

      Consider what happened in Israel in 1997. From December 3rd through
      7th, 700,000 Israeli workers mounted a general strike against the
      government. The country was paralyzed, with airports, seaports,
      banks, government offices, state-owned industries and the national
      stock exchange effectively shut down. After the first day of the
      strike, the nation's teachers joined in the walk-out and the
      national journalists' association declared their support for the
      strike. The strike was a response to indications that the Treasury
      was attempting to violate wage and pension agreements signed in 1995
      and 1996. Israeli workers were also protesting government
      privatization plans which would entail large-scale lay-offs. Opposed
      to the strike were not only the Manufacturers Association, the
      Israeli Merchants Association, the Banks Association and the
      national religious party, but also high-ranking Israeli government
      officials, like Finance Minister Yaakov Neeman, who called the
      workers "exploding bombs," alluding to Arab suicide bombers, and
      compared them to "enemies from outside." From the point of view of
      people like the Zionist Finance Minister, it is hard enough to
      control ordinary Jews when they look to the Israeli government to
      protect them from Arabs viewed as an anti-Semitic enemy; it would be
      nearly impossible to control them if they looked upon fellow working
      class Arabs as their equals and friends in a struggle against the
      likes of Finance Minister Yaakov Neeman! For the Israeli Zionist
      elite, the virtue of the Zionist framework is that it makes Israeli
      Jews easier to control. Whether or not it is, properly
      speaking, "anti-Semitism" to want to control and exploit Jews, the
      fact remains that it is a despicable motive no better than anti-
      Semitism.

      By the same token, elite Arab rulers and want-to-be rulers -- be
      they dictators, kings, President's-for-Life or ayatollahs -- can
      control "their own" people more easily if fear and hatred of Jews
      deflects anger away from the Arab elites directly responsible for
      harsh inequality and exploitation of working class Arabs. No doubt
      this tacit awareness, by Arab as well as Jewish leaders, of the
      benefits of Zionism and its "chief export, anti-Semitism" (as one
      Israeli critic of the government put it), goes a long way towards
      explaining why these leaders "fail" to negotiate a just resolution
      of the Israel/Palestine conflict despite "trying" to do so for going
      on five decades now. Furthermore, the fact that only very anti-
      democratic Arab regimes can be relied upon by the United States to
      keep oil wealth out of the hands of the Arab masses, and the fact
      that these regimes can control their people more easily if Israel
      provokes Arab anger, goes a long way towards explaining why the U.S.
      government gives virtually unconditional support to Israel, no
      matter how outrageously Israel provokes Arab hatred.

      To the extent that anti-Semitism and any other kind of bigotry is a
      reality in the world, the solution is to defeat its proponents by
      strengthening those forces in the world who are trying to shape
      society with the opposite values -- equality, commitment to one
      another regardless of race or ethnicity, and democracy. For real
      anti-Semites, a Jewish state based on denying non-Jews their human
      rights is nothing short of a gift.



      It Is No Favor to Jews to Support Israel

      When, in earlier times, Albert Einstein and Judah Magnes opposed the
      idea of a Jewish state, they were absolutely right. But their views
      did not have the backing of wealthy and powerful people who saw the
      Zionist project of a Jewish state and heightened Jewish nationalism
      as valuable instruments of social control in the oil-rich Middle
      East. It was Zionist leaders who were welcomed at the White House in
      the United States, it was Zionist leaders who were "successful" at
      fund raising from America's wealthiest people, it was Zionist
      leaders who wrote the articles about Israel that mass circulation
      magazines and newspapers selectively published, and with these kinds
      of connections and backing it was, not surprisingly, Zionist leaders
      who secured the most influential positions in organized Jewry -- the
      large charity organizations and the synagogues -- where they equated
      Judaism with Zionism; and these Zionist leaders did not care how
      many innocent Jewish and non-Jewish lives would be sacrificed or
      ruined in the ensuing decades of an ethnic war in Israel/Palestine
      that they were so intent on fomenting. Jewish leaders like Einstein
      and Magnes, who had the welfare of ordinary Jews as their concern
      and who believed in the universal values of equality among all human
      beings, were marginalized. That the Zionist project is bad for Jews
      as well as for non-Jews is an idea which, for many decades, has been
      suppressed. It is time good people -- of all faiths -- rediscovered
      it.

      Except for the small number of Jews who want to protect their status
      as an exceptionally powerful elite in a "state of their own," most
      Jews in Israel and elsewhere who support a Jewish state and who
      think a Jewish majority needs to be preserved no matter what the
      cost to non-Jews, do so because of a combination of racism and fear,
      which of course feed each other, and are deliberately promoted by
      Zionist leaders' manipulation of events and racist interpretations
      of them.

