'Anti-Zionism: Mask for anti-Semitism'

[Purveyor]

Criticizing Zionism has become a socially acceptable way to attack Jews, author A.B. Yehoshua told a gathering in New York City.

Instead of "attacking Jews, they are attacking Zionism, and this is the way because you cannot attack Jews anymore openly," Yehoshua told some 250 Jewish professionals at Manhattan's Jewish Community Center last week.

"Zionism is becoming a dirty word everywhere. They are identifying the policy of Israel with Zionism. There is the policy of Israel - you can criticize it and you can say whatever you want about it but this is not Zionism," Yehoshua said.

He defined a Zionist as someone who believes the State of Israel belongs not only to its citizens but also to the Jewish people.

---end of excerpt---

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879114860&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[smoogatz]

1. Given his definition of Zionism, then yes.

But that definition has nothing to say about the way Israel treats the Palestinian people, how it will treat a Palestinian state, or the future of Zionist expansionism. Those seem to me important issues to exclude from this discussion.

[whoneedstickets]

2. Furthermore.....

Any and all terms you might come up with in the future to criticize Israel's policy of occupation and colonization of the West Bank will also be branded anti-semitic. Don't even bother to try to find any new euphemisms since all future criticism will likewise be squashed with this Jew-Hater rhetoric we've practiced so thoroughly.:sarcasm:

[ocdem]

3. it's hard to find zionists

that aren't Jewish.

[papau]

4. ? - many -if not most -if not nearly all Fundi evangelicals are Zionist n/t

n/t

[Ken Burch]

21. Which is weird, considering that, before Reagan was elected

Most Fundi evangelicals were at least tacitly antisemitic.

And it must also be remembered that a number of these people "defend Israel" not out of any actual love or respect for Jews but because they believe they are obligated to do so in order to live out the "end times" eschatology. They usually don't mention that, as part of this eschatology, the fundis expect to be in the position, during the "end times" of demanding that the Jews either convert or die.

This should make Israelis very nervous about their evangelical "allies".

[Crunchy Frog]

5. What about the "Christian Zionists", like John Hagee and his followers?

If I criticize them, does that make me an anti-semite?

[Purveyor]

6. Hagee is indeed a 'gift that will keep on giving'... n/t

[Shaktimaan]

8. No, it's really not that hard.

At its heart, Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people should have the right of self-determination. There are many different flavors of Zionism ranging from a religious based ideology to a secular one modeled after socialism. It's not any one thing.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. Change Jewish to Palestinian and you're describing that continuum as well. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

11. Well, it's a little different.

I know, you're telling me that there is a wide range of ideologies within Palestinian culture, just as there's no typical zionist, there are no typical Palestinians. Well, sure. I know that. I don't think many people here, (anyone actually) who feels that all Palestinians are blood-thirsty anti-semites or any racist hyperbole like that. It's an unfortunate side effect of ethnic conflicts that the many everyday, rational, peaceful folks on both sides suddenly find themselves assigned sides in a fight they weren't looking for. And even if they choose not to fight they will find themselves identified according to their race instead of their beliefs or actions.

I think that the length of, and anger over, this particular conflict has made zealots out of average citizens on both sides. The longer that time goes by without a peace settlement the less likely it is that the settlement will ever happen. It's a law of nature that it's way harder to maintain order than it is to allow things to degrade into chaos. Building a successful society is hard. Ruining one is easier. Even when hardliners like Rabin and Sharon start talking about concessions there will always be some truly radical people ready to scuttle it. And they are often successful. People sometimes say that the key to mideast peace is held by the hardliners on either side, which makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately I have a sinking feeling that it's really held by the radicals, and they have no use or desire for it.

[HamdenRice]

22. It's easy to turn an acquarium into fish soup ...

Well said.

You wrote: "The longer that time goes by without a peace settlement the less likely it is that the settlement will ever happen. It's a law of nature that it's way harder to maintain order than it is to allow things to degrade into chaos. Building a successful society is hard. Ruining one is easier. "

That reminds me of the cliche going around about post communist eastern europe in the early 90s, one version of which was "It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup; it's not so easy to turn fish soup into an aquarium."

On the other hand, the collapse of order in Palestine and Israel (ie the current endless stream of scandals and impending deligitimation of the government) may provide an opportunity, if South Africa is a precedent.

Contrary to western assumptions, as South Africans negotiated their new system, a civil war was raging, and the country's political institutions on both sides were literally falling apart. The ANC's militias were out of control; several homelands (which were supposed to be puppets of the SA government) had coups and were in ANC hands, and the ones that weren't were refusing to go along with the new order and dissolve; the security police were instigating riots and committing masacres.

At one point the ANC demanded that de Klerk order the security police to stop massacres against civilians, but nothing happened. At that point, the ANC leadership openly wondered: either de Klerk is a liar and not a useful negotiating partner; or he no longer has control over the security forces, in which case he is powerless to deliver a deal and they are negotiating with the wrong people.

At that point both sides seemed to realize that it wasn't "the" South African government and "the" ANC that had to make a deal. It was the pro-Constitution factions of the government and pro-Constitution factions of the ANC and pro-Constitution factions of other parties that had to make the deal.

In other words, the dissolution of the construct of "the government" and "the ANC" that made it possible for those factions that wanted to move forward to do so. At that point one homelands army mutinied in favor of the constitutional negotiations, crushing a white separatist insurgency in western Transvaal, and the official South African Defense Force threw its weight behind the pro-Constitution parties. That motely alliance, not "the government" and "the ANC" pulled off the transition.

Interesting side note that few Americans know: There was a plot to assassinate Mandela immediately after the elections of 1993. It was not from white separatists or the security police, but from within the ANC. There was a brutal ANC warlord named Henry Gwala whose power rested on the continuation of civil war in Zululand, and he knew that the end of the war meant the end of his power. He wanted the war to continue and knew it would if Mandela was assassinated. Israelis and Palestinians need to understand that there are many Henry Gwalas on both sides in their own struggle, some in very, very high places on both sides.

The lesson is that when Israelis and Palestinians stop worrying about unity on each of their sides, when they realize that the deal will not be between "Israel" and "the Palestinians" (presently, two all but useless constructs) but that a deal is to be made between Labor, the Israeli peace movement, pro-peace elements in the IDF, perhaps a majority of Israeli citizens, Fatah, and Palestinian civil society with the support of Jordan, Egypt, the US and EU -- and they have to unite against the obstructionists to save society, that peace will be achieved.

You also wrote: "I don't think many people here, (anyone actually) who feels that all Palestinians are blood-thirsty anti-semites or any racist hyperbole like that. It's an unfortunate side effect of ethnic conflicts that the many everyday, rational, peaceful folks on both sides suddenly find themselves assigned sides in a fight they weren't looking for."

As a newcomer to this forum, I have to disagree. I was amazed at how many of my posts were answered with some version of "you don't understand the Palestinians, they are all blood thirsty terrorists, and Israel has to do what it does because of that."

If you take that position, there is no hope for peace because you have a mortal enemy, not a group with opposing interests that needs to be bargained with.

[Shaktimaan]

12. (EDITED) double post, sorry.

[bemildred]

7. What a boob.

I don't think he even knows what he means, he's just throwing words around. He is the one that attacked Jews.

[number6]

10. can I criticize Right Wing Racist Zionists ??

?? :shrug:

[TheBaldyMan]

13. it's the new buzzword because anti-Semite has been flogged to death

that's the problem with using a stock phrase to attempt to silence any dissent. It doesn't take long to run out of steam. IMO nobody is paying any attention to 'anti-Zionist' as a device to silence other viewpoints.

It's the same as calling s/o anti-American because they are against the war in Iraq.

[cali]

14. Yeah, except that the word zionist has been used

extensively by hate groups. The whole ZOG delusion, for instance. That said, unless it's obvious that the word is being used in that kind of blatant and hateful way, there's no reason to accuse people who are anti-zionist of being anti-semites.

And btw, anti-semitism is clearly still a real problem. Not to mention that I see the stock "If I criticize Israel, I'll be called an anti-semite" whine, used pre-emptively on such a regular basis it's become laughable. In fact, I see that, both here and at kos, far more often than I see actual accusations of anti-semitism.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. There's a reason for that...

In fact, I see that, both here and at kos, far more often than I see actual accusations of anti-semitism.

I don't go to kos, but here at least, posts aren't deleted if people say they will be called an anti-semite if they criticise Israel, while accusations of antisemitism are deleted and it's very unlikely anyone hangs round DU every minute of the day and night, or is reading every thread to see the accusations made. Because the accusations are made pretty regularly, and I have been called an antisemite in the past merely because I dare to criticise Israel. And whenever it happens, I hit alert and the moronic accusations vanish into cyberspace, which is where they belong. I don't consider it whining for me to point out that when it comes to some DUers there's a fairly good chance that they will accuse me of being an antisemite if I dare to criticise Israel. It's just the way things are when it comes to the I/P conflict at DU and I don't think any of it is so vitally important to the big scheme of things that there's any need to run a tally board on what gets said most...

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Self-deleted...

Had a bit of a finger hiccup when I hit the post button :)

[TheBaldyMan]

19. poor neo-nazis; they don't know who they hate more, muslims or Jews

A lot of the KKK types go into meltdown on threads about Palestine/Israel on neo-nazi sites. It quite funny when you read a post that simulataneously praises Israel for keeping Arabs in their place and accusing them of controlling the world's banking system. :crazy:

[Taxloss]

20. Or the "Protocols", for that matter.

"... Of The Elders of Zion".