[WCUSP] Subjective

[yvonne simmons]

I am beginning to think I do not belong on the WCUSP
LT as I cannot only work on challenging US policy. To
my mind "Building peace on justice in the Middle East"
is not only challenging US policy. In solidarity
Yvonne.

Qumsiyeh: A Human Rights Web 
Home Sharing The Land of Canaan United States of
Canaan About Qumsiyeh Nature Activist Manual Links 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Israel Unique

by Mazin Qumsiyeh
6/9/05

In the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr was being tugged
in two different directions.  One segment of the
movement wanted him to take a stand on the Vietnam War
while a few argued that this issue was too divisive
and that he should stick to the issue of Civil rights.
 In his book, “From Yale to Jail”, David Dellinger
(one of the original Chicago Eight) explained the
intricate mechanics and internal politics of the
budding anti-War movement in the 1960s.  MLK came to
agree with Dellinger and others after some struggle. 
In retrospect, it is so obvious that it could not have
been any other way.  As King put it “injustice
anywhere is injustice everywhere” and more eloquently:
"I knew that I could never again raise my voice
against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos
without having first spoken clearly to the greatest
purveyor of violence in the world today - my own
government.... There is something strangely
inconsistent about a nation and a press that would
praise you when you say, 'Be nonviolent toward Jim
Clark,' but will curse and damn you when you say, 'Be
nonviolent toward little brown Vietnamese children!'
There is something wrong with that press...." --
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We are reminded of these things as we see a few (rare
but vocal) individuals ask the current anti-war
movement to not deal with the US-funded Israeli
atrocities committed against native Palestinians for
the past 58 years.  The methods used to silence those
who speak for justice range from claiming the
inclusion of this issue is “divisive” to the tired
canard of equating critiques of Israel with
anti-Semitism.  In between one finds the vague
argument that “I am against certain Israeli policies
but we should not 
.” (fill in the blanks).  If you
probe deeper with such folks you will find that they
oppose basic human rights like the rights of refugees
to return to their homes and lands and be treated
equally.  Even beyond those fundamental issues, you
can ask simply if they support cutting off US aid,
engaging in divestments, and/or boycotts until Israel
corrects the policies they claim they do not support
(e.g. land confiscation, home demolitions etc).  The
answer would be no. 

Probing deeper you will find that the last resort such
individuals have is to argue that Israel is a
democracy unlike South Africa under apartheid.  And
Zionism cannot be analyzed or critiqued.  But what is
Zionism and what is the nature of Israel’s democracy? 
For this we have to step back a little and look at
what Zionism is and then address current Israeli basic
laws (Israel has no constitution but a set of basic
laws that govern its structure as a state by and for
“the Jewish People”). 

Lord Balfour wrote in a memorandum to Lord Curzon, his
successor at the Foreign Office, on 11 August 1919
(two years after the Balfour declaration): "In
Palestine we do not propose to go through the form of
consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants...
Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted
in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future
hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and
prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that
ancient land." While this statement grossly
underestimated the number of native people in
Palestine at the time, it is significant in its
colonial language.  As events unfolded later, there
was good reason for the fears of the native
population.   This was especially after Great Britain
twisted arms at the league of nations to acquire a
“mandate” in Palestine appointing a Zionist to carry
Zionist dreams which were contrary to the founding
charter of the league of nations which called for
self-determination.  Ironically history repeated
itself when the US and the Soviet Union (replacing
England and France as dominant superpowers) lobbied
for partition of Palestine in 1947 even when this was
contrary to the UN charter, which is clear on issues
of self-determination.   

But in either case, from the beginning of the British
occupation in 1919 to the Palestinian revolt of 1936
against British occupation with its concomitant
Zionist colonization, the percentage of Jews in the
population rose from less than 6% to 27.8% (Michael J.
Cohen, The Origin and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist
Conflict, p. 90).  Yet, private land ownership by Jews
jumped (only) from less than 2% to about 6-7% between
1919 and 1947 (the remainder still owned by Christian
and Palestinian Muslims).  The acquisition of
Palestine from its owners was not accomplished by the
land purchases even when these were unjustly aided b
British colonial laws that were designed to help the
Zionist project.  Rather it was planned to be
accomplished by war and direct ethnic cleansing.

