Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Yes, Israel is a source of anti-Semitism

Israel is playing a regular bait and switch: Now it is the State of the Jews, the next moment Jews have nothing to do with it

The scandal du jour is the fact that the US ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, told a Jewish conference last week that Islamic anti-Semitism is the result of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian. This common sense statement caused a hue and cry, and it became the biggest news to come out of the land of chocolate and pederasts, drowning even the fact it finally managed to cobble together a government. The grand inquisitor of all things anti-Semitic, the man who turned his Jewishness into his trade, Jeffrey Goldberg, wrote acerbically that “Here is a simple formula that could have saved Gutman from his stupid mistake: Jews do not cause anti-Semitism; blacks do not cause racism; gays do not cause homophobia. Hatred is a mental and spiritual illness, not a political position.”

If only were things that simple.

See, we have a problem with this deceptively simple logic. Israel is a country which claims most of its citizens-to-be to reside outside its borders. Israel claims that a. It is a “Jewish country,” b. That all Jews are its potential citizens, c. That it is OK for her to meddle in the affairs of other countries on behalf of what it thinks are Jewish interests, and, finally, d. That any opprobrium gained by its actions, resulting in hatred or actual violence directed at those it claims to represent, is derived from racial and irrational causes. This, alas, does not make sense.

This is without even without mentioning the hidden point e., rarely mentioned, which says that Israel thinks it is perfectly acceptable to use Jews living in other countries as its agents. I’m not just talking about Pollard here – this goes way, way deeper. For instance, the first semi-public fuck-up of our intelligence services came in 1954, when military intelligence activated a terror cell in Egypt, composed of local Jews, which attempted to attack British and American targets for reasons beyond human ken (you can read about it here).

When the US does something awful – the invasion of Iraq comes to mind – its standing the world understandably plummets and we hear people speak of anti-Americanism. When Israel does something terrible, anti-Israeli sentiments understandably rise.

However, this is much more complicated. Israel keeps claiming it represents all Jews, even though most of them rejected the Zionist idea and refused to immigrate to Israel. Yet, when people hostile to Israel take it at its word, and act towards Jewish communities as if they were Israeli communities, Israel wails it is anti-Semitism.

It is, of course. The idea that all members of a group are responsible for the actions of other members is racist. But just how did the idea that “Jews” equals “Israelis” came about? Doesn’t the Israeli government have something to do with that? Isn’t it saying time and time again that Israel is a “Jewish” country?

Goldberg’s analogy simply does not work. Saying that all blacks are responsible for the actions of a single criminal, or that this single criminal is an indication that all blacks are criminals, is manifestly racist, but it is nowhere near the mark. Let’s try another analogy. Let’s say a band of rabid black-supremacists invaded a piece of land, claiming it to be their ancestral their homeland, supported by Europeans who wanted those people out of their own country; Let’s say the invaders have ruthlessly drove back the less organized, under-armed surprised locals; Let’s say they have kept the indigent population as second-class citizens, and later invaded another country and exported those methods to it – all the while claiming to represent black people everywhere, such a farcical claim being taken seriously by many countries. Would anyone be surprised if anti-Black sentiment would rise?

To argue that Israel's actions have nothing to with anti-Semitism is to argue in bad faith. (Photo: Gigi Ibrahim, CC BY 2.0)

To argue that Israel's actions have nothing to with anti-Semitism is to argue in bad faith. (Photo: Gigi Ibrahim, CC BY 2.0)

Let’s test the hypothesis. If we look at anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, it certainly existed. Jews were considered inferior by law to Muslims in almost all Muslim countries. The myth about the “golden age of Andalus”, when Jews, Muslims and Christians lived in harmony is, alas, a myth. There are certainly anti-Semitic elements in the various Islamic traditions.

But one would have to be a fool to claim Muslim anti-Semitism held a candle to Christian anti=Semitism. That’s where the knives were really out. Jews often describe Christianity as Judaism wayward daughter; In fact, given that Christianity rose just as rabbinical Judaism was finally affirming itself, they are two squabbling sisters. The tension between them is explosive, because they fought over the meaning of the same symbols and texts. Which is “verus Israel”, true Israel? The followers of the Talmud and Rashi, or those whose circumcision was “that of the heart”? Which is it, Passover or Easter? Pentacost, or Shavuot? Are we redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, or is the blood on doorframe just a fading memory of the delivery from Egypt? It is no coincidence that the blood libel traditionally happens near Easter. Or is it Passover? Which redeeming blood?