      Americans, exposed only to the Zionist framework in virtually all of
      their newspapers, radio and TV stations and even magazines
      from "left" to "right," have been convinced that it is anti-Semitic
      to oppose a Jewish state. They need to understand that a Jewish
      state not only violates the most fundamental human rights of its non-
      Jewish victims, it also is not good for Jews -- no matter what many
      Jews may think. A Jewish state makes ordinary Jews the pawns in a
      game for power played by American, Israeli and Arab elites. A Jewish
      state is making life for most Jews in Israel a living nightmare, one
      in which they never know when they'll be blown up on a bus or in a
      restaurant. A Jewish state must mimic ancient Sparta, forcing its
      citizens to live in a militarized society requiring almost all Jews
      to be soldiers and to view non-Jews as an enemy just because they
      are not Jewish. A Jewish state is one which tries to turn its young
      men and women into people like Israeli Defense Force (IDF)
      Captain "R," who -- after listening to his watchtower guard radio
      him about "a girl of about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared
      to death" running away from IDF soldiers towards her refugee camp in
      Gaza -- emptied his gun's magazine into her body and then
      declared, "Anything moving in the zone, even a three-year-old, needs
      to be killed." A Jewish state produces a Major General Dan Harel,
      the officer responsible for the Gaza Strip, who concluded that the
      captain had "not acted unethically." [23] Americans who support
      their government's pro-Israel foreign policy are not doing Jews a
      favor, not at all, even if Jews who sincerely believe the pro-
      Zionist framework defend Israel passionately.

      Zionist leaders will never offer Jewish people the possibility of
      peace and friendship with their non-Jewish neighbors or (to be
      realistic about the world we live in) the possibility of joining
      with like-minded non-Jews to fight the elites among all racial and
      ethnic groups who use Zionism and other ethnic nationalisms to
      control the good and decent people by pitting them against one
      another for the purpose of securing wealth and power and privilege.
      But the Zionists do offer many Jewish people a bribe: Israeli Jews
      enjoy a middle class standard of living while the Arabs live in
      relative poverty; Jewish settlers get water for their lawns and
      swimming pools while the Arabs go without; and Jews in the United
      States who are loyal to Israel receive praise and admiration from
      America's rulers who love their remarkably useful Israeli ally
      which, behind-the-scenes, does much of the U.S. dirty work, like
      selling arms to Iran during President Reagan's administration, and
      providing arms and counter-insurgency technology to anti-democratic
      regimes in Central and South America as well as apartheid South
      Africa before its fall. Surely, however, Americans who understand
      what is really going on will not consider it a favor to Jews to
      support those who bribe them for such cynical ends.

      Americans have been led to believe that the choice is a Jewish state
      or seeing Jews "driven into the sea." This is nonsense. When the
      apartheid state of South Africa was abolished no whites were driven
      into the sea. In fact, most white South Africans are relieved that
      apartheid is no more, and while opponents of apartheid during its
      reign were routinely accused of being "anti-Christian," today very
      few whites admit to ever having supported the noxious institution.
      Just as there should be no apartheid state of South Africa, there
      should be no Jewish state in Palestine. What there should be instead
      is for the Palestinian people to decide.

      But I will say here what my opinion on the question is. Albert
      Einstein was right in opposing a Jewish state, but he should also
      have opposed the Jewish colonization of Palestine, which he did not.
      The Zionist project was the last European colonization of other
      lands. Europeans have displaced and subjugated natives of the New
      World, Africa, the Middle East and Asia and there is a sense in
      which justice would say they should go back to where they came from.
      It would not be unreasonable if Palestinians adopted this point of
      view, because the invasion and colonization of their land by
      European Jews was an unjustified attack on them which aimed to
      destroy their physical connection to the land and entirely remove
      traces of their culture in it. The descendants of the original
      Jewish settlers, however, having been born in Israel, consider it to
      be their home no less than Americans of European descent consider
      the United States their home. Some readers of this article would say
      that you cannot tell people who are living where they were born that
      they must leave that place and "go back to where they came from."
      But if an extra-terrestrial alien species began colonizing the earth
      and displacing human beings in a manner analogous to the way Jews
      colonized Palestine, I think those same readers would find plenty of
      solid reasons for telling the aliens and their offspring to leave.

      Other readers, however, might respond to the aliens by
      saying, "Look, you can stay, but only if you live with us as equals
      and not as our superiors, and only if you respect our culture.
      Furthermore, only those of you can stay who stand with us against
      the others who insist on being our superiors and on having an Alien
      state where humans are second class citizens." Would it be fair to
      dismiss these latter readers as hopelessly naive and kindhearted to
      a fault? Perhaps. But if so, then it is equally fair to dismiss the
      great majority of Palestinians as hopelessly naive and kindhearted
      to a fault, because they offer just this invitation to Jews now
      living in Palestine/Israel. I think it is an offer that Israelis
      should gladly accept, and thank their lucky stars it is offered. It
      may not be the only way justice can be formulated, but it is one way
      that can create a future of peace instead of war between Jews and
      Palestinians, and that counts for a lot in my opinion.

      Justice along these lines means that there should be a single
      democratic state of Palestine with equal citizenship rights for
      everybody who lives in the territory of the original Mandate (pre-
      Israel) Palestine or who fled Palestine because of Zionist actions
      or who is a descendant of such persons. Religion or ethnicity should
      have no bearing on people's rights nor limit where they can live.
      Those who lost property without proper compensation because of the
      Zionist project should regain their property or be compensated
      fairly for it. Equality, solidarity and democracy should shape
      society in Palestine, not elite rule and inequality. Jews who will
      not abide by these principles or who embrace the racism of Zionism
      by word or deed should leave of their own accord; if they do not,
      then they must be defeated and stripped of all their power. The time
      for states built upon racial discrimination and obnoxious negative
      stereotypes (like the one about gentiles being innately anti-
      Semitic) is past. The self-serving elites who presently depend upon
      such things to stay in power must be thoroughly rejected and
      dismissed as not worthy of our respect or support. It is time to
      say, "Enough is enough!"

      References

      1. Albert Einstein, in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, New
      York, 19<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.