Israeli historians who were allowed access to Israeli
archives and records detail the specific methods
employed to remove Palestinians in numerous books. 
Historians like Avi Schlaim, Tom Segev, Ilan Pappe,
Benny Morris, Sternhall and others, documented how
this happened.  Israeli leaders while in public
feigning humanity and caring and democracy were very
clear in private about what needed to be done.  Here
is a section from the diary of Israel’s first Prime
Minister written years before the 1948 war:


"it must be clear that there is no room in the country
for both peoples . . . If the Arabs leave it, the
country will become wide and spacious for us . . . The
only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western
land of Israel (i.e. Palestine since Transjordan is
the eastern portion), without Arabs. There is no room
here for compromises . . . There is no way but to
transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring
countries, to transfer all of them, save perhaps for
Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the old Jerusalem. Not one
village must be left, not one tribe. The transfer must
be directed at Iraq, Syria, and even Transjordan.  For
this goal funds will be found . . . And only after
this transfer will the country be able to absorb
millions of our brothers and the Jewish problem will
cease to exist. There is no other solution." (cited in
Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestine Refugee
Problem, Cambridge University Press,1989, p. 27 & Nur
Masalha, Expulsion Of The Palestinians, ibid pp.
131-132)

The book by Nur Masalha is a definitive analysis of
this era but one can find similar information in other
books by Israeli Jewish historians listed above. 
Perhaps more significantly is that the first order of
business in the newly constituted Israeli “Knesset”
was promulgation of a set of laws that are contrary to
International law that ensured no refugees are allowed
to return (as customarily happens at the end of a war)
and that their land is confiscated for use by Jews
only (“absentee property” laws).  The removal of
75-80% of non-Jews from what became Israel by 1949 was
a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating
and maintaining a Zionist-defined Jewish state. What
the nascent state did subsequently was equally
important.    Israel has no constitution but
promulgated a set of basic laws that govern it
essentially “for the benefit of the Jewish people”.  
These laws recognize members of a particular religion
(including converts) as nationals of the state
regardless of where they live or their current
citizenship.  In Israeli law, all Jews are part of Am
Yisrael (the people of Israel).  To get papers of
citizenship all they have to do is show up in the
state and claim their automatic citizenship.  The
closest to this in the last 100 years of world history
is Nazi Germany which instituted laws that recognized
that all Aryan people whose mother tongue is German
are nationals of the third Reich even if they happen
to be then citizens of say Poland or Serbia. To my
knowledge there is no Christian or Muslim majority
country (not even US-backed dictatorial regimes with
religious laws like Saudi Arabia) today that
recognized that anybody who is Muslim or Christian or
convert to those religions could get automatic
citizenship. Israel is simply not “Jewish” like there
are “Christian” states. No “Christian state” has a
national anthem that even comes close to the Israeli
one that sings of Jewish hearts yearning for Eretz
Yisrael, the land of Israel.  How would one feel if
the US national anthem was about Christians yearning
for our manifest destiny of ruling this Christian
nation?

Israel is unique among the nations in not being a
country of its citizens but of “Jewish people
everywhere”.  No other country defines itself as a
country for members of a particular religion
(including converts) regardless of where they live. 
No other country has supranational entities that have
authority superceding state authority and native
people rights.  For example, the JNF is not a state
agency but it has on its own website the amazing
statement that “The Jewish National Fund is the
custodian of the land of Israel on behalf of its
owners Jewish people everywhere.”  91% of the land
(most taken from the 530 Palestinian towns and
villages depopulated between 1947-1949) is not
privately owned but turned over from the custodian of
“absentee property” to the JNF (Jewish Agency before)
for lease by Jews.  More recently some of this land
was turned over for “management” by the Israel Lands
authority.  I am very familiar with the latter group’s
“work” with the Israeli government in reclassifying
Palestinian lands (including near my own village) to
“Green areas” (or taking over areas classified as
military Zones) and then reclassifying them as
“residential” and then building Jewish only
settlements/colonies on them.  

Another basic law denies refugees the right to return
to their lands and confiscates land without
compensation (so called “absentee property law”). So
far 2/3rds of the native Palestinians are refugees and
displaced people (all simply for being of the wrong
religion).  I say so far because this is a continuing
process.  Just in the past 4 years alone 35,000 more
Palestinians were made homeless by home demolitions
and land confiscations.

Other basic laws define Israel as Jewish-dominated in
more hidden ways and result in lack of equality to
non-Jews in the state.  After the expulsion of 3/4th
of the native Palestinians the 1/4th who managed to
stay were subjected to Marshal law between 1948-1966. 
Even after 1966, they were not integrated in the
society and remain as foreigners in their own lands. 
Since they do not get drafted into the army like other
Israeli citizens, a number of laws do not specifically
give preference to Jews but to those who serve in the
army.    Further Israeli law considers one fourth of
those people (about 300,000 of the 1.3 million
Palestinians with Israeli citizenship) as “present
absentees”.  This means that their land and/or homes
were confiscated from them and turned to the Jewish
Agency/JNF.  By international law they are considered
internally displaced people (refugees).   

Israel uniqueness extends to hundreds of other ways
that other countries do not have access to.  For
example, countries are divided into those who declared
themselves nuclear powers and those that did not and
signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  Israel
is well known to have nuclear weapons (hundreds) but
never signed this treaty or agreed to
non-proliferation let alone international inspections.

Another example is the fact that Israel and many in
the Zionist movement milked billions of dollars from
European governments, individuals, and corporations by
claiming Israel and Zionism represent victims of
European atrocities.  The reality is that the victims
(and their relatives) got nothing or a tiny percentage
of this money that was used to support the destruction
of Palestine.  A good study of this is in Norman
Finkelstein’s book “The Holocaust Industry.”  More
atrocious is that Zionism actually owes these victims
compensation instead of collecting it on their behalf.
 After all, many Zionists not only profited from the
atrocities but also directly collaborated with the
perpetrators.

Political Zionists of various stripes in the 1930s
belonged to the World Zionist Organization (this is
still functioning and serves as umbrella for all
including “Dovish” Zionist groups).  Their response to
European Ethnocentric chauvinistic Nationalism was a
project to create its own ethnocentric chauvinistic
nationalism (at the time ethnic by virtue of Ashkenazi
ethnicity, later religious).   That explains why in
Hitler’s book “Mein Kempf” the only “good” Jews
mentioned are the Zionists.  He states ironically
that: “whatever doubts I had (-about Jews being a
separate race and not merely a religion-) were
dispelled by the attitude of a segment of the Jews
themselves (....) a great movement out of Vienna.. the
Zionists” (highlight in original).  This also
explained why the German Zionist Organization sent
letters to Hitler and the Nazi party supporting his
program of German Aryan Christian “revival” adding
that that is precisely what Zionism wants to do for
European Jews by moving them to Palestine and
“reviving” a Jewish form of ethnocentric nationalism. 
That explains why Zionists challenged Socialist Jews
(the Bund) and broke the Bund’s (and other
progressive) groups’ boycott of Nazi Germany in the
1930s.  Eichman was invited to Haifa as a guest of the
Haganna (forerunner of Israeli army). The Zionist
Organization of Germany was in fact the last group
operating in Nazi Germany and openly Jewish (up to
1942, well after Jews and others where being killed). 
Lenni Brenner books (e.g. Zionism in the Age of
Dictators and “51 Documents: History of Nazi-Zionist
collaboration”) and Edwin Black (“The Transfer
Agreement”) elaborate on some of these issues.  

After Apartheid South Africa, Israel is the only
remaining colonial state with an
exclusivist/supremacist ideology (Zionism). Unlike
South Africa, Israel’s exclusivity is based on
religion not skin color or ethnicity (Jews are of
various ethnicities and skin color).  If this
particular quasi-religious colonial project succeeds,
then some members of every religious minority in the
world will think it can get away with developing new
states that are exclusive or at least run by a
majority of that particular religion while destroying
societies that already inhabit the desired territory. 
Zionism after all only succeeded in establishing a
Jewish majority state and will only continue to
succeed with two conditions recognized well by early
Zionists: a) support of a superpower (first Britain
and then the US), and b) if native people are driven
out and kept out (as has transpired).

Israel is funded to the tune of $5 billion (3 billion
in direct aid, 2 billion other) from our (US) taxes or
shielded from International law and basic human rights
conventions by our government (e.g. 37 vetoes at the
UN security Council).  We thus hold special
responsibility in this situation (and in the
atrocities in Iraq that derive from it), which is not
the same for example for Darfur, Sudan (where our
government is not funding oppression but is actually
at least verbally trying to stop it).

But is Zionism monolithic and is there anything to
point out as a positive aspect of it?  To my knowledge
all branches of political Zionism believed in a
“Jewish political sovereignty” defining Judaism not as
a religion but a national group in need of separation.
  Relying on “us here them there” programs
necessitated removing natives to have a “comfortable”
Jewish majority which by consensus was “set” at 80%
(laws are constantly being tweaked to ensure Jerusalem
is 70-80% “Jewish”).  Cultural Zionists like Martin
Buber argued for a revival of Hebrew and Jewish
traditions etc but without the unrealistic effort of
political separateness.  They argued instead for
political coexistence while maintaining cultural and
religious uniqueness.  For a better understanding of
the psychological aspect of relationship between
Zionism, Judaism, and hatred of Jews, I recommend “Out
of the Ashes” by Prof. Marc Ellis (a Jewish
theologian/philosopher at Baylor).  

Most Palestinians never argued for political or
cultural separateness.  We have always welcomed
persecuted people and integrated diverse communities:
Armenians, Druze, Ethiopians, Circasians, Copts,
Syriacs, Hebrews, Ashkenazim, Mizrachim, Samaritans,
Armenians (came after the pogroms and genocide), etc. 
In fact, Palestine is an amalgamation of all.  The
self-exclusion by some Jews from its mosaic is
transitory and a reintegration into its fabric is just
the way to move forward. One of course need not be
anti-Zionist in the 21st century to do so.  One can
become a post-Zionist.  A post-Zionist can recognize
that the mindset of a Hertzl or Ben Gurion was shaped
by their own upbringing and circumstances.  Instead,
now one can look to a future where people can coexist
based on human rights and equality.  Those who choose
to keep the Hebrew culture and language should be no
different than those who choose to keep Armenian or
Circassian culture and language.  Equality must be the
key.  Like in the struggle against apartheid South
Africa, everyone (Israelis, Palestinians, Americans,
all others) needs to take a moral stand based on the
principle that there is no room in the 21st century
for racism and discrimination.   

Those in the peace and justice movement regardless of
their religious or philosophical affiliation must thus
take a moral stance for equality and other basic human
rights.  It is the only sustainable stance.  It goes
by the clear mandate that all people are equal.  Those
who try to take morally compromising stand in the name
of being “pragmatic” only nourish continuing violence
and oppression.   These lessons were learned in the
anti-Apartheid movement, work for civil rights, work
against the war on Vietnam, for Woman Suffrage, and
other struggles (not to mention earlier with WWI and
II atrocities, ending slavery etc).  The overarching
lesson is that silence in situations of injustice and
racism is not being neutral but being complicit.   In
the case of US citizens whose taxes are used to fund
the Israeli colonization efforts that have left two
thirds of the native Palestinians as refugees or
displaced people, silent complicity is nothing short
of criminal.

Many Israelis are beginning to speak out.  Such moral
stances stretch from the Israeli group that is now
commemorating the Palestinian Nakba (see
http://www.zochrot.org/index.php?id=206) to the
Israeli Artists’ declaration:

"If the state of Israel aspires to perceive itself as
a democracy, it should abandon once and for all, any
legal and ideological foundation of religious, ethnic,
and demographic discrimination.  The state of Israel
should strive to become the state of all its citizens.
 We call for the annulment of all laws that make
Israel an apartheid state, including the Jewish law of
return in its present form" (artists' Declaration
2002).

Can we remain silent (especially in the US who make
the continuation of this tragedy possible)?

As Martin Luther King, Jr stated: "We will have to
repent in this generation not merely for the hateful
words and actions of the bad people but for the
appalling silence of the good people".  Archbishop
Desmond Tutu who supported boycotts and divestments
from Israel said in short: "If you are neutral in
situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of
the oppressor." I can only quote to those who think
violence and oppression are tools to achieve
something: “what would one gain if they gain the whole
world and lose themselves”.   
 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting. 
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search
Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/