The Church preserved well the memory of the early days, when Jews used their power as an established religion to humiliate and persecute the followers of the new, illicit religion. Then came Constantine, and the wheel turned. The Church turned the other cheek to its own teachings, and the Jews became the persecuted – and took the vengeance of the oppressed. In secret books, preserved generation after generation, they poured scorn on Jesus, calling him a magician, calling his mother a whore of the Romans. Time after time, rabbis forbid Jews from spitting on crosses; Time after time, they break the ruling, and sometimes pay a hideous price. The emperor Theodosius has to enact a law, which forbids Jews from portraying the hanging of Haman as the crucifixion of Jesus; At least one pogrom in the 12th century begins after Jews in France crucify a murderer during Purim celebrations, in lieu of Haman. Then we have the horrifying events of the crusades, with Jews murdering their children to prevent their baptism; And they lead horrified Christians to wonder: If this is what they will do to their own children, if they hate us so much, what will do to our children?

No, Muslim anti-Semitism doesn’t hold a candle to this terrible history. It comes into its own in the 1920s, and it’s not an accident. These are the times when the Protocols – the last, poisonous gift Czarist Russia, with its most anti-Semitic of churches – are considered to be earth shattering documents, when even the Times of London referring to them as holding a possible truth. And look – despite the fact that the Arabs are much more numerable, despite the fact they are more powerful, the Jews are much more influential with the allies, and they carve their own piece of the Arab world for themselves.

That’s where Muslim anti-Semitism starts to come into its own: From a conspiracy theory and as a reaction to Zionism. Hostility to Zionism and the British makes it a very short journey to support Hitler. The creation of Israel out of the ruins of Palestine empowers this conspiratorial sort of anti-Semitism, ironically an import of a colonial legacy. The humiliating defeat of 1967 further fuels this concept, giving renewed life to political Islamism as Arab nationalism is discredited.

And between these Scylla and Charybdis, between Israel’s claim to represent all Jews and the Arab world’s embrace of now-discredited Western anti-Semitism, the Jewish communities of the Muslim world are crashed. The ancient Jewish settlements of Egypt and Iraq, which pre-date the Second Temple, are broken and their members are forced to run for their lives. 2,500 years of existence end in tragedy.

And if, after this, you are still capable of piously saying “anti-Semitism has nothing to do with Israel,” you are either not paying attention, or you’re not arguing in good faith.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. aristeides

      Yossi – I assumed at first that you meant Hershey, Pennsylvania. “out of the land of chocolate and pederasts”

      .
      “Let’s say a band of rabid black-supremacists invaded a piece of land, claiming it to be their ancestral their homeland, supported by Europeans who wanted those people out of their own country; Let’s say the invaders have ruthlessly drove back the less organized, under-armed surprised locals; Let’s say they have kept the indigent population as second-class citizens …”

      .
      You’re pretty closely describing the history of Liberia. Except for not ever claiming to recongize all blacks everywhere. But then, “blacks” is not a concept of blacks, it’s a concept of whites. Which the Liberian project never recognized. But US Jews were certainly aware of the Liberia project and it certainly figured into their rejection of Zionism in the early 19th century.

      Reply to Comment
    2. BHCh

      You have a major problem with understanding the meaning of simple words.

      “Let’s say a band of rabid black-supremacists invaded a piece of land…”

      1. Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state. There is nothing about “supremacy” in Zionism.

      2. Invasion – the act of invading with armed forces. Jews did not “invade”. Some already lived in the region, others IMMIGRATED.

      3. “claiming it to be their ancestral their homeland”

      Right, they were claiming this. And so it was.

      4. “supported by Europeans who wanted those people out of their own country”.

      Would you say that the British White Paper, which banned Jewish immigration into Palestine was an expression of this “support”?

      5. “invaders have ruthlessly drove back the less organized, under-armed surprised locals;”

      Could you be just A LITTLE biased? How could the “locals” be surprised, considering they conducted a massacre of “invaders” in Hebron in 1929 (just one example)? In fact, Arabs attacked Jews in 1920s, in 1930s and then threatened to attack before the creation of Israel. Where is surprise? Once they attacked, there was a war and one side won.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Dr.Bill

      Excellent analysis and capsule review of history. This will go on as long as people argue over religious nonsense. Unfortunately, the religious persecution of the Church turned into a racial persecution as centuries went on, leading to the final degenerate racism of the Nazis.
      When Israel, the self declared “Jewish State” by its own Basic Laws acts in the name of Jews everywhere – its nefarious actions towards the Palestinians puts anyone who declares themselves to be a Jew in jeopardy.
      When Jewish Americans see what is going on in Israel, they see “Israelis”. When some Israeli moron, or fanatic settler on the West Bank (many imported from the USA) destroys some Palestinians home, or orchard, what they see is a “Jew”. And since this is their only experience with Jews, is it any wonder that they now hate Jews?
      Lea Tsemel once said to me that Israel’s chief import is “Jewish nuts”.

      Reply to Comment
    4. 1. Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state. There is nothing about “supremacy” in Zionism.

      Really? Could have fooled me.

      2. Invasion – the act of invading with armed forces. Jews did not “invade”. Some already lived in the region, others IMMIGRATED.

      A miniscule number of Jews lived in Palestine pre-1917. The large majority of Jews in 1947 were immigrants, who went about aggressively displacing the locals.

