An
open letter from an anti-Zionist
By Paul
Hershfield, CEIA-SC member
It’s time for the American Jewish community to seriously reevaluate
its unquestioning and unyielding support for Israel.
In order to justify Israel’s actions, policies, and even its
“right” to exist as a Jewish state, you can no longer fall back on
the Nazi Holocaust, the lie that Palestinians left voluntarily in
1948 (regardless of which their right of return is still protected
by international law) – or that they weren’t even there to begin
with - suicide bombers, or the racist claim that “they teach their
children to hate.” The myth that “Jews bought the land” has been
long discredited by Israeli historians, and even by the Jewish
National Fund itself.
You can’t lament the fate of Gilad Shalit, a soldier captured
(civilians are kidnapped) the day after Israel kidnapped two
Palestinians, while over 10,000 Palestinians, many of them minors,
languish in Israeli prisons – some with no charges against
them.
Kassam rockets that have, since their first use in 2001, taken the
lives of 23 Israelis cannot be used as an excuse to attack a
defenseless, starving population, imprisoned in the most densely
populated place on the planet, killing over 1,400 people (one-third
of them children), wounding 5,300 and leaving thousands
homeless.
That same population cannot indefinitely be kept under siege,
living on one meal a day, simply because Israel’s government (and
most of their supporters) don’t approve of their democratically
elected representatives.
The veneer of “the only democracy in the middle east” is wearing
thin under the weight of continued land and water theft, the
construction of more “settlements” in the West Bank, and the
expulsion of non-Jewish residents from East Jerusalem in order to
“Judaize” a city illegally annexed by the state.
It's worth noting that "Democracy" means more than just elections
and majority rule; democracy requires a bill of rights to protect
minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If majority rule were
the only criterion, a lynch mob would be a democracy. Israel has
neither a constitution nor a bill of rights.
The IDF can’t keep acting in a criminal manner, dropping white
phosphorus and DIME weapons in crowded urban areas, targeting
civilians, engaging in torture, arresting without charge,
systematically demolishing houses, defecating in Palestinian homes,
using human shields, shooting at ambulances and emergency medical
personnel, and still continue the charade of claiming to be “the
most moral army in the world.”
The recent coming to power of extreme right-wing elements of
Israeli society is not an aberration. Rather, it reveals the true
nature and intent of Zionism. Loyalty oaths and criminalizing the
questioning of Israel’s right to exist as a “Jewish, Zionist and
democratic state” are hardly benchmarks of democracy. Neither is
throwing someone in prison for the simple act of commemorating the
Nakba of 1948, an event which included the expulsion of 750,000
Palestinians and the destruction of over 500 towns and
villages.
More than 20 Israeli state laws discriminate against non-Jews,
restricting their rights to own property, hold citizenship, move
freely, and participate in elections. Bishop Desmond Tutu and
former South African President Nelson Mandela, as well as the
Jewish South African Ronnie Kasrils, have all stated that Israeli
law and oppression of the Palestinian people is comparable to the
South African system of apartheid. Residents of the Misgav bloc of
communities in the Galilee — this is in Israel mind you, not the
West Bank — were "shocked" when proposals raised at local council
meetings to accept only applicants who shared their Zionist
principles drew negative headlines and criticism for alleged
racism. What else would you call it?
Israel has violated over 80 resolutions of the United Nations, more
than any other country in the world, including Resolution 194,
which affirms the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their
homes, and Resolution 242, which called for an immediate end to the
occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
And now, simply mentioning the “two-state solution,” which Israel
has supposedly been willing to accept for many years, brings a
storm of criticism. Witness responses to President Obama’s tepid
support for two states: "We are launching a campaign against Barack
Hussein Obama. He is bad for the people of Israel and for the state
of Israel and his policies could bring about disaster. We expect
our prime minister to say 'no' to anyone who tries to harm us,"
right-wing activist Ben-Gvir stated. In Israel, Obama is being
called a "Jew-hating anti-Semite."
Which brings us, at last, to the ultimate weapon: accusing critics
of anti-Semitism. However, we need to define “anti-Semitism” before
tossing it about so freely.
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that it can be defined on
the one hand as hatred of the Jewish “race,” culture or religion (a
definition I agree with), and on the other hand as criticism of
Zionism or Israel (which I don’t agree with). The problem is,
inflating the meaning of anti-Semitism to include the latter
lessens the ugliness of the former. You can try to control the
definition, but you are no longer able to hide the facts of
Israel's oppression and brutality from the world. No accusation of
anti-Semitism is going to change the views of the large and growing
Palestinian solidarity movement.
So what? Suppose we accept the claim that opposing the settlements
is anti-Semitic. We can’t, however, deny the fact that the
settlements, along with their Israeli-only roads, hundreds of
checkpoints throughout the West Bank, and the “security barrier”
that is taking more land from the supposed future Palestinian
state, all serve to effectively strangle the Palestinian people,
violate their human rights, and create an insurmountable obstacle
to peace. Motivated by our desire for peace and justice we are
morally obligated to oppose the settlements. Therefore, within the
inflated definition, we are likewise morally obligated to be
anti-Semites. Through the inflation and cheapening of its
definition, some form of anti-Semitism becomes inevitable.
What about anti-Zionism? Suppose we accept the idea, which I don't,
that Zionism is the "legitimate national liberation movement of the
Jewish people." There are many crimes that Zionism can be held
accountable for; they have been well-documented by Israeli
historians, based upon Israeli government and military files.
Zionism is, at its core, a movement founded on creating an
exclusivist, majority Jewish state on someone else's land, leading
inevitably to apartheid. Anti-Zionism is therefore a moral
obligation, and based on the inflated definition, anti-Semitic. So,
anti-Semitism again becomes a moral obligation. Simply labeling any
criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic isn’t working any longer.
This is where the problem lies. It is my impetus for writing this
article. Fostering and maintaining the idea that all Jews (except
“self-hating” ones) support Israel, and that Israel and Zionism are
synonymous with Judaism is a dangerous game. For if criticizing
Israel and being anti-Zionist are really anti-Semitic, the growing
number of people who can morally no longer grant Israel a free ride
are going to say, “Well, I guess I’m an anti-Semite, and if all
Jews support Israel and Zionism, then Jews are the problem, not
just Israel and Zionism.”
Finally, there's the "boy-who-cried-wolf" scenario. If the
definition of "anti-Semitism" becomes thoroughly trivialized (i.e.:
calling for two states), no one is going to even flinch under the
accusation anymore. And no one is going to pay attention, either.
So when real, Jew-hating anti-Semitism comes around, calls for help
will fall on deaf, or just tired, ears.
When that happens, I’ll have to expand my activism to include the
battle against anti-Semitism. At the same time, I won’t abandon the
struggle against Zionism.
