Zionism
Zionism by Any Other Name Still is Not a Rose
By Joe Mowrey
Are you tired of the corruption and prohibition of language by politicians and pundits? The Clear Skies Act increases air pollution. The Healthy Forests Initiative gives our national forests away to the logging industry. Words like human rights and justice are taboo, their use on a placard certain to relegate you to the "free speech zone." Signs with the word peace on them were confiscated at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. But carry a sign with a message of nationalistic venom or racial hatred and odds are you'll be invited to the next Republican (or Democratic) Presidential debate and given a front row seat. Wars of aggression are now preemptive wars. Occupiers are the victims of those who resist occupation; the occupied become the enemy. Self determination on the part of the poor and disenfranchised is grounds for imprisonment and torture. But wait, it's not torture any longer, it's enhanced interrogation. The ongoing transmogrification of language within our culture is as maddening as it is destructive. But it's especially aggravating to see the same process occurring within conversations on the left.
In a recent email exchange with a network of progressives to which I contribute, it was suggested that we quit using the word Zionism in our discussions about Palestine and Israel. The logic behind this suggestion was that the word is offensive to some and has a negative connotation. You know the argument. "Why push anyone's buttons by using inflammatory language? Let's seek a common ground." My response to this suggestion is the old cliché, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Why call it a swan? Or worse yet, why pretend it doesn't even exist?
To stop using the word Zionism in relation to Israel would be like discussing Sweden without referring to socialism, or like talking about the United States without using the word democracy (or more appropriately these days, fascism; but you get the idea). The ruling majority in Israel refers to themselves as Zionists, and they obviously don't consider it a dirty word. But those who oppose Zionism are supposed to avoid using the term. Zionism, a political movement promoting the creation, maintenance and expansion of a Jewish state, is the core ideology of the state of Israel. It is not a term invented by Palestinian rights activists to slander Jews. It is an actual word which defines a very real political agenda. Google it and you'll find a raft of definitions and historical back ground. Israel is a Zionist state established as a result of the Zionist movement begun more than a century ago. The term Zionism was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum to identify Jewish nationalism. This is historical fact, not propagandistic spin. It is not an anti-Semitic act to use the word.
When South Africa was an apartheid state, it was never suggested we stop using the word apartheid to refer to South Africa's political foundations. Imagine the absurdity of addressing that system without uttering the word which rightfully defined it? Likewise, how can we even begin to talk about Palestine without saying Zionism. Eliminating the word from the debate restricts our ability to discuss the history and objectives of the Zionist movement. We are forced into a position where the only way we can critique the issue, other than with glowing praise, is to criticize Jews rather than the ideology which has been implemented to create the Jewish state. Not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists. To accept the myth that the word is intended to slander Jews plays into the hands of those who would deliberately conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It is a rewriting of linguistic history by pro-Zionist apologists to distract from the real issues at hand which are racism, imperialism and human rights, or lack thereof. Although certainly there is a small minority which uses anti-Zionist rhetoric as a cover for bigotry toward Jews, the vast majority of those who criticize Zionism do so because of its inherently racist nature, not because they are anti-Semitic.
Plainly stated, Jews aren't the problem in Palestine. Zionism is the problem. Israel as a truly democratic state abiding by the rule of law, inclusive of all races and religions, would be a completely different entity than it is today. Israel as a Zionist state has instead become a rogue nation driven by an ideology of ethnoreligious superiority. Zionist Jews consider themselves to be "The Chosen People" with a divine right to "The Promised Land." Imagine if a group of white Americans referred to themselves as chosen people with divinely manifest rights? Actually, we don't have to imagine it, they are called White Supremacists. Imagine if the United States were to become a Christian state. What if we changed our flag to a plain white back ground with a cross on it? What if we granted citizenship or residency to every Christian in the world, but denied the same to anyone else? Such bigoted behavior is anathema to us. Yet many on the left embrace and promote just such an exclusionary Jewish state in the Middle East. They think nothing of the fact that Israel's flag is a religious symbol on a white field. Zionists are considered to have an exclusive claim to all of Palestine based on race and religious orientation alone.
In a democracy, which Israel purports to be, if a majority of the population were non-Jewish, Jews could be voted out of power. In order to constitute a Jewish state it is necessary for Israel to suppresses or expel any ethnic or religious group which threatens to dilute the Jewish majority. There is a vast array of laws and regulations regarding residency, immigration, property ownership and social structure intended to maintain this majority. For example, marriage in Israel is governed exclusively by rabbinical (that is, Jewish) courts. Weddings performed outside the jurisdiction of these courts do not entitle one to a marriage certificate and are not valid for registration to receive benefits such as residence, health care and education. Interfaith marriages are not recognized. A marriage between a Jew and non-Jew cannot be performed in Israel. Either the non-Jewish partner must convert to Judaism or the Jewish partner must convert to the religion of the other.
Zionists defend these blatantly segregationist practices as benign efforts to maintain the "Jewish character" of Israel. In reality, such policies are the cornerstone of Zionist ideology. Ilan Pappe, an Israeli Jew, along with other Israeli scholars have documented this using Israel's own historical archives. The Zionist founders of Israel carefully articulated the need to ethnically cleanse the majority of Palestinians from "The Promised Land" and to sustain at least an 80 percent majority of Jews in the population base. This is fact, not supposition or conjecture. And it is this fact which defines Zionism as a racist ideology and Israel as a racist state. Even when the truth hurts, it still is the truth. Refusing to name it won't make it any less painful.
Remember the example of South Africa. The idea of a White state, where whites were given preference and white majority rule was enforced through suppression and expulsion of blacks, was considered immoral. We reject the notion of Islamic or Muslim states where Islamic-majority rule is enforced through the suppression and expulsion of other ethnoreligious groups. Why is the concept of a Jewish state, where Jews are given preference and Jewish majority rule is enforced through the suppression and expulsion of other ethnoreligious groups any more palatable? Though the Zionist system of racial exclusion is at the core of the conflict in Palestine, it is a concept many progressives refuse to acknowledge when discussing this issue.
Because Jews have been so horribly oppressed throughout history, it is assumed we must grant Israel, as a Jewish state, exceptional standards of existence. Israel is excepted from International Law and normal standards of behavior. Israel is allowed to offer the right of return to any Jew anywhere in the world who requests it. That same privilege is denied to Palestinians who were driven from their lands and whose ancestors in Palestine can be traced back tens of centuries. Israel is allowed to create Nuremberg-like laws requiring proof of Jewish bloodlines based on maternal lineage as a precursor to residency and citizenship. Israel can eliminate habeas corpus, a fundamental human right, arrest and detain Palestinians without charge or trial and torture them with impunity. Israel can colonize Palestinian lands in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions and build Jews-only cities and highways. Despite all of this, we are expected to avoid using the word which describes the ideological foundations of this system because we might offend those who support such aberrant behavior.
We should insist on the right of Jews to celebrate their culture anywhere in the world without being subjected to oppression, bigotry and hatred. We should also insist that Israel abide by international law and the norms of a civilized state. We should not accept Israel's right to exist as a Zionist, or by definition, mandatorily Jewish-dominated state. Acceptance of that idea would be a de-facto condonation of racism and ethnoreligious primacy. Would any of us endorse such a notion? Would any progressive thinker support the creation of a "White" state, a "Catholic" state, or defend any nationalist movement which gives preference to citizens based on their racial or religious origins? Yet so many on the left blindly endorse Israel and its racist ideology called, yes, that's right, Zionism.
If the ruling majority in Israel were to abandon Zionism as their principle tenet and embrace the concept of an inclusive state within historic Palestine, resistance to the presence of Jews in the Middle East would eventually dissipate. There are contemporary and historic precedents for this idea. A Jewish community of tens of thousands lives in Tehran. Despite Zionist hysteria about the threat of a "second Holocaust" on the part of Iran, no one has yet to drive these Jews into the sea. As a matter of fact, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a ''fatwa'' decreeing that Jews in Iran are to be protected. But I suspect that if the Jewish community there attempted to take over all of Tehran and purge anyone who is not a Jew the situation would become less benign.
Jews and Palestinians lived side by side in Palestine for centuries. It wasn't until the advent of Zionism that one of the most brutal and enduring conflicts in the world began. Violent gangs like the Irgun, a militant Zionist organization, drove out the British imperialist powers and then forced the Palestinians from their lands. Manachem Begin, who would later become Prime Minister of Israel, was hunted by the British for acts of terrorism against British civilians in Palestine. You can still find wanted posters with his picture on them archived on the internet. Is it any surprise that elements within the Palestinian population would respond to this situation violently? Would you and I react any differently if a Jewish state were created in half of the United States and 80 percent of all non-Jews were forced into exile, not compensated for the loss of their lands and never allowed to return? Our response would not be considered anti-Semitic terrorism, it would be considered a rational defense of our homes and property.
The American progressive movement, and more importantly, Jews in the United States and around the world must acknowledge the truth about Zionism. Not only is it time to start using the word, it's time to admit that Zionism is a failed ideology which has inflamed the Middle East and nearly destroyed the Palestinian people, not to mention what it has done to the heritage and character of Jewish culture.
After the violent expulsion of the Palestinians and the sixty years of oppression and destruction of Palestinian culture required to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel, there will need to be a difficult period of reformation before Palestine can become whole again. Perhaps with international assistance and monitoring a South African-type solution could be implemented, including the formation of Truth Commissions to allow the Israeli people to come to grips with the violent and often criminal nature of their brief history as a nation. Likewise, Palestinians will have to come to grips with the violent and sometimes criminal nature of their otherwise legitimate resistance movements. Israel will have to withdraw their illegal colonies from the West Bank and Palestinians will have to be granted the right of return to or compensation for lands taken from them by force of arms over the course of the last sixty years.
Whatever solution is implemented, both cultures will require decades of compassionate dialogue to mend the wounds inflicted by more than 100 years of racial hatred, intolerance and violence. Refusing to use common language is no beginning. The scars which the Zionist experiment has left on the consciousness of Palestinians and Jews alike will remain for generations. But there is little hope of any resolution without honest and realistic assessments of the situation. We can't allow the legitimate use of language to be restricted or condemned. Racism is racism, whatever we choose to call it. Zionism is Zionism, by any other name. It is not the term, but rather the concept itself which should offend us. Refusing to utter the word won't change the reality. Indeed, refusing to acknowledge the true nature of Zionism will only perpetuate an already intolerable situation.
(Joe Mowrey dares to identify himself as a Palestinian rights and antiwar activist . He lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico with his equally traitorous spouse and their four canine coconspirators. He can be contacted at jmowrey@ix.netcom.com.)