      3. “claiming it to be their ancestral their homeland”

      Right, they were claiming this. And so it was.

      Ummm, no. If you want to make that sort of silly claim, I want to see proof that 51% of the Zionist immigrants were descendents of Jews who lived there in the first century. There is no such evidence, no such claim has ever been made anywhere else, and anyone who makes extraordinary claims should provide extraordinary evidence.

      4. “supported by Europeans who wanted those people out of their own country”.

      Would you say that the British White Paper, which banned Jewish immigration into Palestine was an expression of this “support”?

      I would say the Balfour Deceleration, and the behaviour of the British administration up to 1936 – when they realized the Palestine policy costs them greatly – certainly was. Also, the White Paper did not prohibit Jewish immigration, just limited it – and the Zionist will have you forget that even in 1939, the quota immigration wasn’t fulfilled. It was a sham outcry.

      How could the “locals” be surprised, considering they conducted a massacre of “invaders” in Hebron in 1929 (just one example)? In fact, Arabs attacked Jews in 1920s, in 1930s and then threatened to attack before the creation of Israel. Where is surprise?

      Had you actually studied the history of Zionism, you may have known that it was only in 1944 that the Zionist finally agreed that their goal was a free state. And they spent the next few years organizing their forces. And yes, most Palestinians were surprised by the rapid advance of the Jewish forces. Suddenly, this was no longer a small scale series of minor skirmishes but a full-scale campaign.

      And don’t wave Palestinian terror at me as if proves anything. I’ll see your attacks and raise them with Zionist massacres, such as the donkey bomb the Irgun used in a crowded market in Haifa, killing 21. I guess that wasn’t in your little Hasbara book.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Ben Israel

      It’s always the Jews fault. When we didn’t have a state, they said “Jews to Palestine”. When we do have a state they say “Jews out of Palestine”.
      Gurvitz-I am going to ask you one more time…If we are all the things you say, why the heck should the Arabs make peace with us?

      Reply to Comment
    6. Tom Stedham

      Great, factual article! More people need to know this.

      Reply to Comment
    7. directrob

      Because the people that were involved are mostly dead or old and peace is better than war.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Volodinjev the Great

      Sans genocide, which the Muslims reserved for other people (those of India, later Armenia), every characteristic of the oppressive Jewish life under Christian rule has its counterpart in the Islamic world. Walled ghettos, pogroms, expulsions, crypto-Jews, bribing to placate the local ruler, calls to convert or die, children taken to be raised as non-Jews by the authorities – all are found in the case of the Islamic Diaspora as the Christian one.

      It’s an Occidentalist (Edward Saidian, post-colonial) myth to pretend otherwise, and to blame it all on Zionism. But little else can be expected from +972 Magazine, with its racist (anti-European, and anti-Zionist-as-anti-European) ax to grind.

      Exhibit A: Yossi Gurvitz in this post and his comment. Totally out of sync with the Israeli man in the street (represented here excellently by BHCH).

      Reply to Comment
    9. Lauren

      Yes, Israels policy towards the Pals is affecting people’s perceptions around the world. No one can understand why a people who were slaughtered wholesale in WWII would choose to be so cruel and violent towards other minorities.
      There has never been a problem with US Jews… no matter what Abe Foxman says. But now with the insanity going on in Israel, American Jews are getting painted with the same brush. The majority of Jews want peace…. unfortunately, the Zionists are the loudest voices. I expect a backlash to occur here. Just because people of good conscience won’t support the wars of conquest for Americans and Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    10. BHCH

      1. On Zionist “supremacy.

      “Really? Could have fooled me.”

      Not much of a response. You can take the founding documents of Zionism from Basil conference, you can take the writing of Zhabotinsky or Ben Gurion… You will find nothing about “supremacy”. You will find a lot about wanting a State, like other nations. Wanting a state as the only salvation from antisemitism. The opposite of “supremacy”.

      Reply to Comment
    11. bhch

      2. “A miniscule number of Jews lived in Palestine pre-1917. The large majority of Jews in 1947 were immigrants, who went about aggressively displacing the locals.”

      OK, we agree – there was NO invasion. Good.

      Assume we also agree that a lot of Jews in 1947 Palestine were refugees and some were born and bread Palestinians.

      And that a lot of Arabs in 1947 Palestine were born there and that a lot of them were immigrants – attracted by the relatively prosperous economy.

      Reply to Comment
    12. BHCH

      On Israel being Jewish ancestral land

      “There is no such evidence”…

      How about any half-decent history book? Like “A History of the Jews” by Paul Johnson.

      Reply to Comment
    13. BHCH

      “I would say the Balfour Deceleration, and the behaviour of the British administration up to 1936″.

      Following the Balfour Declaration, the British policy was ambiguous – to say the least. I would argue that attacking ships with Jewish refugees into Palestine does not constitute any level of “support”. Quite the contrary. Ditto with regards to the British officers, who lead Transjordanian attack on Jerusalem.

