Anti-Zionism as a form of racism

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.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/955402.html

They remind me of the native american tribes.
Nothing against Jimmy Carter, but I would take apartheid over extermination any day.

I live in NYS and know many Israelis. God bless them, they have been through so much.

It is such a horrible situation.

Perhaps europe could offer the palestinians a homeland in europe - just like they did for the jews after wwII.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

..... but that is ridiculous. That would be like advocating that maybe Native Americans should be 'relocated' and get a 'Homeland' somewhere in Asia, the Artic Circle, Africa or Europe. Being Native American I would strongly object to that. Why should the Palestinians get a 'Homeland' somewhere other than their true Homeland? Come on, now!

It took you two minutes to read 30sec. worth of material?

Anyway, so I don't invoke cries of "Ad hominem!", I want to tell you that this does happen. Israelis (and Jews in general) are discriminated against widely among Arabs. I don't think this is a load of shit, and I think people should be more open minded when they post about subjects that they know nothing about.

that can not be possible given that the people of the middle east are all from the same origin according to the books.

if anything it`s religious intolerance and tribalism.

It matters not if "the people of the middle east are all from the same origin according to the books." Members of the same group can be racist toward one another.

when scolars look back at this period of time and study the shift from the time the United Nations voted that ZIONISM is racism, to the time when others (though hardly the whole world) claim that anti-zionism is racism.

What kinds of shifts in power and political thinking and language have to transpire in order to make the upside-down claim that opposing a movement that is predicated upon removing indigenous poeple from their land is racist?

These are interesting times indeed.

zionism simply means that Jews should have more rights than Palestinians. That Palestinians are expendable, that they can be expelled at will, and kept out of their homeland. If Israel is an example of zionist philosophy, then i rest my case. It was founded on massive ethnic cleansing, and oppression of indigenous people, which continues, and will continue as long as people cling to this 19th century ideology.

to say zionism is racism is like saying "manifest destiny" was racism.
Isn't that obvious?

...and those of us who self-identify as Zionists are racists?

Just like 'Manifest Destiny' is racism. Again, as Native Americans, we know something about that...............

under the definition which our friend has presented, is (like Manifest Destiny) racism.

However, I have read many different texts in order to find out what Zionism is, and I have come to this conclusion...
NOBODY knows what Zionism is, because Zionism has never been a clearly defined term that all people understand. Nobody has ever actually known what it stands for, just that it has to do with Judaism.

I hate meaningless words.

It is not a subjective or meaningless term.

Zionism is a political movement and ideology that affirms the Jewish people's right to self-determination in the form of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Being a large movement there are many different kinds of Zionism, all with specific aims and motives. Zionism is an umbrella concept, like socialism, which houses many varied movements within its basic tenets. Labor Zionism and religious Zionism differ greatly in many ways, just as Communism and social democracy differ, yet they both fall under the umbrella of Zionism and Socialism, respectively.

Scholars will indeed look back and marvel: "After half of the world's population of Jews was destroyed, it was amazing the level of anti-Semitism never seemed to stop. It just changed tactics."

I think the "marveling" is more likely to be: how could a people who suffered such atrocity turn around and inflict so much pain on another innocent group.

And, I am sure soon-to-be historians will, hopefully, be able to distinguish between fact (" people who suffered such atrocity ") and fiction ("inflict so much pain on another innocent group"). I am guessing too, they won't be as naive as to compare this situation to the Holocaust.

are treated with the same appropriate disgust that Holocaust deniers receive.

The fact that you call it "fiction" indicates that deep down, you know how bad it was and is. So bad, in fact, that you don't have the guts to face it.

Do not put words into my post that do not belong, nor were never there. The absolute disgust should be for those that compare the two as if they were even in the same category, as well as those who deny it and co-opt to suit their needs. The fiction was from your statement, not the reality of the situation. You seem to think the two situations are comparable; they are not. Apples and oranges. Yes, they are both fruits and grow on trees, but that is about the end of the comparisons. The only one without guts here is you because you cannot see racism as an inexcusable weapon to combat racism.

I have never ever said it's equatable to the holocaust. Don't put words in MY mouth.

I characterize as racist a movement that is based upon the displacement of an indigenous population with a foreign colonial population (justified by racist slogans such as "a land without a people for a people without a land").

I'm sure that makes you uncomfortable. I can understand your need to call critics of Israel anti-semites. Doesn't make it true though.

I'm afraid that is indeed the case with the writer of the article in the OP.

I hope it is not true with our fellow DUer here.

Burston has made it clear, as have I on numerous occasions, "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." Do you understand that both of us see a line exists between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and racism? If there is a line, it indicates there are two sides, one racist, one not. In actuality, what I see more here is not so much anti-Semitism, though it does rear its ugly head more than it should, but blatant anti-Israeli bigotry and excuses for those behaviors.

He attacks the Book fair protesters as racist, and does so with no evidence whatsoever. Do you do the same?

That is a failure to see where the line exists between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and racism.

Congratulations on understanding that the line does exist.

The fault lies in the inability to see where the line exists, however.

Burston and I knew the line was always there, but it seems some keep trying to push it back so far that, soon, simply being Israeli will be seen as the mark of racism and anything short of the destruction of Israel (whether thru war, politics, or population) will be the only "solution" to Zionism.

I never said you equated the two, what I did say was "You seem to think the two situations are comparable." That is my opinion based on your postings.

Face it, you can't deal with the real fact, Israel exists and is not going away. Oh, and I see you resorted to the new leftist technique of claiming those who dispute your (general) views on Israel are really just hurling the "anti-Semite" cry, despite the fact it hasn't happened. It is a cowardly way to try and shut down discussion, just as much so as some falsely accusing someone of anti-Semitism.

I'm shutting down no discussion.

I take you back ot my original comment in which I said it will be interesting to study the changes in thinking that took place from the time in which a non-aligned UN body voted overwhelmingly that Zionism is racism (i agree with their thinking on that) to a time in which critics of that racist policy are decried as racists.

You're free to disagree with me, but truthfully, your posts make no sense.

Have a nice evening.

Can't respond, so pretend to shut down conversation (hint: you could have "shut it down by not replying").

At least you admit it, you see Zionism as racism. It is a sad day when so-called progressives see the self-determination of Jews as "racist."

Palestinians were under British colonial rule.

Jews were being exterminated across Europe.

Zionists wanted a Jewish state where Jews could live in safety in their historic homeland.

Palestinians wanted an independent state free from British colonial rule.

Proposals were made whereby both of these dreams could've become reality, without violence.

The Jews fleeing extermination in Europe and elsewhere were not a "foreign colonial population". What country was the land being colonized on behalf of?

We could have had a Jewish state and a Palestinian state living side by side at peace with one another, giving self-determination to both the Jews and Palestinians.

Unfortunately for the thousands of Jewish and Arab civilians and soldiers who were killed in the ensuing conflict, it didn't work out that way.

The governments of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK all share some responsibility for the suffering of the Palestinians.

The "Zionism is Racism" resolution of over 30 years ago was identified by Kofi Annan as one of the lowest points in the history of the organization.

Your movement was fundamentally a movement about displacing people. And with the ongoing settlement activity, it still is.

Back when partition was proposed, it wasn't as if the Yishuv had settled half the land already. Far from it, and you know that. That's why so much land grabbing took place prior to the war for independence. hell, there's STILL no internationally recoginized border. The land grabs continue to this day.

Recall that Jews were kicked off their land across the Middle East. These Jews were able to re-settle in Israel. I do not think that they would necessarily consider this change to have been a catastrophe.

If a similar homeland had been set up for Palestinians, and any Palestinian Arab who wished to live there would be part of an independent state, free from colonial rule, then perhaps those who were forced to move to this new state may not have seen it as a catastrophe. After all, they had been living as colonial subjects for decades up to this point. Now they would finally be free to control their own destiny in an independent state.

The catastrophe occurred because of the war that followed the rejection of the Partition Plan.

A war for which many actors share responsibility.

I usually take pains to not over-exaggerate my case when posting here. And it is no exception, no exaggeration when I say: The article is crap.

First of all, this is exactly the type of rightist attack that the writer comments on in the first paragraph.

The main example of "racism" cited is a pro-Palestinian group protesting at the Turin International Book Fair. A leaflet that group distributed is quoted:

"We are appalled to see the world of culture take the side of those who methodically operate to annihilate Palestine and the Palestinians."

THAT is his example of racism.

Let's read the one quote again. Remember, it's the one example the writer cites from the protest of the book fair:

"We are appalled to see the world of culture take the side of those who methodically operate to annihilate Palestine and the Palestinians."

So, expressing anger at annihilation of Palestinians, is racism. In other words, voicing opposition to killings, is racism.

It's unbelievable that any of us are asked to take this argument seriously. Yet, it's precisely what is being written. That expressing opposition to systematic removal of people from their land, is racism!

Sorry, but I find this incredibly stupid. At the minimum, the boat has been missed completely.

If the guy is upset about the protest, fine, he can make his argument about the attendees of this book fair being peace activists. He can make his case that it may have been unfair to target this particular event. I could possibly see that argument. Might not agree, but I could see where the argument is coming from.

But no. He's just got to stretch the whole thing out into this racism thing. Unless there are more examples out there he did not cite in the article, the writer missed the point altogether. But if there *are* examples of flagrant racism, why exclude those examples from the article? One has to conclude that there are no examples of racism to go on, and the writer is trying to make connections were there are none.

I'm a little offended that Haaretz would ask it's readers to spend time with an article like this. Haaretz is better than that. Much better.

If you think "The main example of "racism" cited is a pro-Palestinian group protesting at the Turin International Book Fair.", then you did miss the 'boat.' The main example was the now-defunct UN resolution 3379; though he does cite boycotts by the British, as well.

"So, expressing anger at annihilation of Palestinians, is racism." I don't think the author is implying that at all. It was used as an example of anti-Zionism racism because the leaflet is pure anti-Israeli crap. The Israelis are not "methodically operat(ing) to annihilate Palestine and the Palestinians." He also points out the irony of the 'protest' because the Israeli authors who would be in attendance are some of the most anti-occupation writers Israel offers.

There were plenty of examples of anti-Zionism as racism in the article, but you seem to have chosen to ignore them because they weren't express examples, but rather generalizations. Here is the list from the article in summation:

It is racist...

• ...to say everyone is entitled to a homeland, but not Jews, all the while demanding a Palestinian homeland.
  
• ...to maintain the Muslims "claim" to the land via the Bible, but deny the Jews the same.
  
• ...to maintain the self-determination of the Jews as the ultimate evil and killing those adherents is acceptable, even approved.
  
• ...to maintain Israel be held to a standard to which no other country is held.
  
• ...to silence Israelis because they happen to be Israelis.

There is not one example in the article that says everyone is entitled to a homeland except for Jews.

There is not one example in the article that accepts Muslim claims to land via the Bible but denies Jews the same.

There is not one example in the article saying that self-determination of Jews is the ultimate evil.

There is not one example asking Israel to be held to a standard to which no other country is held.

There is not one example of silencing Israelis just because they are Israelis.


So, sorry. Obviously this guy is on a crusade to prove something. Nothing is proven, however, other than his own inability to understand pro-Palestinian groups expressing opposition to the systematic removal of people from their land.

"There were plenty of examples of anti-Zionism as racism in the article, but you seem to have chosen to ignore them because they weren't express examples, but rather generalizations."

You admit there is nothing to go on, then, other the author making up his own generalizations.

That is why I wrote that the article is crap. He has no specific evidence of racism to go on, other than these idiotic generalizations. For example, saying that it's racist to oppose annihilation of Palestinians. That is not racism.

So if the author wrote: It is racist to say blacks are watermelon eating car thieves, but didn't provide a direct quote from Rush Limbaugh (though that quote may have been another DJ), then you simply think there is nothing going on?

I agree with every statement as to what racism is (racism is to maintain the self-determination of the Jews as the ultimate evil for example).

The writer has not shown any evidence of people maintaining that self-determination of the Jews is the ultimate evil.

Without that evidence, he can make no connection whatsoever to the very title of his article: "Anti-Zionism as a form of racism"

You actually agree those statements are examples of racism?!

"The writer has not shown any evidence of people maintaining that self-determination of the Jews is the ultimate evil." It was in the freaking article; well at least the part that the self-determination of the Jews was not acceptable, but it was OK for others.

For starters, I want to see an example of someone who said that self-determination of the Jews is ultimate evil.

Next, I want to see an example of someone who silences Israelis just because they are Israelis.

And so on.

I want to see an example of someone declaring "Zionism as an evil before which all other evils in the world pale, and arguing that any act of violence against non-combatants is justified in the service of defeating Zionism" (to directly quote the author)

Without any examples, these claims are meaningless. Of course it would be racist to call self-determination of Jews the ultimate evil, or to silence Israelis on no other basis than they are Israeli. But you have to have some basis upon which to make claims like these.

The author provides no such examples, as you even admit. All I'm saying is - there must be specific examples of Anti-Zionists making these racist claims, in order to attempt to make the argument about Anti-Zionism being a form of racism. It's just that simple.

No evidence = empty argument.

Before I spend my anniversary searching up examples, you tell me what the parameters are. What do see as "legitimate" examples? I really don't intend to waste time doing this, only to have it shot down as an "illegitmate" source. Also, how long to I have to complete this task? Some will start with "what? no response?" within minutes.

So, what do you consider evidence?

You understand that you can't charge anti-Zionists as being racist, until you can cite specific examples of anti-Zionists saying or doing racist things. That is what this comes down to.

Yet, the author does no such thing. In fact, the one main example he talks about, in no way amounts to racism whatsoever. The main example, to me, being the group that protested the book fair - and I call that the main example, because he spends about six paragraphs focusing on them, whereas the other examples (attacks on 'Islamist ideology' being one, and the UN resolution being the other) he spends just one paragraph on. It is very fair to call the book fair protest the main example in the article.

Now we all know that what he refers to as 'Islamist ideology' (a phrase that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but that is an argument for another day) does contain extremely racist elements. We could all do a quick Google search and find some radical religious group specifically attacking Jews. To argue otherwise would be dumb.

But the focus of this article, was not on the radical 'Islamists'. The focus of attack was clearly targeted towards leftist peace activist types who express themselves as 'Anti-Zionist'. People, who, for the most part, are not racists as far as I know.

That is why I ask for specific examples, and that is why I thought the article was ridiculous, because there are no examples to be found.

You may spend your time finding some examples if you wish; I just hope my point is now clear: Lacking in specific examples makes this article baseless crap.

First, Burston is not charging all anti-Zionists as racists. You, and some others, seem to have missed that point entirely. He made it clear, at least in my view, that there is a line between legitimate criticism of Israel and racism. Some of those anti-Zionists do not understand that line, nor respect it. Also, he did cite specific examples:

• We've seen it in the serial boycott obsession of elements of the British intelligentsia,...
  
• ...UN resolution 3379, adopted in late 1975, the declaration which determined that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."
  
• 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.

The reason he went on about the book fair was because it is a more subtle form of racism. It would be no different than someone writing about racism against African-Americans and writing more than one paragraph about why calling Obama "articulate" is subtle racism. Most people realize "nigger" is racist, therefore, examples of people saying that or using that word are not needed, especially in a short opinion piece. However, the nuance of racism, well, that needs more explanation (check out GD and GD: P for examples of nuanced racism and etc having to be explained to the masses).

I am not going to search out examples because I am not prepared to waste my time when I present examples only to be told they are not legitimate, which is why I asked for parameters. So, the article did have specific examples, though not of each point. Explaining why something is racist shouldn't be dependant on examples or the lack thereof, the explanation should be enough.

Let's cover each one in turn.

1) Example of "serial boycott obsession of elements of the British intelligentsia". The author goes on to write that these intelligentsia "essentially seek to penalize and punish Israeli colleagues for little more than the original sin of being Israeli".

First of all that is pure exaggeration and amounts to the same rightist attempt to smear and discredit, that the author comments on in the first paragraph of the article. I often hear of this so-called "obsession" with Israel, and it is almost always a baseless charge, and a way to distract from the issues that are attempted at being addressed. Here, we need specific examples. We need to see specific intelligentsia attacking Israelis "for little more than the original sin of being Israeli". This is a baseless charge and can easily dismissed.

2) UN resolution 3379. Not an example of Anti-Zionists being racist. Either side can argue what they will, on whether or not the resolution was correct. But the resolution in and of itself was not racist. It was an attempt at addressing some of the wrongs brought about by Zionism. Myself I am not so sure that it is fair to call Zionism racism. But I would definitely not argue that saying so is itself racist. It isn't.

That's two down.

3) "the rise of Islamist ideology". Ah, yes the favorite of the rightist seeking to dismantle legitimate criticism of Israel. One can always go back to the endless well called "Islamist ideology" to make the case for how opposition to Israel amounts to obscene hatred of Jews.

There is no question that radical religious groups harbor racist views. Nobody is going to argue against that, not around here I hope. But to try to tie in Islamist ideology with peace activists, intelligentsia, and other human rights groups, stir them all in together into this syrupy mix and call it Anti-Zionist racism, is completely absurd. Peace activists and intelligentsia do not harbor the anti-Jew views of the radical groups. Not by a long shot.

If the author wants to write an article condemning radical ideology, fine. But don't try to lump in critics of Israel with that kind of radical hatred. Half a point awarded, because there is no arguing against the racism of those radical groups. But no full point for trying to tie in legitimate criticism of Israel with the radicals.

4) Protestors at the book fair. Come on. There is no racism here. If there is, this is where I would like to see specific examples. A leaflet opposing aggression against Palestinian does not count as an example of racism.


Final score, half a point out of 4 potential points.

Out of 100, that's 12.5%.

A failing grade.

I repeat, the article is crap.

Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe

EDWARD H. KAPLAN
School of Management
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
Yale University

CHARLES A. SMALL
Institute for Social and Policy Studies
Yale University


In the discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, extreme criticisms of Israel (e.g., Israel is an apartheid state, the Israel DefenseForces deliberately targetPalestinian civilians), coupled with extreme policy proposals (e.g., boycott of Israeli academics and institutions, divest from companies doing business with
Israel), have sparked counterclaims that such criticisms are anti-Semitic (for only Israel is singled out). The research in this article shines a different, statistical light on this question: based on a survey of 500 citizens in each of 10 European countries, the authors ask whether those individuals with extreme anti-Israel views are more likely to be anti-Semitic. Even after controlling for numerous potentially confounding factors, they find that anti-Israel sentiment consistently predicts the probability that an individual is anti-Semitic, with the
likelihood of measured anti-Semitism increasing with the extent of anti-Israel sentiment observed.

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~antis/papers/jcr_antisemitism.pdf

That's not racist? Are you kidding me? "...recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination," but not Jews?

As for #3, you obviously still don't see the point. The reason the "peace activists, intelligentsia, and other human rights groups," are being "mixed in" with the radical religious ideologies is because some of those groups are adopting similar rhetoric. So-called progressives call to "Smash the Jewish State," "Palestine: from the river to the sea.", and "Israel out of the Middle East." When 'peace rallies' focus on nothing but the denigration of Israel, they cease to be peace rallies.

The leaflet was not opposing violence against the Palestinian people, it was expressly saying Israel was annihilating them. There is a HUGE difference, yet you fail to see it.

The British boycotts, you have to joking if you haven't seen a near endless call for boycotts against Israel and things Israeli. There is more than one thread right here at DU in the I/P forum with links about that very topic.

You may think the article is crap, but anti-Zionism as racism is a very real thing but people dismiss it because it would mean they would have to face their own racist thoughts about the nation of Israel.

I will say, real quick a couple thoughts - The UN resolution does not say "but not Jews". You added that.

The problem with your argument against British boycotts and the like - is that just because the boycotts are targeted towards Israel, does not mean it's just because it's Israel. Have you ever considered the possibility, that perhaps there are calls for boycotts, merely on the basis of opposition to actions being taken by the Israeli regime?
Hmmmm. Could be! :think:

As for the leaflet, plenty of people believe that Israel is working towards annihilating the Palestinians. I find the term "annihilating" an exaggeration myself, but I understand the argument. It is not necessarily based on racism. Do you understand that? Please say you do, I really hope we can find some common dialogue somewhere. The argument can in fact be based on anger and opposition at what has been done to the Palestinians. Are there racist and anti-Jewish people who would use the argument as a way of expressing their racism? Of course. I get that. But you can usually pick those people out fairly easily, and the writer of the article does nothing towards distinguishing between the two. THAT is my problem, and that is why the article is crap. Let me repeat - the writer of the article does nothing to distinguish between racist motivation for distributing such a leaflet, and a motivation based on anger. Instead, he would have us believe that because some group expresses anger at the treatment of Palestinians, therefore they must be racist, and only on that basis alone. There are pretty basic concepts, and I'm not sure why it is so difficult to grasp. I take blame for not being clear enough on making this point.

Is that the author after taking pains as to how a "boycott" would affect Israeli's no matter what their political sway, note he does scrupulously avoid the term "collective punishment" and reading the most extreme, not to mention fear mongering things possible into a single leaflet by a single group such as being anti-Zionist means Jews have no right to live in Buenos Aries, he then seems to shoot the previous umpteen paragraphs in the foot in the final sentence

Fighting racism with racism is a tactic which, despite its allure to the hothead, never does.

If being anti-Zionist is as he claims racist, just what racism is it fighting?

You clearly didn't understand what was written, based on your own 'analysis.'

What is really "curious" is how you could read things which weren't there, but not the things which were. A perfect example:

You wrote: "...the most extreme, not to mention fear mongering things possible into a single leaflet by a single group such as being anti-Zionist means Jews have no right to live in Buenos Aries..."

What was actually written: "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."

The "most extreme" anti-Zionism was "...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." This, of course, is a reference to the UN resolution 3379 of 1975, repealed in 1991.

The "fear-mongering," as you call it, was not about the leaflet, but rather, "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."

You also failed to understand "There is, in fact, such a line (Where does the line fall between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies on the one hand, and a racist anti-Zionism on the other?)". So, being anti-Zionist is racist in the points that followed that statement.

Short version: It is racist...

• ...to say everyone is entitled to a homeland, but not Jews, all the while demanding a Palestinian homeland.
  
• ...to maintain the Muslims "claim" to the land via the Bible, but deny the Jews the same.
  
• ...to maintain the self-determination of the Jews as the ultimate evil and killing those adherents is acceptable, even approved.
  
• ...to maintain Israel be held to a standard to which no other country is held.
  
• ...to silence Israelis because they happen to be Israelis.

Finally, you say his last paragraph "shoots" the others in the foot with his final sentence and then question: "just what racism is it fighting?" He is saying don't combat anti-Palestinian racism (perhaps even, Islamaphobia) with anti-Zionism racism (and anti-Semitism).

...to say everyone is entitled to a homeland, but not the Palestinians, all the while demanding a Jewish-nationalist homeland.

...to maintain the Zionist "claim" to the land via the Bible, but deny the Palestinians the same.

...to maintain the self-determination of the Palestinians as the ultimate evil and killing those adherents is acceptable, even approved.
(defining self-determination as either a fully viable, fully contiguous and genuinely independent Palestinian state or if that becomes impossible - full equality in their homeland for both peoples.)

...to maintain the Palestinian national movement be held to a standard to which no other national movement is held.

...to silence Palestinians because they happen to be Palestinians.

Yes.

Now, would you provide examples of...



And since we are asking questions, do you see what I wrote as racist?

There clearly are people here on this forum who do not accept the Palestinian claim to self-determination. I cannot say you have indicated that opinion.

There are may people who might in theory agree to a "Palestinian state", but not one that is genuinely independent, contiguous and viable. And unfortunatley there definitely are some who do clearly regard Arab peoples in general and Palestinians specifically as an inferior race. In some cases this comes off quite vividly.

It does appear to be more acceptable to justify Israeli violence against Palestinians than to justify Palestinian violence against Israelis. That may not necessarily always be racist. But it is biased and reflects an extremely biased understanding of the conflict.

As far as religious claims on the land, to that I am ultimately neutral as I am on most religious beliefs. Of course fairness and the interest of peace requires that Muslims, Christians and Jews all recognize the religious sensitivities of each other. There will never be a lasting peace without resolving the issue of Jerusalem. Everyone knows this. I would say the Geneva Accord offers the most practical blueprint I have seen so far: http://www.geneva-accord.org/Accord.aspx?FolderID=33&lang=en

I do feel that the Palestinian movement is held to a standard that other movements of national liberation are not held to. If we take for example the ANC, the Kosovo Liberation Army or the Kurdish national movement -- I cannot see any evidence that the Palestinian national movement has been anymore violent, any more demanding, has had more internal conflicts or have been any less compromising.

There clearly are those who want to de-legitimize any articulation of Palestinian aspirations.

As to whether or not Zionism is racist. That would depend on ones' definition of Zionism. Although I think that it would be a bit far out to expect Arab peoples not to interpret Zionism as racist given that the principle manifestation of Zionism that they see tends to reflect that side of Israeli state policy. Even in a poll of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship -- 76% believe Zionism is racist -- but an almost equal number can willingly accept living in a Jewish and democratic state along side an independent Palestinian state -- provided that Jewish and democratic state practices full equal rights - only 3.4% of Israeli-Arabs believe that is currently the case. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=839029

Still I would have to say that there are many, many people who define themselves as Zionist whose definition of Zionism does accept the full equality of all people including Arab and Palestinian people. I do not believe most Arabs and most Palestinians have any fundamental quarrel with this interpretation of Zionism. So I would hesitate to make such a sweeping statement about Zionism.

.

"There clearly are people here on this forum who do not accept the Palestinian claim to self-determination. I cannot say you have indicated that opinion."

Yes, there are and, no, I am not one of them. Thank you for seeing that. Conversely, there are those who parrot the same for Jews. They often call for a "one-state" solution.

"There are may people who might in theory agree to a "Palestinian state", but not one that is genuinely independent, contiguous and viable. And unfortunately there definitely are some who do clearly regard Arab peoples in general and Palestinians specifically as an inferior race. In some cases this comes off quite vividly."

"Contiguous" is an issue because of the current geography. However, the other points, I think most here are in favor of that type of Palestinian state, especially viable. As for the anti-Arab bigotry (inclusive of anti-Palestinian), it is no different than the anti-Semitism expressed. In all actuality, anti-Semitism is more common than the other, even with the current bias and bigotry we see with those against Arabs. Check out hate crimes against both groups.

"It does appear to be more acceptable to justify Israeli violence against Palestinians than to justify Palestinian violence against Israelis. That may not necessarily always be racist. But it is biased and reflects an extremely biased understanding of the conflict."

It may appear that way because of the violence which takes place. Whereas, Israeli actions are not always "above board," the majority of those actions are against 'military' actions. Rarely, do Palestinian actions take place against anyone other than civilians. That may be why you see such a difference. However, I disagree with your assessment that Israeli violence is seen as more acceptable, but what I have seen is the opposite, especially here.

"I do feel that the Palestinian movement is held to a standard that other movements of national liberation are not held to. If we take for example the ANC, the Kosovo Liberation Army or the Kurdish national movement -- I cannot see any evidence that the Palestinian national movement has been anymore violent, any more demanding, has had more internal conflicts or have been any less compromising."

Of course there is a different standard, there are different circumstances. As for the Palestinian movement being more violent as compared to others, I haven't made such a claim (I know you are not saying I did, just clarifying). I would actually liken the Palestinian movement more closely to the Northern Irish movement, and even that isn't a great example for comparison.

As for your oft totted stats about the Arab opinion of Zionism, I find that as relevant as polling the Klan on Affirmative Action. (For the simple-minded, no, I am not saying Arabs are like the Klan; simply, both groups see opposed to something they see as detrimental to their way of life. Hell, for that matter, I am not even comparing Zionism to Affirmative Action.)

I agree with you about Jerusalem. It will be a pivotal point. I see it becoming a new Berlin (the way the old one was).

I find it refreshing you see Zionism in a less dastardly light.

when zionists began immigrating. The national movement of the Palestinians was an afterthought.

No one is silencing the Palestinians because they are Palestinians. That is hogwash.

I would say most people, if not all people, on this board, are proponents of self determination for BOTH people.

I am opposed to those on this board who put the rights of the Palestinians ABOVE those of the Jews.

That the Palestinians have more rights to the land that Jews have lived on for 60-100 years than those Jews do.

That a single state (i.e. a bloodbath) is preferable to a two state solution.

That "right of return" should be allowed to Palestinians, although it will destroy Israel as a Jewish state, although right of return is enforced for NO OTHER REFUGEE GROUP in the world.

That there can be 22 Jew-free Muslim states in the middle east, which allow no rights (indeed, no Jew can even live there, rights aside) and no one complains, but that there can't be one Jewish state (that still has 1.5 million Arabs living in it).

The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

Of course the Palestinian people are not treated equally under the current situation. If equality can be accomplished in a two-state solution - then good - blessed be that day.

Of course much of the language used by some on this forum is an attempt to dehumanize and demonize Arab and Palestinian people. And that is just as wrong as anti-Semitism - no more - no less.

You keep posting over and over:



Of course those things are racist.

But now, the onus is on you (and the writer of the article) to provide evidence of where these things are happening. The writer has no evidence - do you? Where are you hiding those examples? Let's see it! If you can show some evidence I'd be right there in agreement. But until then, your words are empty.

Burston's writings are always interesting and thought-provoking; and he cannot be dismissed as blindly supportive of everything the Israeli government does - he isn't.

I do not think that anti-Zionism is *always* racist; but it often is. Some people are against *all* forms of nationalism, including Zionism. They are not racist. Some ultra-Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist because they think the state of Israel should not be established until the Messiah arrives. They are fundie nuts IMO, but they are generally not racist. And many Arabs and pro-Arab people are anti-Zionist on nationalist/territorial grounds, rather than primarily racist grounds - though, as with all territorial conflicts, racism frequently results!

But on the whole, people who think that all forms of nationalism are OK *except* Zionism are often not personally racist, but are influenced by sources that ultimately are. And where anti-Zionism really tends to turn into racism is when Israel is not only criticized for its own actions, but blamed for the actions of other countries. I have seen posts - usually not in the I/P forum - where Israel was accused of controlling America and even the world; where Israel has been accused of getting America into the war in Iraq and even of masterminding 9-11; where 'Zionists' outside Israel have been accused of being loyal to Israel instead of their own country - even if they've never been to Israel. Such views are xenophobic if part of a *general* tendency to blame other countries for one's own country's mistakes and failings; and are racist if *uniquely* directed at Israel, Jews, or 'Zionists'.

None of this is unique to attitudes to Israel or Jews. When right-wingers lump all Arabs or Muslims together and blame them collectively for 9-11 or other terrorism, that is also racist. When British xenophobes blame everything that goes wrong in the UK on 'the immigrants' that is racist too. All racism is to be opposed - and it's my impression that different forms of racism often go together, so that e.g anti-semites are often also anti-immigrant bigots. But I think that it *is* important to bear in mind that some (not all) anti-Zionism does have links to racism.

Scary to see that the "Zionism is racism" idea is still alive and well among some who consider themselves progressive.

"Anti-Zionism as a form of racism"


what a load of crap

but many Zionists are racist against Arabs