Zionism

Zionism by Any Other Name Still is Not a Rose


By Joe Mowrey

To stop using the word Zionism in relation toIsrael would be like discussing Sweden withoutreferring to socialism, or like talking aboutthe United States without using the worddemocracy (or more appropriately these days,fascism; but you get the idea).

Are you tired of the corruption and prohibitionof language by politicians and pundits? TheClear Skies Act increases air pollution. TheHealthy Forests Initiative gives our nationalforests away to the logging industry. Words likehuman rights and justice are taboo, their use ona placard certain to relegate you to the "freespeech zone." Signs with the word peace on themwere confiscated at the Democratic NationalConvention in 2004. But carry a sign with amessage of nationalistic venom or racial hatredand odds are you'll be invited to the nextRepublican (or Democratic) Presidential debateand given a front row seat. Wars of aggressionare now preemptive wars. Occupiers are thevictims of those who resist occupation; theoccupied become the enemy. Self determinationon the part of the poor and disenfranchised isgrounds for imprisonment and torture. But wait,it's not torture any longer, it's enhancedinterrogation. The ongoing transmogrification oflanguage within our culture is as maddening asit is destructive. But it's especiallyaggravating to see the same process occurringwithin conversations on the left.

In a recent email exchange with a network ofprogressives to which I contribute, it wassuggested that we quit using the word Zionism inour discussions about Palestine and Israel. Thelogic behind this suggestion was that the wordis offensive to some and has a negativeconnotation. You know the argument. "Why pushanyone's buttons by using inflammatory language?Let's seek a common ground." My response to thissuggestion is the old cliché, if it looks like aduck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,then it must be a duck. Why call it a swan? Orworse yet, why pretend it doesn't even exist?

To stop using the word Zionism in relation toIsrael would be like discussing Sweden withoutreferring to socialism, or like talking aboutthe United States without using the worddemocracy (or more appropriately these days,fascism; but you get the idea). The rulingmajority in Israel refers to themselves asZionists, and they obviously don't consider it adirty word. But those who oppose Zionism aresupposed to avoid using the term. Zionism, apolitical movement promoting the creation,maintenance and expansion of a Jewish state, isthe core ideology of the state of Israel. It isnot a term invented by Palestinian rightsactivists to slander Jews. It is an actual wordwhich defines a very real political agenda.Google it and you'll find a raft of definitionsand historical back ground. Israel is a Zioniststate established as a result of the Zionistmovement begun more than a century ago. The termZionism was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum toidentify Jewish nationalism. This is historicalfact, not propagandistic spin. It is not ananti-Semitic act to use the word.

When South Africa was an apartheid state, it wasnever suggested we stop using the word apartheidto refer to South Africa's politicalfoundations. Imagine the absurdity of addressingthat system without uttering the word whichrightfully defined it? Likewise, how can we evenbegin to talk about Palestine without sayingZionism. Eliminating the word from the debaterestricts our ability to discuss the history andobjectives of the Zionist movement. We areforced into a position where the only way we cancritique the issue, other than with glowingpraise, is to criticize Jews rather than theideology which has been implemented to createthe Jewish state. Not all Zionists are Jews andnot all Jews are Zionists. To accept the myththat the word is intended to slander Jews playsinto the hands of those who would deliberatelyconflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It isa rewriting of linguistic history by pro-Zionistapologists to distract from the real issues athand which are racism, imperialism and humanrights, or lack thereof. Although certainlythere is a small minority which usesanti-Zionist rhetoric as a cover for bigotrytoward Jews, the vast majority of those whocriticize Zionism do so because of itsinherently racist nature, not because they areanti-Semitic.

Plainly stated, Jews aren't the problem inPalestine. Zionism is the problem. Israel as atruly democratic state abiding by the rule oflaw, inclusive of all races and religions, wouldbe a completely different entity than it istoday. Israel as a Zionist state has insteadbecome a rogue nation driven by an ideology ofethnoreligious superiority. Zionist Jewsconsider themselves to be "The Chosen People"with a divine right to "The Promised Land."Imagine if a group of white Americans referredto themselves as chosen people with divinelymanifest rights? Actually, we don't have toimagine it, they are called White Supremacists.Imagine if the United States were to become aChristian state. What if we changed our flag toa plain white back ground with a cross on it?What if we granted citizenship or residency toevery Christian in the world, but denied thesame to anyone else? Such bigoted behavior isanathema to us. Yet many on the left embrace andpromote just such an exclusionary Jewish statein the Middle East. They think nothing of thefact that Israel's flag is a religious symbol ona white field. Zionists are considered to havean exclusive claim to all of Palestine based onrace and religious orientation alone.

In a democracy, which Israel purports to be, ifa majority of the population were non-Jewish,Jews could be voted out of power. In order toconstitute a Jewish state it is necessary forIsrael to suppresses or expel any ethnic orreligious group which threatens to dilute theJewish majority. There is a vast array of lawsand regulations regarding residency,immigration, property ownership and socialstructure intended to maintain this majority.For example, marriage in Israel is governedexclusively by rabbinical (that is, Jewish)courts. Weddings performed outside thejurisdiction of these courts do not entitle oneto a marriage certificate and are not valid forregistration to receive benefits such asresidence, health care and education. Interfaithmarriages are not recognized. A marriage betweena Jew and non-Jew cannot be performed in Israel.Either the non-Jewish partner must convert toJudaism or the Jewish partner must convert tothe religion of the other.

Zionists defend these blatantly segregationistpractices as benign efforts to maintain the"Jewish character" of Israel. In reality, suchpolicies are the cornerstone of Zionistideology. Ilan Pappe, an Israeli Jew, along withother Israeli scholars have documented thisusing Israel's own historical archives. TheZionist founders of Israel carefully articulatedthe need to ethnically cleanse the majority ofPalestinians from "The Promised Land" and tosustain at least an 80 percent majority of Jewsin the population base. This is fact, notsupposition or conjecture. And it is this factwhich defines Zionism as a racist ideology andIsrael as a racist state. Even when the truthhurts, it still is the truth. Refusing to nameit won't make it any less painful.

Remember the example of South Africa. The ideaof a White state, where whites were givenpreference and white majority rule was enforcedthrough suppression and expulsion of blacks, wasconsidered immoral. We reject the notion ofIslamic or Muslim states where Islamic-majorityrule is enforced through the suppression andexpulsion of other ethnoreligious groups. Why isthe concept of a Jewish state, where Jews aregiven preference and Jewish majority rule isenforced through the suppression and expulsionof other ethnoreligious groups any morepalatable? Though the Zionist system of racialexclusion is at the core of the conflict inPalestine, it is a concept many progressivesrefuse to acknowledge when discussing thisissue.

Because Jews have been so horribly oppressedthroughout history, it is assumed we must grantIsrael, as a Jewish state, exceptional standardsof existence. Israel is excepted fromInternational Law and normal standards ofbehavior. Israel is allowed to offer the rightof return to any Jew anywhere in the world whorequests it. That same privilege is denied toPalestinians who were driven from their landsand whose ancestors in Palestine can be tracedback tens of centuries. Israel is allowed tocreate Nuremberg-like laws requiring proof ofJewish bloodlines based on maternal lineage as aprecursor to residency and citizenship. Israelcan eliminate habeas corpus, a fundamental humanright, arrest and detain Palestinians withoutcharge or trial and torture them with impunity.Israel can colonize Palestinian lands in directviolation of the Geneva Conventions and buildJews-only cities and highways. Despite all ofthis, we are expected to avoid using the wordwhich describes the ideological foundations ofthis system because we might offend those whosupport such aberrant behavior.

We should insist on the right of Jews tocelebrate their culture anywhere in the worldwithout being subjected to oppression, bigotryand hatred. We should also insist that Israelabide by international law and the norms of acivilized state. We should not accept Israel'sright to exist as a Zionist, or by definition,mandatorily Jewish-dominated state. Acceptanceof that idea would be a de-facto condonation ofracism and ethnoreligious primacy. Would any ofus endorse such a notion? Would any progressivethinker support the creation of a "White" state,a "Catholic" state, or defend any nationalistmovement which gives preference to citizensbased on their racial or religious origins? Yetso many on the left blindly endorse Israel andits racist ideology called, yes, that's right,Zionism.

If the ruling majority in Israel were to abandonZionism as their principle tenet and embrace theconcept of an inclusive state within historicPalestine, resistance to the presence of Jews inthe Middle East would eventually dissipate.There are contemporary and historic precedentsfor this idea. A Jewish community of tens ofthousands lives in Tehran. Despite Zionisthysteria about the threat of a "secondHolocaust" on the part of Iran, no one has yetto drive these Jews into the sea. As a matter offact, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a ''fatwa''decreeing that Jews in Iran are to be protected.But I suspect that if the Jewish community thereattempted to take over all of Tehran and purgeanyone who is not a Jew the situation wouldbecome less benign.

Jews and Palestinians lived side by side inPalestine for centuries. It wasn't until theadvent of Zionism that one of the most brutaland enduring conflicts in the world began.Violent gangs like the Irgun, a militant Zionistorganization, drove out the British imperialistpowers and then forced the Palestinians fromtheir lands. Manachem Begin, who would laterbecome Prime Minister of Israel, was hunted bythe British for acts of terrorism againstBritish civilians in Palestine. You can stillfind wanted posters with his picture on themarchived on the internet. Is it any surprisethat elements within the Palestinian populationwould respond to this situation violently? Wouldyou and I react any differently if a Jewishstate were created in half of the United Statesand 80 percent of all non-Jews were forced intoexile, not compensated for the loss of theirlands and never allowed to return? Our responsewould not be considered anti-Semitic terrorism,it would be considered a rational defense of ourhomes and property.

The American progressive movement, and moreimportantly, Jews in the United States andaround the world must acknowledge the truthabout Zionism. Not only is it time to startusing the word, it's time to admit that Zionismis a failed ideology which has inflamed theMiddle East and nearly destroyed the Palestinianpeople, not to mention what it has done to theheritage and character of Jewish culture.

After the violent expulsion of the Palestiniansand the sixty years of oppression anddestruction of Palestinian culture required tomaintain a Jewish majority in Israel, there willneed to be a difficult period of reformationbefore Palestine can become whole again. Perhapswith international assistance and monitoring aSouth African-type solution could beimplemented, including the formation of TruthCommissions to allow the Israeli people to cometo grips with the violent and often criminalnature of their brief history as a nation.Likewise, Palestinians will have to come togrips with the violent and sometimes criminalnature of their otherwise legitimate resistancemovements. Israel will have to withdraw theirillegal colonies from the West Bank andPalestinians will have to be granted the rightof return to or compensation for lands takenfrom them by force of arms over the course ofthe last sixty years.

Whatever solution is implemented, both cultureswill require decades of compassionate dialogueto mend the wounds inflicted by more than 100years of racial hatred, intolerance andviolence. Refusing to use common language is nobeginning. The scars which the Zionistexperiment has left on the consciousness ofPalestinians and Jews alike will remain forgenerations. But there is little hope of anyresolution without honest and realisticassessments of the situation. We can't allow thelegitimate use of language to be restricted orcondemned. Racism is racism, whatever we chooseto call it. Zionism is Zionism, by any othername. It is not the term, but rather the conceptitself which should offend us. Refusing to utterthe word won't change the reality. Indeed,refusing to acknowledge the true nature ofZionism will only perpetuate an alreadyintolerable situation.

(Joe Mowrey dares to identify himself as aPalestinian rights and antiwar activist . Helives in Santa Fe, New Mexico with his equallytraitorous spouse and their four caninecoconspirators. He can be contacted atjmowrey@ix.netcom.com.)