The Brutal Failure of Zionism

Israel’s renewed slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza – after failed peace talks and ethnic slayings by both sides – is further proof that the Zionist experiment has failed and that the only reasonable way forward is to recognize the equal rights of all people living in the region, writes John V. Whitbeck.

by John V. Whitbeck – 11 July 2014, Consortium News

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/11/the-brutal-failure-of-zionism/

Now that the American-monopolized “peace process” has expired – and violence and hate are exploding again across Israel and Palestine – Western nations should seize the initiative, join forces and try to do something useful for Israelis, Palestinians and peace.

If Western nations still believe that a decent “two-state solution” is conceivable, several useful initiatives are immediately available. They could support and reinforce the current two-state legality by joining the 134 states which have already extended diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine. They could also require Israelis seeking visas to visit their countries to produce documentary evidence that they don’t reside in occupied Palestine.

Most constructively, Western nations could impose economic sanctions on Israel and intensify them until Israel complies with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions and ends the 47-year-long occupation.

If Western nations are unwilling to take such initiatives or if they have concluded, not unreasonably, that a decent “two-state solution” is no longer conceivable and that the only issue now is whether the current one-state reality will continue to be an apartheid reality or can be transformed into a democratic one, they should reflect upon their own histories and responsibilities in order to identify the most useful way forward.

The harsh reality is that Zionism is, and has always been, an anti-Semite’s dream come true, offering the hope that Jews in one’s own country can be induced to leave and move elsewhere.

The British politician Arthur J. Balfour, who gave his name to the fateful 1917 declaration endorsing “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” was an earnest supporter of the 1905 Alien Act, which was specifically designed to stem the inflow into Britain of Jews fleeing from persecution in czarist Russia.

Subsequently, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, which was a wholly European abomination, European governments – as well as those of the United States, Canada and Australia – shamefully brushed aside Arab pleas to treat the resettlement of displaced Jews as a duty and obligation for the whole world.

Western nations refused to relax their immigration restrictions, thereby forcing most of the Jewish refugees to seek to build new lives in Palestine, even though many would have preferred to settle elsewhere.

That approach could be still be reversed now. Western nations, which are no longer anti-Semitic, could and should be opening their doors wide to any and all Israeli Jews who might be tempted to build a new and better life for themselves and their children, with less injustice and less insecurity, by returning to their countries of origin or emigrating to other countries of their choice. They could be offered immediate residency rights, generous resettlement assistance and a fast track to citizenship (if they do not already have it).

Such a policy would be far better than continuing to provide unquestioning support for an ethno-religious-supremacist, settler-colonial experiment in Israel/Palestine that violates principles of justice, human decency and international law.

Offering genuine “Laws of Return” for the descendants of Jews who survived the Holocaust would be profoundly philo-Semitic, pro-Jewish and, yes, anti-Zionist. Such a policy would reflect a moral, ethical and self-interested recognition that political Zionism, like certain other prominent Twentieth Century “isms” which once captured the imaginations of millions, was a tragically bad idea – not simply for those innocents caught and trampled in its path but also for those who embraced it.

Even if sustainable with Western support, Zionism does not deserve to be sustained. It has already caused and, if perpetuated, will continue to cause profound problems for the West and its relations with the rest of the world.

Western nations like to call for “confidence-building measures” from Israelis, Palestinians and other Arabs without offering any themselves. A multinational initiative to atone for the West’s past sins against Jews by welcoming Israeli Jews to resettle in Western nations would constitute a hugely constructive confidence-building measure which should, logically, be opposed only by people who are either anti-Semites or Zionists – or both.

In the land which, until 1948, was called Palestine, democracy and equal rights in a unitary state should offer more realistic hope for peace with some measure of justice than continued recycling of a partition-based “peace process,” which is widely recognized to have been a cynical exercise in killing time and which, even if “successful,” would simply legitimize, reward and perpetuate ethnic cleansing, racism and apartheid – scarcely a recipe for lasting peace, let alone for any measure of justice.

For those who would prefer not to live in a unitary state with democracy and equal rights for all, there would be the freedom of choice and attractive options for resettlement elsewhere.

Old assumptions, including the irreversible “success” of the Zionist experiment, should now be questioned. Even once heretical ideas, including the peaceful rollback of the Zionist experiment – at least in its current, aggressively exclusivist, “nation-state of the Jewish people” form – and its replacement by democracy through voluntary personal choice rather than through violence, should now be considered.

If Western politicians cared more about the welfare and happiness of individual Jewish human beings than they do about the money from a few wealthy and powerful Zionists who have the ability to inflict political pain (and who mostly live far from the violence and turmoil of the Middle East), then democracy, equal rights and freedom of choice – all principles to which Western nations profess devotion – might actually come to the “Holy Land.”

John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

‘Let’s talk about Zionism,’ is message at July 4 parade in Wellfleet, MA

by Phil Weiss, with Abdeen Jabara and Bruce Taub – 7 July 2014, Mondoweiss

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/zionism-message-wellfleet.html

Above is a sweet video of the July 4th Parade in Wellfleet, MA, last week. (Videographer is anonymous, posted by Holly Maguigan.) You can see Abdeen Jabara at :44, handing out leaflets. He reports: 

Wonderful event.  Historic occasion. This was sponsored by the July 4th Alliance for Palestinian Freedom. We specifically used “Zionist Israel” even though some people think we don’t need to mention Zionism either because they think it is redundant when mentioning Israel or that somehow Zionism is not totally implicated in What Israelis do to deny Palestinians their rights.  I personally think both are wrong.  The cards we handed out said on one side Palestine/Israel:  Peace or Apartheid.  Let’s talk about Zionism.

Writes Bruce Taub:

Every Fourth of July, in almost every American city and town there are Fourth of July parades celebrating America’s independence. The Wellfleet July 4th Parade was saw 1000s of people lining the route, fire engines spraying the crowd, floats blowing bubbles or throwing candy or passing out bead necklaces to the kids.  The July 4th parade in Wellfleet, MA was like that except for the presence of the July 4th Palestinian Freedom Alliance float.  The applause and encouragment from the crowd was genuine.  The marchers  from ages 81 to 14 handed out 2000 of the postcards showing loss of Palestinian land from 1947 as they called out “Independence for Everyone.”  “Freedom and Justice for Everyone.”  The July 4th Alliance for Palestinian Freedom specifically used “Zionist Israel” to highlight Zionist ideology as the specific source of the enmity, not necessarily Israel per se.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Our Wretched Jewish State

Now we know: In the Jewish state, there is pity and humane feelings only for Jews, rights only for the Chosen People. The Jewish state is only for Jews.

by Gideon Levy – 7 July 2014, Haaretz

http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2014/07/our-wretched-jewish-state.html

The youths of the Jewish state are attacking Palestinians in the streets of Jerusalem, just like gentile youths used to attack Jews in the streets of Europe. The Israelis of the Jewish state are rampaging on social networks, displaying hatred and a lust for revenge, unprecedented in its diabolic scope. Some unknown people from the Jewish state, purely based on his ethnicity. These are the children of the nationalistic and racist generation – Netanyahu’s offspring.

For five years now, they have been hearing nothing but incitement, scaremongering and supremacy over Arabs from this generation’s true instructor, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Not one humane word, no commiseration or equal treatment.

They grew up with the provocative demand for recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state,” and they drew the inevitable conclusions. Even before any delineation of what a “Jewish state” means – will it be a state that dons tefillin (phylacteries), kisses mezuzot (doorpost fixtures with prayer scrolls), sanctifies charms, closes down on the Sabbath and keeps strict kashrut laws? – the penny has dropped for the masses.

The mob was the first to internalize its true significance: a Jewish state is one in which there is room only for Jews. The fate of Africans is to be sent to the Holot detention center in the Negev, while that of Palestinians is to suffer from pogroms. That’s how it works in a Jewish state: only this way can it be Jewish.

In the Jewish state-in-the-making, there is no room even for an Arab who strives his utmost to be a good Arab, such as the writer Sayed Kashua. In a Jewish state, the chairman of the Knesset plenary session, MK Ruth Calderon (from Yesh Atid – the “center” of the political map, needless to say), cuts off Arab MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta’al), who has just returned all shaken up from a visit to the family of the murdered Arab boy from Shoafat, impudently preaching to him that he must also refer to the three murdered Jewish teens (even after he did just that).

In a Jewish state, the High Court of Justice approves the demolition of a murder suspect’s family home even before his conviction. A Jewish state legislates racist and nationalist laws.

The media in the Jewish state wallows in the murder of three yeshiva students, while almost entirely ignoring the fates of several Palestinian youths of the same age who have been killed by army fire over the last few months, usually for no reason.

No one was punished for these acts – in the Jewish state there is one law for Jews and another for Arabs, whose lives are cheap. There is no hint of abiding by international laws and conventions. In the Jewish state, there is pity and humane feelings only for Jews, rights only for the Chosen People. The Jewish state is only for Jews.

The new generation growing in its shadow is a dangerous one, both to itself and its surroundings. Netanyahu is its education minister; the militaristic and nationalist media serves as its pedagogic epic poem; the education system that takes it to Auschwitz and Hebron serves as its guide.

The new sabra (native-born Israeli) is a novel species, prickly both on the outside and the inside. He has never met his Palestinian counterpart, but knows everything about him – the sabra knows he is a wild animal, intent only on killing him; that he is a monster, a terrorist.

He knows that Israel has no partner for peace, since this is what he’s heard countless times from Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Economy Minister Naftali Bennett. From Yair Lapid he’s heard that they are “Zoabis” – referring dismissively to MK Haneen Zoabi (Balad).

Being left wing or a seeker of justice in the Jewish state is deemed a crime, civil society is considered treacherous, true democracy an evil. In a Jewish state – dreamed of not only by the right wing but also by the supposed center-left, including Tzipi Livni and Lapid – democracy is blurred.

It’s not the skinheads that are the Jewish state’s main problem, it’s the sanctimonious eye-rollers, the thugs, the extreme right wing and the settlers. It’s not the margins but the mainstream, which is partly very nationalistic and partly indifferent.

In the Jewish state, there is no remnant of the biblical injunction to treat the minority or the stranger with justice. There are no more Jews left who marched with Martin Luther King or who sat in jail with Nelson Mandela. The Jewish state, which Israel insists the Palestinians recognize, must first recognize itself. At the end of the day, at the end of a terrible week, it seems that a Jewish state means a racist, nationalistic state, meant for Jews only.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Palestinian Freedom Rally – Wellfleet, MA – July 4, 2014


–Featuring CODZ member Abdeen Jabara

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ISIS insurrection serves Israel’s interests

Fragmenting, weakening and balkanizing the Middle East has been part and parcel of the Zionist impulse from the very beginnings of the Jewish state.

by Brandon Martinez – 26 June 2014, Veterans News Now

http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/06/26/406933-isis-insurrection-serves-israels-interests/

On the June 22 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu let slip his government’s intention to divide and conquer the Middle East.

Remarking on the latest ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) incursions into Iraq, Netanyahu expressed the desire of his regime to promote internal strife in Israel’s neighbouring states. “We must weaken both [Sunni and Shia Muslims],” Netanyahu said, implying that it is in Israel’s interests to have Muslims fighting and squabbling amongst themselves.

Big military exercises were held in Jordan  by US troops called Eager Lion, with the participation of more than 15,000 troops from 18 Arab and other countries.

“When your enemies are fighting each other, don’t strengthen either one of them, weaken both,” said the arrogant Zionist leader.

That is what ISIS was created to do. The terrorist militia’s American, Israeli and Saudi backers are content to see these roving bands of malcontents and marauders behead their way to Damascus and Baghdad. What better way to solidify Israel’s position as the sole hegemon in the region?

Fragmenting, weakening and balkanizing the Middle East has been part and parcel of the Zionist impulse from the very beginnings of the Jewish state.

Israeli strategist Oded Yinon candidly outlined this imperialist line of thought in his 1982 paper “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s.” A strong, unified Iraq is Israel’s primary military concern, Yinon stressed. He went on to advocate the territorial dissection of Iraq into three statelets along ethnic and confessional lines. He promoted much the same scenario for Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran and other Arab/Muslim states surrounding Israel.

Fractured and divided, the Arab/Muslim countries cannot pose any challenge to Israeli dominance, Yinon expounded in his deranged Machiavellian screed.

“Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon,” the Israeli militarist insisted.

Jabotinsky demands

This Zionist geopolitical blueprint is still very relevant today. Yinon’s vision of a crippled and prostrate Arab/Muslim world is playing out before our very eyes.

Who to blame for Iraq WarIsrael’s ruling Likud Party is very much onside with Yinon’s divide and conquer strategy. “[M]ost of the members of the current Israeli government would classify themselves as ‘Jabotinskyites,’” noted Gal Beckerman in the Jewish Forward newspaper. Vladimir Jabotinsky was the founding father of the revisionist strain of Zionism who advocated the mass expulsion of the indigenous Arab Palestinians from all of the territory coveted by the Zionists. “There is no choice: The Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs,” Jabotinsky wrote in a 1939 letter.