      And let us not forget that a lot of Jewish immigration originated in the Arab countries. Would you argue that they also “supported Israel”?

      Reply to Comment
    14. BHCH

      “Had you actually studied the history of Zionism, you may have known that it was only in 1944 that the Zionist finally agreed that their goal was a free state. And they spent the next few years organizing their forces. And yes, most Palestinians were surprised by the rapid advance of the Jewish forces.”

      Zionists’ goal was always a free state. That’s definition of the word “Zionist”. Hertzl’s book was called “Der Judenstaat”.

      Yes, there were Jewish terrorists. However the pogroms of Jews in Palestine started way, way, way before the first Jewish terrorist attack.

      I agree that in 1947 the Arabs were not prepared to the level of military organization within Hagana and the level of commitment within Yeshuf. They had hoped for a walkover.

      Reply to Comment
    15. Good post. I have always thought of the charge of anti-Semitism as the invisible force field that protects Israel. I think someone also called it a Swiss army knife that can be put to so many uses.

      BHCH: what is the point of citing history when current events so clearly indicate Jewish supremacy driving events in Israel and the OT? Even in textbooks – watch this video

      Reply to Comment
    16. dickerson3870

      RE: “…Israel thinks it is perfectly acceptable to use Jews living in other countries as its agents.” ~ Yossi Gurvitz

      ONE NOTORIOUS EXAMPLE, FROM WIKIPEDIA: (excerpt) The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence for plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned targets. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, “unspecified malcontents” or “local nationalists” with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt’s Suez Canal zone.[2] The operation caused no casualties, except for those members of the cell who committed suicide after being captured.
      The operation became known as the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon, who was forced to resign because of the incident, or euphemistically as the Unfortunate Affair or The Bad Business (Hebrew: העסק ביש‎, HaEsek Bish or העסק הביש, HaEsek HaBish). After being denied for 51 years, the surviving agents were in 2005 officially honored with a certificate of appreciation by the Israeli President Moshe Katzav…

      Reply to Comment
    17. Volodinjev the Great

      @Clif Brown “BHCH: what is the point of citing history”

      This question, my friend, should be addressed to the staff and many anti-Zionist posters of +972 Magazine.

      Reply to Comment
    18. BHCH

      “BHCH: what is the point of citing history when current events so clearly indicate Jewish supremacy driving events in Israel and the OT?”

      No. There is NOTHING indicating “supremacy” in the legal system in Israel. While the State of Israel isn’t perfect, it is the by far the best to her minorities in the Middle East.

      Muslim and Christian population in Israel has been growing. Jews have become almost extinct in the Muslim countries and the Christian population in every other Muslim country is going down very fast.

      Gaza and West Bank… Yes, minorities are discriminated, often murdered. It’s not the Jews that are doing it.

      Yes, Israel acts when attacked.
      I appreciate you like Jews when they are “slaughtered” like in WWII. Forgive Israel for not giving you the pleasure.

      Reply to Comment
    19. dickerson3870

      RE: “…Israel thinks it is perfectly acceptable to use Jews living in other countries as its agents.” ~ Yossi Gurvitz

      ANOTHER NOTORIOUS EXAMPLE: “Israel stole uranium from U.S., report will show” ~ By Kristin Dailey, The Daily Star, 12/05/11
      [EXCERPTS] WASHINGTON: A U.S.-based research institute will soon publish what it says is “indisputable” evidence that Israel stole weapons-grade uranium for its still-undeclared atomic weapons program from a nuclear reprocessing plant in western Pennsylvania.
      The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) will release this month a 300-page report detailing the initial findings of a multi-year research project investigating the disappearance of highly enriched uranium from the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (Numec) in Apollo, Pennsylvania in the 1950s and 1960s…
      …When contacted by The Daily Star, Zalman Shapiro, the founder and former president of the Numec, strongly denied that any diversion of materials to Israel had ever taken place at the plant.
      “The story is fabricated. Absolutely fabricated,” said Shapiro, who is now 91 years old.
      Smith said that among the evidence to be included in the report is a DOE document confirming that uranium samples picked up by the CIA outside Israel’s nuclear installation in Dimona bore the same isotopic signature as material produced by the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in the U.S. state of Ohio. The Portsmouth plant was a supplier for Numec…

      Reply to Comment
    20. Bea

      I should think that the good upright IDF soldiers who make a habit of scrawling things like “The Jews are here now” and “Arabs to the Gas Chambers” on the walls of invaded Palestinian homes, is not particularly helpful in this regard.

      Reply to Comment
    21. Carl

      BHCH: “While the State of Israel isn’t perfect, it is the by far the best to her minorities in the Middle East.”

      I was at least the third best at football in my infant school: spot me me in the Olympics 2012! Oh, the competition: I remember how it works.

      Reply to Comment
    22. Steve

      I understand the defensiveness of those who seek to distance anti-semitism from anything related to what Israel does or doesn’t do. It’s legitimate to want to avoid blaming the victim for any type of “anti” hatred. But, if we’re honest, it seems obvious that Israeli behavior contributes, in part, to some manifestations of anti-semitism. Is that assertion any less evident than noting that the rise of anti-Muslim sentiment is, in part, a reflection of 9/11 and subsequent terror perpetrated in the name of Islam by self- identified Muslims?

      Reply to Comment
    23. Henry Weinstein

      It’s always the same tactic when a 972 blogger publishes an edgy analysis: almost immediately the post’s thread is flooded with digressive gossips which have nothing to do with the topic just to divert the attention of readers and prevent them to discuss the point made by the writer.
      .
      The topic is, according to me: is Israel a source of anti-semitism, at the present time, yes or no?
      Israel meaning Israel’s policy, Israel’s government, Israel’s legislature, Israel’s laws, Israel’s PR AND the Jewish people, how is perceived the Jewish people, i.e for most people on earth the Jews:
      a) in the Middle East, b) in Western countries, in the Diaspora?
      Take your time, think about it.
      Stay on topic.

      Reply to Comment
    24. Volodinjev the Great

      @Henry Weinstein

      The question is loaded. It could be just as well worded “Do you think Israel’s actions caused people to hate Jews, or do you think people who already hated Jews are now using Israel’s actions an an excuse?” That’s far better in terms of revealing the fallacy behind this entire discussion.

      How about asking if the Palestinians are the source of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim feeling? Palestinians meaning their suicide bombing, their Qassam rocket fire, etc. If you say it’s immoral to blame the victim, then why the one case and not the other?

      Reply to Comment
    25. Henry Weinstein

      Dear Volondinjed The Great (coming soon: The Greatest?),
      It could be just as well worded like I wrote it, “Stay on topic” included.
      .
      Aren’t you trying to divert readers to think about the consequences of the ideological mantra ‘Israel = The Jewish people, VTG?
      .
      “If you say it’s immoral to blame the victim, then why the one case and not the other?”: problem is I never said this, you made it.
      Who is immoral, VTG?
      .
      What I said very recently on another thread’s comment you may also dislike (“France calls jailed Palestinian activist ‘human rights defender’ “, by Noam Sheizaf The Terrible):
      “Must be a local custom, to put in your mouth words you never said”.
      I’m like Monica Levinsky with Bill Clinton, I don’t swallow.
      .
      “How about asking if the Palestinians are the source of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim feeling?”, your words, not mine.
      Your world, not mine.

      Reply to Comment
    26. Ruth

      Suppose everything you say is true. Is it acceptable to attack perfectly innocent Jewish people in Europe or elsewhere because of what Israel does or does not do? What if you were walking down the street in Amsterdam wearing a kippa, would it be ok for people to kill you, even though you are anti-zionist? By your logic,next time there is a terrorist attack committed by a Muslim group, people would be totally justified in attacking random muslims in the streets in retaliation. Right? After all there is this long history of muslims invading many countries and converting them by the sword, honour killings, blah, blah.
      PS: Yossi, you remind me of Atzmon. You are a bit of an agent provocateur, arent’you? You like to wind people up.

      Reply to Comment
    27. Volodinjev the Great

      @Henry Weinstein

      You request the question “Is Israel a source of anti-semitism, at the present time, yes or no?” to be answered as-is. I tell you that’s impossible to do, because it requires the ability to read minds. The answer is “yes” if Israel made anti-Semites of people who weren’t anti-Semites beforehand, and “no” if they were anti-Semites beforehand and are just using Israel as their excuse. How do you determine which is right? Without reading minds, you just can’t.

      I suspect the very people who first asserted Israel is a source of anti-Semitism know this all too well. That’s why my contention that that’s a loaded question is not only on-topic, it’s really the only on-topic way to discuss it all.

      Stop hiding behind appeals to plainness on an issue where plainness is out of the question, and stop telling me I’m putting words in your mouth just because I can’t carry out your impossible request to give a plain answer to an unplain, loaded question. If the game is rigged, don’t expect people to play as if the game was fair and then complain when they naturally, sensibly don’t.

      PS. My moniker isn’t because I’m saying I’m great, but in homage to an historical figure I find inspiring.

      Reply to Comment
    28. Hostage

      BHCH: “You can take the founding documents of Zionism from Basil conference, you can take the writing of Zhabotinsky or Ben Gurion… You will find nothing about “supremacy”.

      “Zhabotinsky” wrote about the need for an iron wall of bayonets to keep the Arabs at bay until Palestine could be transformed into the Land of Israel:

      Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.

      That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel”.

      Ahdut Ha’avodah (Unity of Labor) was established in 1919. Its founding Charter publicly called for a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and demanded “the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99. That’s the definition of supremacy to any sane intellect. If the settlers are willing to cede a state to the people of Palestine in Judea and Samaria it’s news to the rest of us.

      Herzl wasn’t looking for a land without a people and he had no intention of sparing the Palestinians when he proposed settling in East Africa:

      “It is precisely the duty of the leader to set the people on the path which, by apparent detours, leads to the goal. You refuse the life which is offered you out of fear, cowardice. Miserable eunuchs that you are, you sacrifice the sources of your power. Look at Britain! It pours its excess popula­tion into the vast empire that it was able to acquire. Are we then so craven as to be frightened of the offer made to us? Starting from their national base, nations have built colonial empires that have made their fortunes. Let us accept the chance offered us to become a miniature England. Let us start by acquiring our colonies! From them, we shall launch the conquest of our Homeland. Let the lands between Kilimanjaro and Kenya become those of the first colony of Israel! They, rather than Edmond de Rothschild’s philanthropic supported refugees, will constitute the real Rishon le-Zion, the first- fruits of Zionism, of the New Israel. If we accept Chamberlain’s offer with gratitude, we strengthen our position, we oblige him to do something wise for us should our commission of enquiry reject the land proposed. In our transactions with this mighty nation we shall acquire the status of a national power. We will not stop there! Other States will follow Britain’s example, new “reserves of power” will be created in Mozambique with the Portuguese, in the Congo aith the Belgians, in Tripolitania with the Italians.” http://books.google.com/books?id=z99L5XBsbdkC&lpg=PA243&pg=PA244#v=onepage&q&f=false

      I take it that you aren’t very familiar with the writings of the early Zionists.

      Reply to Comment
    29. Bosko

      To those who constantly perpetrate the myth that before Zionism, Jews and Arabs lived as good neighbors. Karl Marx certainly did not seem to be under that impression. This is what he wrote in the New York Herald Tribune in 1854. That was way before Herzl published his Zionist manifesto …
      .
      ” the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt, between the Zion and the Moriah, where their synagogues are situated – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance”
      .
      http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/03/28.htm

      Reply to Comment
    30. AMIR.BK

      Bos, you should also read what Mr. Marx had to say about Jews, safe to say he was not very “Liberal” or tolerant in his views about races (even his own). When measuring historical tolerance it would be best to review legislation, government policy, popular support for Pogroms, etc.
      .
      If anyone said that the situation under the ottomans was a multi-cultural utopia was the caliber of present germany he is clearly insane, however, in comparison to Israeli to contemporary Israeli government policy in Gaza and the West Bank than Marx’s description does sound rather progressive to me.
      .
      Lastly, and maybe most importantly, Marx is really not well known for his objective writing or for his scrutiny of sources, you certainly cannot consider Marx as a primary source regarding ethnic relations in Palestine.

      Reply to Comment
    31. Bosko

      Amir: “Bos, you should also read what Mr. Marx had to say about Jews, safe to say he was not very “Liberal” or tolerant in his views about races (even his own). When measuring historical tolerance it would be best to review legislation, government policy, popular support for Pogroms, etc.”
      .
      And your point is? Are you saying that what he said above about the lives of the Jews of Jerusalem in 1854, before modern Zionism, is incorrect?
      .
      Amir: “Lastly, and maybe most importantly, Marx is really not well known for his objective writing or for his scrutiny of sources, you certainly cannot consider Marx as a primary source regarding ethnic relations in Palestine.”
      .
      Yep, you seem to be saying that. I guess if one does not like a message, then just one kills the messenger, eh Amir? Now, have you some proof that Karl Marx’s above article was just a made up story? I’ll tell you what, while you are looking for it, I’ll try and get another source to corroborate what Marxy says above.

      Reply to Comment
    32. AMIR.BK

      I’m sorry you’re so defensive, given you record here I’d expect a better attitude.
      .
      To be honest yes I was saying exactly what you think I said, that I’d appreciate sources other than Karl “I let Engels research all my data for me” Marx. Essentially, Primary sources of people who researched the topic themselves rather than Secondary Biased Sources of people offering analysis would be much more convincing.
      .
      I don’t think that the situation in Palestine was a multi-cultural utopia either for that purpose, moreover I agree with you that the neo-leftist approach of “the oppressed are all innocent, always” is vacuous and useless. I’m just suggesting that a source other than Marx would better support your position.
      .
      For that purpose I also don’t think that the writings of Zionists in any way excuses the Hebron Massacre.

      Reply to Comment
    33. Bosko

      Amir: “I am sorry you’re so defensive, given you record here I’d expect a better attitude”
      .
      Don’t be sorry Amir, I can take your attempt at humor. Just one question though, tell me about my record here. You seem to know an awful lot about me LOL. Anyone would think you dislike me or something, judging by your attitude.
      .
      I’ll tell you what Amir, why don’t you just ask me to leave? You never know what might happen. After all, I don’t like making the likes of you uncomfortable.
      .
      By the way, don’t worry, I am still looking for a source to corroborate our Marxy.

      Reply to Comment
    34. Amir.BK

      Why the Bad Attitude Boss? All I know about you from is from reading your posts, I know about you from seeing how you consider yourself to be a defender of Israel and I have my opinions of your debating style, your tendency to “follow through” on talking points you made, etc.
      .
      I would never ask anyone to leave and I do think it’s important for 972 to have a multitude of opinions, at the end of the day we all strive to come to an understanding. Also, This is not my site, nor my blog and certainly not place to ask anyone would leave.
      .
      I think that my attitude towards you is rather fun and I hope you don’t think it is designed to be offensive. If I disliked you or thought you were ‘a lost cause’ of sorts I certainly wouldn’t invest such efforts in honestly debating with you.
      .
      If you feel I am dishonest and hateful THEN we might have a problem which is solely my responsibility. I consider it of extreme importance to reduce hostility and aggressiveness when discussing I/P topics and certainly do not wish to convey hatred and dislike myself.
      .
      With that said, let’s stop derailing Yossi’s post with this personal shit. All I had was a comment considering the validity of your source, I’m sure that’s acceptable.

      Reply to Comment
    35. Those who live histories are condemned to repeat them. How’s that?
      .
      Am I to be shocked into understanding by one of the histories presented here, humbled, converted to the presenters definition of present good and bad? Isreal exists. It’s not going away soon. Those occupied know this, live this. Obviously anti-Semitism can be inflamed by Israeli State action. Obviously attacks on Jews based on such are wrong. And just as obviously said Israeli State action may be criticized as such. The defense of Israel via centuries of Jewish history reifies race. Most people, at least a majority, regularly reify race. The Israeli State has reified Gaza into a single punishable entity. The truth is that humans reify catagories to control others. Even patriotism can be used to this end.
      .
      I prefer human particularism which makes the simple claim that this event, at my seeing and hearing, I refuse to accept now, even though afraid of the consequeces of my stand. It’s a risky position to take, but I know of no other which can fend off the various worships of history.

      Reply to Comment
    36. Elisabeth

      Your comparison between Christian and Muslim anti-Semitism is short, but one of the most insightful I ever read

      Reply to Comment
    37. Mitchell Cohen

      Hello!!!! Anybody home!!!! The Spanish Inquisition occurred before 1948. Must have been how the Jews were occupying Palestine!!!! The pogroms and exile of Jews all over Europe in the Middle Ages. Must have been those roadblocks. The Dreyfus affair. Must have been because of the actions of the IDF. The Holocaust. Must have been the expanding settlements. Ben Israel sums it up best, there is ALWAYS an excuse to have it in for the Jews. Israel is not needed for that.

      Reply to Comment
    38. Elisabeth

      Yossi Gurvits expressly addressed the Christian and Muslim anti-Semitism of before the creation of the modern state of Israel. He never argued that all anti-Semitism stems from Israel and its policies. Your attempt to distort his opinion is ridiculously transparent.
      I don’t know why people like you delight so much in pretending that you are being hated, and have been hated, eternally, by the WHOLE WORLD. I guess it can be liberating, as it dissolves you of responsibility for the consequences of your actions. (“They hate us anyway, so why be Mr. Nice Guy. Let’s grab some more land and terrorize the locals some more.”)

      Reply to Comment
    39. Mitchell Cohen

      Elisabeth, on contraire, it is those who want Israel to disappear who want to use the excuse that “Israel is the cause of today’s anti-semitism”, and that if we went back to before 1948 everything would just be hunky dory who are living in lala land. So, don’t put words in my mouth (your last sentence).

      Reply to Comment
    40. Elisabeth

      I can make head nor tail of your reply. Are you sure you are reacting to me? You reply to Yossi Gurvits was totally off the mark too.

      Reply to Comment
    41. Mitchell Cohen

      “I can make head nor tail of your reply.” Then I guess this saves me a lot of typing, eh? :-)

      Reply to Comment
    42. BHCH

      Dear Hostage:

      “I take it that you aren’t very familiar with the writings of the early Zionists.”

      You are making an assumption. Well… I wouldn’t call myself an expert on early Zionists but I have read quite a bit.

      It just so happens that I am particularly familiar with the writings of Zhabotinsky. A bit of a personal connection – my great-grandma kept a signed copy of Zhabotinsky’s poems – they were friends in good old Odessa.

      So, I can say that I am reasonably familiar with his actual writings rather than with clearly distorted biased forth-hand mistranslated “quotes” that were picked from marxist sites on the web.

      Reply to Comment
    43. BHCH

      Oops… My comment didn’t appear; guess because of the links.

      Anyway, here is actual Zhabotinsky, his key work:

      “Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations –
      polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of
      all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will
      always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews
      become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the
      Helsingfors Programme, the programme of national rights for all nationalities living
      in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews ,
      but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.
      I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we
      shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall
      never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.”

      http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_49117.pdf

      (Page 1)

      Reply to Comment
    44. Mitchell, it’s true that there was a significant swell of anti-Semitism in the Arab world after the advent of Zionism, and that this was qualitatively different from any anti-Jewish feeling that preceded it. An interesting book to read on this topic is ‘The Jews of Islam’ by Bernard Lewis. He definitely doesn’t argue that things were perfect for Jews in the Muslim world prior to 1948 (the book is a fairly comprehensive study of Jewish history from early mediaeval times onward) but he does argue convincingly that a specific form of anti-Semitism was introduced to the regional bloodstream towards the end of the nineteenth century, drawing heavily on European anti-Semitic tropes.

      Yossi isn’t arguing that Israel is the root cause of all anti-Semitism ever to exist either. I do agee with him that the deliberate and disingenuous conflation of Israel and Jewishness on the part of the Israeli government is a contributing factor to present-day anti-Semitism. Just the other week there was a major pro-Israel advocacy conference in Manchester (UK), the Big Tent for Israel, which was attended by the Israeli ambassador to the UK and other prominent figures. On the programme (which can be viewed online) was a workshop called, “Every Jew is an Ambassador for Israel – Why Aren’t We Using Them?” When you have this extraordinary statement being made at a conference attended by such high-profile individuals, it’s easy to see how people fall into the toxic trap of believing that to be Jewish and Zionist is one and the same thing, and that to be Zionist means to represent the State of Israel as it is now.

      In spite of the false conflations that are routinely made by the Israeli government and proponents of Israeli policy abroad, I’m not all that understanding when I hear people buying into the story. If you look at these type of statements logically and critically, it becomes obvious that they can’t be right. Binyamin Netanyahu might declare himself to represent Jews worldwide, but just because he says something doesn’t make it true, ao why should anyone hearing that remark receive it uncritically? A pro-Israel advocacy conference might refer to all Jews as ambassadors for Israel, but in this digital age it’s easy to access a full spectrum of different Jewish opinions on this subject with a couple of clicks of the mouse. Even if you’re not inclined to do the research, it doesn’t take much effort to work out that Zionism is a political ideology, and political ideologies aren’t hard-wired into infants at birth. I can see that Israel’s behaviour does fuel anti-Semitism, but only if people are content to go along with this sort of sloppy thinking.

      Reply to Comment
    45. aristeides

      What on Earth do people think is going to happen when they see the star of David, which was a symbol of Jewishness before it was coopted by Israel, sprayed all over the walls of vandalized houses, burned mosques, and desecrated graveyards?

      Reply to Comment
    46. BHCH

      “What on Earth do people think is going to happen when they see the star of David”.

      Reading some guys here you’d think Jews lived in a paradise prior to the creation of Israel and it got a lot worse since.

      Reply to Comment
    47. Bosko

      Here is another account of how the Jews of Jerusalem were treated in 1858:
      .
      “…the sons of Israel are here the object of the antipathy and disdain of the other communities… obsequious, excessively fearful… They excite rather than disarm the hostile sentiments of the Christians, happy to take revenge, by annoying them [the Jews], for their own voluntary degradation towards the Muslims… the Jews who take shelter under the flags of a European consul, those are almost men.”[20]
      .

      This was written by Gerardy Santine, a Frenchman who lived in Jerusalem for three years in the 1850s, and with Felix Bovet, a French-speaking Swiss Protestant minister who visited the city in 1858. Santine stressed the sense of fear and intimidation felt by the native Jews.
      .
      http://www.think-israel.org/green.islamoppressedjews.html

      Reply to Comment
    48. AMIR.BK

      Yup, that definitely sounds like anti-Semitism. near Apartheid if you ask me.
      .
      People don’t like them and there is friction between the communities, more over they are not particularly rich and powerful, and the Jew’s default state, as we all know, is RICH and POWERFUL, anything short of privelege must be jew hate.
      .
      I can’t even BEGIN to understand why you think this source proves anti-Semitism in its actual meaningful European sense (and arguably modern Muslim sense) existed in Jerusalem in 1850, all it shows is that the Jewish community of Jerusalem had some relatively minor conflicts with the other communities, amusingly enough mostly the CHRISTIAN community and lived in poverty and according to Marx “Squalor”.
      .
      All in all I’d say the Jerusalemite Jews were treated better under ottoman rules then Muslims were under early Jewish rule, Proof: Benny Morris “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Ilan Pappe “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”. Those also show systemic issues caused by organized Jewish Rules, issues that repeated on several fronts and could be considered a POLICY. So, let’s say that unless you consider your descriptions to be anti-Semitism of the Goebbles variety, prior to the rise of Zionism, things were relatively relaxed in Palestine.
      .
      http://www.think-israel.org-islam.oppresed.

      Reply to Comment
    49. AMIR.BK

      This is so incredibly bizarre! I am beginning to come to terms with Ali Abunimah’s observation that for modern Zionists anything other than Jews living in complete privilege is considered anti-Semitism bordering on Genocide.

      Reply to Comment
    50. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel