Skip to comments.Anti-Zionism is racism! (Unless it's by pious Jews' motivation)
Posted on 08/18/2010 4:44:23 AM PDT by PRePublic
Unless it is derived from a completly separated root and motivation, like from a genuine pious ultra-orthodox Jews origin...
Anti-Zionism is racism!
Title Anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the contemporary world
Author Robert S. Wistrich
Editor Robert S. Wistrich
Publisher Macmillan in association with the Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1990
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized Aug 27, 2008
ISBN 0333515250, 9780333515259
Anti-Zionism as a form of racism
Published 00:00 18.02.08
Latest update 00:00 18.02.08
By Bradley Burston and Haaretz Correspondent (www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/bradley-burston-1.335)
Tags: Bradley Burston Israel books
It has been a staple of public discourse for decades, that those who criticize Israel specifically because they love the country and believe in the more lofty and challenging and just of its ideals, are routinely pilloried for it, berated by rightists as self-haters and anti-Semites and destroyers of Zionism.
Now meet a refreshing new phenomenon - bashing and negation of those same critics of Israel, but this time, the attacks are coming from Palestinians, other Arabs and Muslims, and their allies on the European ultra-left.
The message is: We don’t care what you think, we don’t care what causes you care about and advance, we don’t even care if you think just like we do - You’re Israelis, and that’s good enough for us - in fact, bad enough for us - reason enough, in short, to boycott you.
We’ve seen it in the serial boycott obsession of elements of the British intelligentsia, who essentially seek to penalize and punish Israeli colleagues for little more than the original sin of being Israeli. It matters not at all to the boycott-bent if many of their targets are on-site leaders in the struggle for Israeli-Palestinian peace and reconciliation.
Yes, we’ve come a long way from UN resolution 3379, adopted in late 1975, the declaration which determined that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.”
Now we have Anti-Zionism as a form of racism.
Actually, the clue to understanding the phenomenon may lie in the wording of the resolution itself, which included an explicit endorsement of the “elimination” of Zionism alongside “recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination.”
The bottom line, of course, is that the very idea of a movement to found and foster a Jewish state is illegitimate, and, by very short extension, such a state in the Holy Land - or anywhere, for that matter - has by definition no right to exist.
Though the resolution died a formal death when it was revoked in 1991, some of its spirit lives on. The most obvious and most widespread form is the rise of Islamist ideology, which in its most radical forms explicitly views the Jewish people in the Holy Land - and even in places like Buenos Aires - as a cancerous presence and a preferred target.
In its more subtle forms, the resolution lives on in such phenomena as the recent response to a decision by the organizers of the Turin International Book Fair to declare Israel as its guest of honor.
In an initial salvo, The New York Times reported, a local pro-Palestinian group “stormed the book fair offices in Turin, demanding that the invitation to Israel be rescinded.”
They distributed leaflets reading “We are appalled to see the world of culture take the side of those who methodically operate to annihilate Palestine and the Palestinians.”
It mattered not at all that among the authors to be most prominently featured at the fair are David Grossman, Amos Oz, and A. B. Yehoshua, writers closely identified with the search for peace with the Palestinians and for an Israel more closely committed to equality, democracy and human rights.
In a further move to underscore the idea that the only good Israeli is an absent Israeli, Swiss Muslim academic and activist Tariq Ramadan and British-Pakistani author Tariq Ali, along with Italian ultra-leftists are calling for a boycott of the entire event, slated to coincide with May commemorations of the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel.
Perhaps most remarkable in the Book Fair controversy - and the most direct recognition of the inherent racism on the part of the boycott proponents - has been the response of a group of more than 30 Italian intellectuals and artists. In an open letter, they called on Italian President Giorgio Napolitano to preside over the opening of the fair, and to speak out “against any discrimination and blind intolerance towards the citizens and culture of Israel.”
Where does the line fall between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies on the one hand, and a racist anti-Zionism on the other? There is, in fact, such a line.
It is racist to suggest that all peoples have a right to self-determination in the land of their ancestors, with the exception of the Jews.
It is racist to maintain that Muslim historic and religious claims to Jerusalem and the Holy Land are absolute and date to antiquity, and at the same time to negate and dismiss Jewish historic and religious claims, to call Jews interlopers and usurpers and carpetbaggers in the land of their Bible, which is a sacred reference for Muslims as well.
It is racist to declare Zionism as an evil before which all other evils in the world pale, and to argue that any act of violence against non-combatants is justified in the service of defeating Zionism.
It is racist to take Israel and only Israel to task for its shortcomings in the areas of civil equality, sharing of resources, and the search for peace, while keeping silent or even taking pains to legitimize the same failures on the part of the countries and peoples one happens, as blindly as a pre-pubescent football fan, to support.
To seek to silence and boycott Israelis as Israelis is to violate human rights and acts, in the process, to undermine the cause of the Palestinians.
Fighting fire with fire is a tactic which, despite its dangers, often succeeds. Fighting racism with racism is a tactic which, despite its allure to the hothead, never does.
Is anti-Zionism hate?
Yes. It is more dangerous than anti-Semitism, threatening lives and peace in the Middle East.
By Judea Pearl
March 15, 2009
E-mail Print Share Text Size la-oe-pearl15-2009mar15
In January, at a symposium at UCLA (choreographed by the Center for Near East Studies), four longtime Israel bashers were invited to analyze the human rights conditions in Gaza, and used the stage to attack the legitimacy of Zionism and its vision of a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.
They criminalized Israel’s existence, distorted its motives and maligned its character, its birth, even its conception. At one point, the excited audience reportedly chanted “Zionism is Nazism” and worse.
Jewish leaders condemned this hate-fest as a dangerous invitation to anti-Semitic hysteria, and pointed to the chilling effect it had on UCLA students and faculty on a campus known for its open and civil atmosphere. The organizers, some of them Jewish, took refuge in “academic freedom” and the argument that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
I fully support this mantra, not because it exonerates anti-Zionists from charges of anti-Semitism but because the distinction helps us focus attention on the discriminatory, immoral and more dangerous character of anti-Zionism.
Anti-Zionism rejects the very notion that Jews are a nation — a collective bonded by a common history — and, accordingly, denies Jews the right to self-determination in their historical birthplace. It seeks the dismantling of the Jewish nation-state: Israel.
Anti-Zionism earns its discriminatory character by denying the Jewish people what it grants to other historically bonded collectives (e.g. French, Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to nationhood, self-determination and legitimate coexistence with other indigenous claimants.
Anti-Semitism rejects Jews as equal members of the human race; anti-Zionism rejects Israel as an equal member in the family of nations.
Are Jews a nation? Some philosophers would argue Jews are a nation first and religion second. Indeed, the narrative of Exodus and the vision of the impending journey to the land of Canaan were etched in the minds of the Jewish people before they received the Torah at Mt. Sinai. But, philosophy aside, the unshaken conviction in their eventual repatriation to the birthplace of their history has been the engine behind Jewish endurance and hopes throughout their turbulent journey that started with the Roman expulsion in AD 70.
More important, shared history, not religion, is today the primary uniting force behind the secular, multiethnic society of Israel. The majority of its members do not practice religious laws and do not believe in divine supervision or the afterlife. The same applies to American Jewry, which is likewise largely secular. Identification with a common historical ethos, culminating in the reestablishment of the state of Israel, is the central bond of Jewish collectivity in America.
There are of course Jews who are non-Zionists and even anti-Zionists. The ultra-Orthodox cult of Neturei Karta and the leftist cult of Noam Chomsky are notable examples. The former rejects any earthly attempt to interfere with God’s messianic plan, while the latter abhors all forms of nationalism, especially successful ones.
There are also Jews who find it difficult to defend their identity against the growing viciousness of anti-Israel propaganda, and eventually hide, disown or denounce their historical roots in favor of social acceptance and other expediencies.
But these are marginal minorities at best; the vital tissues of Jewish identity today feed on Jewish history and its natural derivatives — the state of Israel, its struggle for survival, its cultural and scientific achievements and its relentless drive for peace.
Given this understanding of Jewish nationhood, anti-Zionism is in many ways more dangerous than anti-Semitism.
First, anti-Zionism targets the most vulnerable part of the Jewish people, namely, the Jewish population of Israel, whose physical safety and personal dignity depend crucially on maintaining Israel’s sovereignty. Put bluntly, the anti-Zionist plan to do away with Israel condemns 5 1/2 million human beings, mostly refugees or children of refugees, to eternal defenselessness in a region where genocidal designs are not uncommon.
Secondly, modern society has developed antibodies against anti-Semitism but not against anti-Zionism. Today, anti-Semitic stereotypes evoke revulsion in most people of conscience, while anti-Zionist rhetoric has become a mark of academic sophistication and social acceptance in certain extreme yet vocal circles of U.S. academia and media elite. Anti-Zionism disguises itself in the cloak of political debate, exempt from sensitivities and rules of civility that govern inter-religious discourse, to attack the most cherished symbol of Jewish identity.
Finally, anti-Zionist rhetoric is a stab in the back to the Israeli peace camp, which overwhelmingly stands for a two-state solution. It also gives credence to enemies of coexistence who claim that the eventual elimination of Israel is the hidden agenda of every Palestinian.
It is anti-Zionism, then, not anti-Semitism that poses a more dangerous threat to lives, historical justice and the prospects of peace in the Middle East.
Judea Pearl is a professor at UCLA and the president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation.
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
Aftershock: anti-zionism and anti-semitism - Page 30 - David Matas - 2005 - 256 pages
Anti-Zionism, by definition, denies and rejects this right by denying the right to a state for the Jewish people. Anti-Zionism is a form of racism. It is the specific denial to the Jewish people of a basic right to which all the peoples ...
In the Trenches: 2004-2005 - Page 271 - David A. Harris - 2006 - 388 pages
Incidentally, this recurring attempt to brand Zionism as racism is a telling example of the pot calling the kettle black. The Arab nations formally define themselves by their ethnicity, i/e/, Arab, thus excluding non-Arab ethnic groups, such as Berbers and Kurds. The same is true for religion. Islam is the official religion in all but one of the Arab countries (Lebanon), thus perforce marginalizing non-Islamic faiths, partcularly Christian minorities.
In this vein, it’s well worth remembering the comments of the late Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., on anti-Zionism: And what is anti-Zionism? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and all other nations of the globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friends, because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism.... It is discrimination against Jews, my friends, because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism.... Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews make no mistake about it.
It is also important to stress that non-Jews have not been excluded from Israel’s nation-building. To the contrary. Today one-fifth of Israel’s citizens are non-Jews, including over one million Arabs, and Arabic is an official national language. Moreover, Israel’s Jewish population has always reflected enormous national, ethnic cultural, and linguistic diversity...
some of the Arab anti-Semites use racist and even Nazi imagery and propaganda as a tool in their struggle against their perceived enemy...
Using the race/religion card? We hear that if you disagree with Obama you are a racist. If you disagree with the 911 mosque you are a bigoted islamaphobe. Now, we hear that if you don’t embrace zionism you are an anti-semite. Sorry, but I don’t buy into any of these victimology guilt trips.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
No. In those instances you would be anti-America, anti-France, anti-China and anti-Sri Lanka. In each instance there is no necessary attitude towards the actuall people in those countries at all. One could certainly be non-zionist without having any opinion on Jews as Jews one way or the other.
If a people have no right to sovereignty, nation or land they are cattle waiting to be enslaved or killed. America is an anomaly here. In much of Europe, Jews are not longer safe thanks to the Eurabia project. Which normal joy of the diaspora would you give to Jews?
What obligation do I or anyone else have to "give" anyting to jews, muslims, hindus, zorastarians? That's a straw man and has nothing to do with the issue of whether not believing in zionism equals racism. Again, that's the same as saying to not agree with Obama makes one a racist or disagreeing with the victory mosque makes one a islamophobe. And I would note, I support Israel in their struggles against islamism.
No. I don't see how you could get that from anything I've posted.