Neoconservative Yinonites and Jabotinskyites who burrowed their way into the highest echelons of the Bush administration and the Pentagon engineered the 2003 American invasion of Iraq for the purposes of Israeli expansionism.

This Zionist, neocon war resulted in some two million dead or displaced Iraqis. Not one individual in the British, American or Israeli governments who advocated and promoted this genocidal endeavor has been brought up on war crimes charges, as is to be expected in a world where the rich and powerful are above the law.

As the world’s attention is focused on the medieval savagery perpetrated by the head-chopping, throat-slitting maniacs of ISIS, Israel gets a free hand to suppress the Palestinians and torpedo their resistance to continued Israeli expansionism.

Imploding Myth of Israel — Chris Hedges

Netanyahu, like a cunning hyena, has for many decades sought to capitalize on crises in other countries to carry out his dream of a second ‘Nakba.’

“Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China in Tiananmen Square, when the world’s attention was focused on what was happening in that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories,” Netanyahu told a group of Israeli college students in 1989, as quoted in Max Blumenthal’s book Goliath.

The diversionary tactic of Zionist imperialism has been employed many times, such as when the Jewish extremist Baruch Goldstein gunned down 29 Palestinians in a West Bank mosque in 1994. According to revisionist historian Michael Hoffman, the Israeli secret service covertly detonated a bomb in a Maronite Christian church in Lebanon shortly thereafter to deflect attention from the Zionist massacre in Hebron.

Victor Ostrovsky The Other Side of Deception  420 x 282In 1986, the Israeli Mossad successfully executed the diversionary stratagem to frame Libya for terrorism. In April of that year a bomb exploded in a West Berlin nightclub frequented by American military personnel stationed in the area. The bombing killed three people, two of whom were US military officers, and wounded hundreds of others. Former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky revealed in his book By Way of Deception that shortly before the Berlin bombing Israeli agents planted a “Trojan” device in an apartment building in Tripoli which broadcasted fake transmissions making it appear as though the Libyan government had been issuing terrorist directives to its embassies worldwide.

The Americans, hoodwinked by the Israeli deception, falsely blamed Gaddafi’s regime for the nightclub bombing in Germany based on the erroneous transmissions emanating from Libyan soil and promptly launched air strikes against the North African country, killing dozens of people.

As can be observed by the words and deeds of Netanyahu and his Likudnik associates, Zionists hope to take advantage of instability in other countries to move forward with their ultimate agenda of ethnically cleansing all of the West Bank and Gaza. This widespread instability plaguing the Middle East, it must be stressed, is in large part a symptom of the Zionist disease that infected that region in 1948 and has slowly but surely poisoned it ever since.

The Zionists have used deception, subterfuge and cunning to con the world into entering conflicts and conflagrations that have expedited their ominous aims.

But Israel’s insatiable avarice for more land and resources will eventually be its downfall, just as every empire in history has sooner or later collapsed under its own weight.

Copyright 2014 Brandon Martinez

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CODZ Honorary Co-chair Michael Ratner resigns from Brandeis University advisory board

Brandeis damaged itself by suspending relationship with Nusseibeh, Ratner says in resigning from board

by Phil Weiss – 28 May 2014, Mondoweiss

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/05/suspending-relationship-resigning.html

The Forward today published this open letter from Michael Ratner to Brandeis president Fred Lawrence, resigning from Brandeis’s international advisory board, under the headline, “Brandeis Shouldn’t Cut Ties to Palestinian University.” Ratner’s decision was prompted by Brandeis suspending its relationship with Al Quds University and its president, Sari Nusseibeh. (For news coverage of the background events, see this piece and this one.)

Ratner is a friend, but who is not moved by the fact that he is leaving a school that helped form him as an activist, where he heard Marcuse, Malcolm X, Allen Ginsberg, and Paul Goodman speak when he was a young man, but which cannot tolerate a moderate Palestinian, Sari Nusseibeh. The letter:

Dear President Lawrence:

By this letter I am resigning from the advisory board of the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life at Brandeis. While I appreciate that you were willing to reappoint me for another term, I do not feel my service on that board is compatible with your suspension of Dr. Sari Nusseibeh, the President of Al-Quds University, from that board. In addition, in light of your suspension of Dr. Nusseibeh and of Brandeis’ relationship with Al-Quds, I will not be making further donations to Brandeis. My reasons, which I am making public, are set forth below.

On November 18, 2013, at your direction, Brandeis suspended its longtime partnership (since 2003) with Al-Quds, a Palestinian university located in Jerusalem, Palestine. At the same time, you suspended the President of Al-Quds, Sari Nusseibeh, from the advisory board of the Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life at Brandeis, a board on which I also serve. I profoundly disagree with both of these actions. I believe that you have seriously harmed important exchanges that offered at least some hope for better understanding among the Brandeis and Al-Quds communities. As a result of your precipitous action, you have also besmirched the reputation of President Nusseibeh, a well-known scholar who has spent his life working for a peaceful solution between Palestine and Israel.

While I feel that your decision requires me to take these actions, I do so with some reluctance, because of my long association with Brandeis. As you are aware, I was an alumnus of Brandeis from the 1960’s and attended during the time of the civil rights movement and the beginning of the Vietnam War protests. The school began to open my eyes to liberal and progressive politics. It was a place of intense discussion and debate with professors like Herbert Marcuse and speakers such as Malcolm X, Allen Ginsberg and Paul Goodman. As I said when Brandeis gave me the 2006 Alumni Achievement Award, “Those years really changed my life. It’s clear that Brandeis is where I became an activist.” In 2006, I was also appointed to the advisory board of the Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life which is involved with the Al-Quds relationship.

My understanding of the background to your actions is informed by a report requested by you and issued by three Brandeis faculty who visited Al-Quds a few days after the November 5, 2013 rally which ultimately precipitated the chain of events that led to the suspension of the relationship with Al-Quds and of President Nusseibeh from the board. I note that you suspended President Nusseibeh before you even received the report.

In response to the demonstrators’ conduct at the rally, President Nusseibeh issued a statement exhorting students and others to act in a way that promotes mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and the exchange of ideas. You, nevertheless, claim that President Nusseibeh’s statement was “unacceptable and inflammatory.” The findings of the report mentioned above are at odds with this claim and your justification for taking the actions you did. While the report found that the November 5 rally, which was not endorsed by Al-Quds, violated the guidelines for such rallies, it also determined “that university officials responded promptly and appropriately by communicating to both internal and external constituencies that the rally violated university policies and principles.”

The report also pointed out that President Nusseibeh’s letter of November 17 regarding the November 5 rally expressed no “intolerance or hatred.” Rather, it “was a genuine effort of a University president to reach his students in prose chosen to engage them in productive conversations about the values of peace and mutual respect.” The report disagreed with your suspension of President Nusseibeh from the board, stating that “this action does a serious disservice to a man with a long time record as a courageous man of letters and a man of peace.”

The report concluded with a call to Brandeis to resume and redouble its relationship with Al-Quds.

(As a parenthetical, the board disagreed with your suspension of President Nusseibeh which was implemented without notification to Richard J. Goldstone, the Chair of the Board.)

Subsequently, in early January, the three faculty returned to Al-Quds and met with more than twenty administrators and faculty from Al-Quds. The discussions were disturbing to say the least. The professors and administrators at Al-Quds were “very much surprised and hurt” by the suspension of the partnership and “particularly distressed that Brandeis would lend its name to what they saw as an effort to delegitimize Al-Quds University through accusations that it promotes or condones fascism and hatred,” especially as it worked with Israeli institutions.

Your treatment of Dr. Sari Nusseibeh upset everyone to whom they spoke. It was their view “that the most harmful result of Brandeis University’s actions was the damage to the reputation and dignity of their president wrought by the cumulative effect of the suspension of the partnership, of the language about Dr. Nusseibeh’s statement used on the website and repeated by the international press, and of the suspension of Dr. Nusseibeh from the advisory board of the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life.”

Yes, in some communities, especially those that have embraced stereotyped views of Palestinians, Dr. Nusseibeh’s reputation may have been harmed. But for those who understand a more nuanced picture of these events and are aware of what is occurring in Palestine and Israel, it is the reputation of Brandeis and yourself that have been damaged by these actions.

I cannot countenance these actions by you or Brandeis or be seen to endorse them by remaining on the board or continuing to support Brandeis. Apparently, even those Palestinians with the most moderate views are unacceptable partners and colleagues. That is unacceptable to me.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Ratner

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Watch CODZ panel on Mandela at The Brecht Forum, 2/6/14

Part I

Part II

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment