Ovi -
we cover every issue
Resource for Foreigners in Finland  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Ovi Language
Michael R. Czinkota: As I See It...
Stop violence against women
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
Zionism is Racism 2/2: Zionism needs to be redefined as pure racism and nothing else
by Dr. Habib Siddiqui
2009-04-26 09:52:02
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

Israel’s inherent racism has been vividly clear to anyone who had visited the Occupied Territories. As was noted in 2003 by The Foundation for Middle East Peace, a Washington-based institution that has been tracking Israeli settlement-building for decades, Israel's relentless increase in territorial control had “compromised not only the prospect for genuine Palestinian independence but also, in ways not seen in Israel’s 36-year occupation, the very sustainability of everyday Palestinian life.”

The situation today is worse than it was back then in 2003. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported that the Israeli assault in last December and January killed more than 1,300 Gazans, including 300 children. Israeli missiles leveled the parliament building, mosques, the central courthouse, the Ministry of Justice, the main U.N. food storage warehouse, and the Red Crescent Society hospital. The science lab at Islamic University’s highly regarded medical school was destroyed. The Israeli attack was on a defenseless population that had no bomb shelters, no warning sirens, and no adequate means of caring for the victims. In each case Israel’s target was not an opposing army but a civilian society, to destroy Gaza as a functioning community. Truly, Israel’s genocidal campaign succeeded in killing everything except the will of the people.

John Ging, head of the U.N. relief operations in Gaza, reported that by the time the bombing eased off, 400,000 Gazans had been without running water for three weeks, 20,000 homes were destroyed or damaged and 100,000 people were homeless. In the town of Beit Hanoun alone 30,000 tons of sewage flowed in the streets every hour. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused the Israeli army of using white phosphorous – a banned substance for use against civilians -- that burns human flesh to the bone. Israel also stopped delivery of humanitarian aid. On Feb. 5 the Israeli navy stopped a Lebanese ship from carrying relief supplies and diverted it to Israel in what the Arab League called “an act of piracy.”

And yet to a jaundice-eyed West, such war crimes of the Zionist state are nothing but a show of its right of self-defense!

The 2008 annual report of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) entitled “The State of Human Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories” noted that “Arab Israelis are disadvantaged, persecuted, endangered, and live under third-world conditions.”

Israel’s political and military leaders are neither shy about their determination for Eretz Israel nor about clarifying that the non-Jews have no future there. It was in 2002, Israel's ex-education minister, Limor Livnat, spelled out in defense of Zionism that Israel is not “just another state like all the other states.” She said, “We are not just a state of all its citizens.”

Parties like the ruling Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu and National Union consider settling Jews in the entire Palestine as an expression of fulfillment of Zionism. The 1999 Likud Charter, e.g., emphasized the right of settlement in “Judea (and) Samaria”, more commonly known as the “West Bank and Gaza.” Similarly, their claims of the Jordan River as the permanent eastern border to Israel and Jerusalem as “the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel,” do the same. The ‘Peace & Security’ chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” The chapter continued: “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.” Yet, Israel’s western patrons never ask about ratifying such a Charter!

In a thoroughly researched article “Zionism as a racist ideology” (Counter Punch, Nov. 8/9, 2003) Bill and Kathleen Christison (former high ranking officials with the CIA) rightly observed, “Indeed, the most pernicious aspect of a political philosophy like Zionism that masquerades as democratic is that it requires an enemy in order to survive and, where an enemy does not already exist, it requires that one be created. In order to justify racist repression and dispossession, particularly in a system purporting to be democratic, those being repressed and displaced must be portrayed as murderous and predatory. And in order to keep its own population in line, to prevent a humane people from objecting to their own government’s repressive policies, it requires that fear be instilled in the population: fear of "the other," fear of the terrorist, fear of the Jew-hater. The Jews of Israel must always be made to believe that they are the preyed-upon.”

And this is exactly what the Zionist state has been doing against the original inhabitants of Israel -- the Palestinians.  Like a gifted artist, it has painted them as inherently hostile who want to “destroy Israel” and “throw the Jews into the seas.” This justifies eviction of Palestinians, destruction of their homes, discriminating against them and denying democratic rights to them. Situation is created so hopelessly unlivable for this “other” people that they are pushed into violence. And once this happens, they are relegated to the status of “terrorists” with whom no negotiation can be made. Forgotten then are all those conciliatory gestures including the PLO’s decision in 1988 to recognize Israel’s existence, relinquish Palestinian claims to the three-quarters of Palestine residing inside Israel’s pre-1967 borders, and even recognize Israel’s “right” to exist there.

Even when negotiations take place, these are conducted hypocritically as part of face-saving measures (to show that Israel is for peaceful solution to hide her intent), and more as a bargaining tactic not only to extract favorable concessions from the weaker party but also from the sponsor (usually the USA). So those negotiations are a necessary and prudent way to weaken the Palestinian position while further enriching and strengthening the Zionist state. These schemes have not changed; they only get reinvigorated with time.

While all the great nations have valued inclusion or plurality, the Zionist state stands for exclusion, racism and xenophobia. In 2006, Israeli cabinet minister Avidgor Lieberman said that Israel had no alternative but to move toward “exchanges of populations and territory, in order to create the most homogenously Jewish state.” He also said, “Minorities are the biggest problem in the world.” On May 12 2002, Netanyahu dubbed a Palestinian state, in a crude, racist slur, as “Arafat-istan”. When it comes to the subject of Israeli Arabs, it’s hard to tell where Netanyahu ends and Lieberman begins.

In 1923, Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, the spiritual father of today’s Zionism and the founder of the Jewish Legion, wrote: “Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important … to speak Hebrew, but unfortunately it is even more important to be able to shoot — or else I am through with playing colonization.” [The Iron Wall]

No one personifies the colonial expansionist policy of Jabotinsky and the Zionist Israel with ruthless cool-headedness better than Benjamin Netanyahu. The crowning moment for him was the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by a pro-Likud Jewish zealot Yigal Amir in 1995, during peace negotiations between the Israeli state and the PLO. As a beneficiary of that murder, Likud came to power in 1996 and peace talks came to a halt. The same conglomeration of social forces that blocked any prospect of even a shadow of an independent Palestinian state is now in power under Netanyahu’s watch. Netanyahu and Lieberman, as spokesmen of the settler movement, are physical embodiments of anti-Palestine, anti-Arab racism.

The civilized people living in vast territories of Asia, Africa and Latin America must take a hard look at today’s Zionism and analyze what this evil is doing to the affected people of the region. When they do, like open-minded curious surgeons, they will find nothing pleasant about this cancerous entity called Zionism. It is not accident that a great Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum had said, “Zionism is the greatest form of spiritual impurity. They have polluted the Jewish people with their heresy."

A colonial settler movement like Zionism that uproots indigenous people is an anti-thesis of national liberation movement. Like Myanmarism, it remains one of the last relics of racism that needs to be torn down for greater good of humanity.

It is high time to openly express outrage and revulsion at today’s Zionism, which is nothing but a racist policy that aims ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people from their ancestral home. The world body needs to reinstate the U.N. Resolution 3379, because Zionism is uglier today than it was back in 1991 when it was revoked.

President Ahmadinejad’s speech on Zionism’s culpability to fostering unbridled racism would sound offensive, inflammatory and unacceptable only to those who have no problem sanctioning war crimes of Israel against unarmed Palestinians. Those individuals are closet racists themselves. Shame on them for sustaining the scourge of Zionism!

[About the author: Dr. Siddiqui has authored eight books. His latest book: Democracy, Politics and Terrorism - America's Quest for Security in the Age of Insecurity – can be found in the Amazon.com. He can be reached at saeva@aol.com]

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Get it off your chest
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2009-04-26 16:51:10
Since most of those who walked out of the conference were "enlightened" Europeans, we ought now to expect an explanation for the walking out. Could it be that the explanation is that the pot calling the kettle black solves no problem. After all Ahmadinejad is the same fellow who advocates genocide for the state of Israel which in his opinion ought to be wiped out the face of the earth. Or is there another explanation? Perhaps the fact that he represents a repressive theocratical regime for which most Westerners have little taste? One has to wonder: had the same words come from an atheistic secularist leader in principle inimical to religion in general, would there have been a walkout? Ah, the ironies of history!

AP2009-04-26 17:33:14
The greatest enemies of religion are religious institutions themselves. You see, for example, yesterday we celebrated 35 years of the peace & freedom day in my country, many parts of spain, brazil and africa. And yet everybody recalls that the whole 2 years after 1974 your Opus Dei friends, and bishops inclusively, scattered bombs throughout the country, murdered people and attempted a radical right-wing counter-coup for several times. Worst: they were never punished for that - although there are suspicions about who they were -, they have even put a bomb in a prime-minister airplane, which killed him and several other people. You see, many times religious representatives are not dignified enough - specially when they are a "explosive powder enlightened" kind of beings.

Emanuel Paparella2009-04-26 18:04:15
My Opus Dei friends? An interesting shabby mode of getting two slanders with one shot! Fortunately most intelligent people know that what can be gratuitously asserted in a few words can also be safely ignored. Nevertheless the tactic remains intellectually shabby!

Jack2009-04-27 00:27:24

The very words of President Ahmadineja's speech seemed full of racism itself, directed against Jews. There is no lack of documented speeches he has made with designs to destroy Israel, not only Zionists.

Zionism can not be made to include, sweepingly, all Jews and all of Israel, everywhere. This is how some, not all, U.S. government and private citizens regard Native American Indians at one time "As savages"...although far, far from the truth. They were the 7 "civilized tribes", ie, Cherokee, Seminoles, etc. who had written languages, art, music..and so on. This too was racism, but with living with or near them came understanding, and respect, and compatibility. Hate (generally for the most part) is now gone, and left is respect of their proud heritiage. How could we have been so wrong? We refused to "know them" and talk. And not racist talk either. Iran's president has shown he has, by his words, racist attituteds toward Israel. This makes him no better than they, in the least.

And to state as absolute fact that a "fostering unbridled racism would sound offensive, inflammatory and unacceptable ONLY to those who have no problem sanctioning war crimes of Israel against unarmed Palestinians." is in effect, you making these two things equal. I don't use "unbridled racism would sound offensive, inflammatory and unacceptable [words]" and expect my children and grandchildren would not. To condemn with such words is no better than lowering oneself to the same level as the one's you are condemning.

If there is speech, let it be to understand one another, not condemn one another with intent to destror.

Finally, you convienently left out the "war crimes", (ie, missles)against the Israelie citizens; which Israel was simply defending itself. Indications of these missles and technology come from Iran!

Alexander Mikhaylov2009-04-27 04:39:37
To Jack: It would be nice, before you post anything available for public, to brush up your English - I suppose it is your first language, if you still care to remember it- unless you have decided to forsake it for the sake of political corectness

Jack2009-04-28 02:04:58

I appreciate the "spelling" goof. Point well taken.

Anyway, the main point I was making was that when we look at the definition of Zionism it reads; a movement establishing and developing Jewish state: a worldwide movement, originating in the 19th century, that sought to establish and develop a Jewish nation in Palestine. Since 1948 its function has been to support the state of Israel. www.encarta.msn.com

www.education.yahoo.com calls describes it the same way….“A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

www.wikipedia.org calls Zionism, “the international Jewish political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine. The area was the Jewish Biblical homeland, called the Land of Israel (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el). Since the creation of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.

What is your source for the definition of Zionism? I have found the overwhelming movement is for Israel, so called Zionism, is for her to exist. There are no definitions of Zionism that indicate Israel is to destroy her neighbors, any non-Jewish nations…any Arab, Middle East nations. "Is" in mathematics works as an equal sign. Therefore, Zionism does not, in the opinions of those stated, equal racism. I attended college with two Middle Eastern students and one from Israel. I saw nothing in any of their remarks or actions that insinuated that they were racist. I attended Newman University (a highly accredited Catholic University in Wichita, KS) and we enjoyed the benefit of students from many different nations. I heard many of these professors say that "the greater the education about the other nations in the world, the less racism, hatred, descrimination (etc.) there would be.

AP2009-04-29 14:39:55
"There are no definitions of Zionism that indicate Israel is to destroy her neighbors, any non-Jewish nations…any Arab, Middle East nations."
Well, they have certainly been making a very serious effort to destroy Gaza strip and Palestine. To tell the truth, the state of Israel was only created due to pressures of the Zionist lobby in America and as an easy way for Europe to get rid of Jews anyway! Europe and the US solved the WWII in the worst possible way. Instead of a solution, they created a problem somewhere else in the world. Why didn't they create an Israel state inside of the US instead, or inside Europe? Jews should have been accepted in all European states back then and seriously compensated for what they suffered, not kicked or promoted as a new Middle-East state. It's rather problematic if that was legitimate in the first place. If my ancestors lived in Russia 2000 years ago and worshiped a local God, I'm not going to reclaim the occupation of part of Russia because of that. It made no sense, the way how things were handled.

AP2009-04-29 14:47:37
Besides, to create a new state in a place which belonged to nobody would have been different from occupying another country, with another culture and another faith, and just declare that the land was yours from that moment on. I mean, if we think seriously about it - how would we react if that happened in our own countries? The problem of Israel is just that it was never a legitimate state but was always supported as such, because of particular interests. And this has nothing to do with the persecution of Jews. The way how the WWII was supposedly "solved" was totally shameful.

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi