History of Zionism by Mazim Qimsiyeh, Palestinian peace activist and biology teacher in Maryland.

Having analyzed Judeophobia as a hereditary form of demonopathy, peculiar to
the human race, and having represented Anti-Semitism as proceeding from an
inherited aberration of the human mind, we must draw the important
conclusion that we must give up contending against these hostile impulses as
we must against every other inherited predisposition. Judah Lieb Pinsker 1882 early Zionist

Zionism is variously looked at as a salvation or as a catastrophic power.
Yet all agree that Zionism was and is at the center of the conflict that now
raged for over 100 years in the Land of Canaan. No lasting solution can be
approached without an honest examination of origin and consequences of this
phenomenon that still shapes events, not only locally in Palestine/Israel,
but in the region and the world. The origin of Zionism is often described
as initiated in the 19th century by European/Ashkenazi Jews. But this
political movement had an earlier and more dramatic history, some of it
distinctly un-Jewish origin. In dealing with the problems plaguing the Land
of Canaan today, we must have clear handle on Zionist history and the forces
that challenged or promoted it.

Christian Zionism and Colonialism

Napoleon first attempted to construct a network of Jews loyal to the French
Empire throughout Europe. More concrete planning and action from the
British Empire quickly replaced this initial gesture from the French empire
(ref 1). It should be noted that during this time very few Jews lived in
Britain or France. With the loss of the American Colonies, British
colonialism focused on India as “the Jewel of the Crown” and perhaps as
importantly on the road to India (ref 2). In the words of a London Times’
correspondent in 1840 “the proposition to plant the Jewish people in the
land of their fathers, under the protection of the five Powers, is no longer
a mere matter of speculation, but a serious political consideration” (ref
3). This quote from the Quarterly Review of 1838 shows that British,
non-Jewish Zionist plans were instituted primarily for the benefit of the
British Empire:

"The growing interest manifested for these regions, the larger investment of
British capital, and the confluence of British travelers and strangers from
all parts of the world, have recently induced the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs to station there a representative of our Sovereign, in the
person of a Vice-Consul. This gentleman set sail for Alexandria at the end
of last September-his residence will be fixed at Jerusalem, but his
jurisdiction will extend to the whole country within the ancient limits of
the Holy Land; he is thus accredited, as it were, to the former kingdom of
David and the Twelve Tribes. The soil and climate of Palestine are
singularly adapted to the growth of produce required for the exigencies of
Great Britain; the finest cotton may be obtained in almost unlimited
abundance; silk and madder are the staple of the country, and oil-olive is
now, as it ever was, the very fatness of the land. Capital and skill are
alone required: the presence of a British officer, and the increased
security of property which his presence will confer, may invite them the
Jews from these islands to the cultivation of Palestine; and the Jews, who
will betake themselves to agriculture in no other land, having found, in the
English Consul, a mediator between their people and the Pasha, will probably
return in yet greater numbers, and become once more the husbandmen of Judæa
and Galilee … Napoleon knew well the value of an Hebrew alliance; and
endeavoured to reproduce, in the capital of France, the spectacle of the
ancient Sanhedrim, which, basking in the might of imperial favour, might
give laws to the whole body of the Jews throughout the habitable world, and
aid him, no doubt, in his audacious plans against Poland and the East That
which Napoleon designed in his violence and ambition, thinking ‘to destroy
nations not a few,’ we may wisely and legitimately undertake for the
maintenance of our Empire" (ref 4)

British diplomacy with the Ottoman Sultan starting in the 1830s included
explicit requests to encourage and facilitate the settlements of Jews in
Palestine. Many Jews were rightly weary of these schemes by European
gentiles. Zionism failed to convince large segments of European Jews in the
19th century. The few Jews who were interested in living in Palestine
arrived for various reasons: religious individuals relocating near Safed and
other centers of religious Judaism in Palestine, some enticed by financed
relocation, and some idealistic socialist Zionists who felt assimilation
failed and enlightenment was best developed alone until the rest of the
world catches up. These early converts to Zionism were vastly outnumbered
by non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews. Many were even fearful that Zionism
was merely another scheme by gentiles to remove them from their countries.
Yet, Zionism as a colonial venture could not really succeed without Jews
taking it up as a cause in much larger numbers. The first attempt was the
formation early in 1809 of a new organization by the name of The London
Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews. Its aims included
educating Jews on their own history and promote Eastern European immigration
to Palestine as a fulfillment of Christian theology. These early attempts
were the true antecedents of the Christian Zionists movement, which remains
influential both in Britain and the United States to this day. Colonel
Charles Henry Churchill, the British Consul in Syria, stated in 1841 that
success of Zionism depended on, “Firstly that the Jews themselves will take
up the matter, universally and unanimously. Secondly that the European
powers will aid them in their views” (ref 5).

To achieve such goals, the British Empire employed the services of one
Lieutenant Colonel George Gawler (1796-1869). Gawler was a colonization
expert who successfully founded a penal colony in Australia and after whom a
major city and state in Australia are named. In 1845, Gawler published his
vision for how this might be accomplished. His treaty was titled:
"Tranquilization of Syria and the East: Observations and Practical
Suggestions, in Furtherance of the Establishment of Jewish Colonies in
Palestine, the Most Sober and Sensible Remedy for the Miseries of Asiatic
Turkey" (ref 6). In 1852, the Association for Promoting Jewish Settlement
in Palestine was founded by Gawler and other British officials and later
evolved it into the Palestine Fund (ref 7). Winston Churchill wrote in 1920
immediately following his assertion that Bolshevism is led and initiated
mostly by Jews:

"But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our life time by the
banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British
Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would
have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of
view be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest
interests of the British Empire" (ref 8)

Zionism Taking Root among European Jewish Communities

There is much to be learned about the transition in the 19th century from a
movement sponsored and promoted by non-Jews to a Jewish led movement that
then took strong initiative to change the course of history. The number of
Jews who looked with favor to Zionism fluctuated depending on circumstances
of their residence and the political and economic situation. 19th century
nationalism gave Zionism a more race and nationalistic tone. Yet, Jewish
advocates of Zionism remained in the minority throughout the 19th century
and early in the 20th century. And the movement clearly continued to depend
on imperial interests for its very survival and this need for better
cooperation with British colonial interests grew. The movement's strength
in the Ashkenazi communities was largely related to levels of anti-Ashkenazi
feelings. Thus, Moses Hess (1812-1875) argued that there is no cure for the
"illness" of this Jewish hatred other than to establish their own state in
Palestine. A man with similar views, Judah Leib (Leon) Pinsker (1821-1891),
became a co-founder (with Moses Lilienblum) of Hibbat Zion, an early Zionist
movement. In 1882, he wrote anonymously a pamphlet titled:
"Auto-Emancipation: An appeal to his people by a Russian Jew." In it he
argued that anti-Ashkenazim (known in Europe as anti-Semitism) was a
pathological phenomenon beyond the reach of any future triumphs of "humanity
and enlightenment." Here are relevant quotes of why he believed in Zionism:

"This is the kernel of the problem, as we see it: the Jews comprise a
distinctive element among the nations under which they dwell, and as such
can neither assimilate nor be readily digested by any nation. Hence the
solution lies in finding a means of so readjusting this exclusive element to
the family of nations, that the basis of the Jewish question will be
permanently removed.

Having analyzed Judeophobia as a hereditary form of demonopathy, peculiar to
the human race, and having represented Anti-Semitism as proceeding from an
inherited aberration of the human mind, we must draw the important
conclusion that we must give up contending against these hostile impulses as
we must against every other inherited predisposition.

Our future will remain insecure and precarious unless a radical change in
our position is made. This change cannot be brought about by the civil
emancipation of the Jews in this or that state, but only by the
auto-emancipation of the Jewish people as a nation, the foundation of a
colonial community belonging to the Jews, which is some day to become our
inalienable home, our country.

The international Jewish question must have a national solution. Of course,
our national regeneration can only proceed slowly. We must take the first
step. Our descendants must follow us at a measured and not over-precipitant
speed" (ref 9)

Pinsker became a leader of the movement and with funds from the wealthy
British philanthropist, Baron Edmond de Rothschild developed the first
Jewish agricultural settlements in Palestine at Rishon LeZiyyon south of Tel
Aviv, and Zikhron Yaaqov, south of Haifa. By 1891, about 10,000 Jews had
relocated to these settlements in Palestine (then part of the Ottoman
Empire). Yet, in the period of Jewish emigration from Europe 1882-1903, a
tiny fraction left for Palestine, most went to North and South America.

Nathan Birnbaum (alias Mathias Ascher) coined the term "Zionism" based on
the ideas of Hess and Pinsker as a political movement for Jewish
"self-emancipation" and nationalism. In 1893, he published a brochure
entitled "Die Nationale Wiedergeburtder Juedischen Volkes in seinem Lande
als Mittel zur Loesung der Judenfrage" ("The National Rebirth of the Jewish
People in Its Homeland as a Means of Solving the Jewish Problem"). Later,
Theodore Herzl's work formed further ideological underpinnings for the
movement. Similar to his intellectual fathers, he also "recognized that
anti-Semitism would be harnessed to his own -Zionist- purposes" (ref 10).
Thus, proponents of Zionism, non-Jews and Jews alike, built their popularity
on Jewish fears of anti-Jewish sentiments and actions. Zionism, they were
told is the best solution to the "Jewish problem".

Zionism after 1948

While Zionism as a political program was thus supposed to "emancipate the
Jewish people" by having their own state, once the state was established and
native people largely removed, new roles and arguments were to be resented
to sustain and reinvent Zionism. The "protection" of the "Jewish people
"
from the "outside" remained essential philosophical and political
underpinning to Zionism. But a bit more was needed. The Jerusalem Program
for Zionism adopted in 1951 and revised by the World Zionist Congress in
1968 adopted this as a definition of the goals of Zionism:

The aims of Zionism are:
-The Unity of the Jewish people and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life;
- The ingathering of the Jewish people in the historic homeland, Eretz
Israel, through aliyah from
all countries;
-The strengthening of the State of Israel, which is based on the prophetic
vision of justice and peace;
- The preservation of the identity of the Jewish people through the
fostering of Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education and of Jewish spiritual
and cultural values;
- The protection of Jewish rights everywhere.


In June 1968, the Zionist Congress, held in Jerusalem, redefined the aims of
Zionism in the "Jerusalem Program" rather broadly:

1. Unity of the Jewish People and the Centrality of Israel in Jewish life;

2. The ingathering of the Jewish people in its historic homeland Eretz
Yisrael through Aliyah from all countries.

3. The strengthening of the State of Israel, which is based on the prophetic
vision of justice and peace;

4. The preservation of the identity of the Jewish people through the
fostering of Jewish, Zionist and Hebrew education and of Jewish spiritual
and cultural values;

5. The protection of Jewish rights everywhere.

Note the wide mandate dictated by key words of power, strength, and
protection against any perceived threat to Jews. One need only substitute
Jew/Jewish with Christian or "White" to see the inherent unfairness and
racism in both the program of 1951 and 1968. After all, what is this idea
of ingathering of Jewish "people" mean? What does it mean when many Jews
have converted to Christianity and many to Islam? What does it mean for the
majority of Jews who are converts over the ages from Christianity, Paganism
etc.? How is he "ingathering" and taking land from natives via the
"strengthening" of the State of Israel in the name of the "Unity of the
Jewish people" help in the "protection of Jewish rights everywhere"?

The government of Israel still mindlessly talks about Zionism as a solution
to "anti-Semitic" (anti-Jewish) hatred instead of working to advance
equality for Jews and non-Jews everywhere:

The Zionist movement aimed to solve the 'Jewish problem,' the problem of a
perennial minority, a people subjected to repeated pogroms and persecution,
a homeless community whose alienism was underscored by discrimination
wherever Jews settled. Zionism aspired to deal with this situation by
affecting a return to the historical homeland of the Jews - Land of
Israel.... The Zionist national solution was the establishment of a Jewish
national state with a Jewish majority in the historical homeland, thus
realizing the Jewish people's right to self-determination (ref 11).

Note the sweeping generalizations and sense of perpetual victimization that
reflects the theology of Hess, Pinsker, and Herzl that discrimination
against Jews is pathological and has no cure other than a powerful state
with a majority Jewish population. Amnon Rubinstein wrote in Haaretz on
March 13, 2002:

"… the new secular Jewish nationalism, which was the foundation on which
Israel was built, is a nationalism of no choice. It is true that on the
basis of the lack of choice were piled on additional traditional national
elements: the memory of the biblical past, the impact of the revival of
Hebrew, the concept of a return to Zion, and the characteristic
accoutrements of other national movements. But the major strength of
Zionism stemmed from its sense that there was no other choice, from this
inability to be like everyone else. Without the locked gate, the Zionist
gate would not have opened very wide and the longing for Zion would have
stayed in the prayer book "
(ref 12)

So do Jews really have no choice other than Zionism to prosper in this
world? Did Zionism help or hinder the case for tolerance in the world (Jews
towards non-Jews and vice versa)? Jews grabbled with such questions for
decades and arrived at different conclusions with anti-Zionist Jews arriving
at completely opposite conclusions to those reached by Herzl, Pinskery, Hess
and their followers. As history would prove, the critics were right.
Today, after over 150 years of Zionism, there is only one place where Jews
are threatened with annihilation and that is this self-declared "Jewish
state". In Israel, one finds a government that is preparing public parks as
sites for possible mass graves in case of biological or chemical attacks.
In Israel, one finds unrealistic attempts at assuring the public that they
can survive such attacks. Why are Jews safer in America or France than in
Israel? Are anti-Jewish sentiments around the world stoked or diminished by
the Zionist program and its effect on the native Palestinians?

The answers to these questions make many Jews now rethink the deceptions of
the militaristic Zionist program. Political Zionism was far more
catastrophic for the indigenous Palestinians (Christians and Muslims alike).
In public articles and books, Herzl was careful in describing what Zionism
meant in practice and how it was to be implemented in an already inhabited
Palestine. But, as we discussed in Chapter 4 on refugees, Herzl's diaries
and diaries of other early Zionists are now available and shed light about
the colonial nature of Zionism and its true intentions.

Herzl, understood the need for a concrete program to realize his the goals
he articulated. For this a new group of people participated in the practical
application of Zionism. This included people like Nachman Syrkin and Ber
Borochov who developed the labor Zionism as a dominant force in Zionist
quarters. This brand of practical Zionism exists in a form represented by
the labor party and some other minor parties in Israel today. Labor
Zionists criticized the Rothschild-supported settlements on purely
capitalist terms (e.g. hiring Arab labor). They called for Jewish
settlement based on socialist modes of organization: the accumulation of
capital managed by a central Jewish organization and employment of Jewish
laborers only. A key pillar of this was the need for a "Jewish power"
(physical, material) which can then translate into state and political power
without dilution by non-Jews.

Labor Zionists knew that power is needed, but they also knew that to achieve
their goals required skillful political maneuvering around existing powers
in the region of their settlement. For many ardent Zionists, this somehow
smacked of compromise that they were not willing to accept. This set the
stage for the evolution of other methods to achieve the goals of Zionism.
Some argued that strong economic and military power is all that mattered to
realization of the Zionist dreams. Jabotinsky was the founder of this
ideology of "revisionist Zionism" that Begin, Netanyahu, Sharon and other
Israeli leaders identify as their ideological underpinning (now represented
by the Likud party and other Right Wing parties in Israel). A reading from
one of Jabotinsky's 1923 writings clearly demonstrates his mode of thinking:

"Every reader has some idea of the early history of other countries which
have been settled. I suggest that he recall all known instances. If he
should attempt to seek but one instance of a country settled with the
consent of those born there he will not succeed. The inhabitants (no matter
whether they are civilized or savages) have always put up a stubborn fight.
Furthermore, how the settler acted had no effect whatsoever. The Spaniards
who conquered Mexico and Peru, or our own ancestors in the days of Joshua
ben Nun behaved, one might say, like plunderers.

... Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some
kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or
a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine
for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the
Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually
they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts
all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our
good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for
them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true
fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his
prairie.

... It is of no importance whether we quote Herzl or Herbert Samuel to
justify our activities. Colonization itself has its own explanation,
integral and inescapable, and understood by every Arab and every Jew with
his wits about him. Colonization can have only one goal. For the
Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of
things. To change that nature is impossible.

... Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be
terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population.
This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the
protection of a force independent of the local population - an iron wall
which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our
policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be
hypocrisy. Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not.
What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the
fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security
conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with
our efforts.

All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power
strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful
differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians”. One prefers an
iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British
bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be
satisfied with Baghdad's bayonets - a strange and somewhat risky taste - but
we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall. We would destroy our cause if
we proclaimed the necessity of an agreement, and fill the minds of the
Mandatory with the belief that we do not need an iron wall, but rather
endless talks. Such a proclamation can only harm us. Therefore it is our
sacred duty to expose such talk and prove that it is a snare and a
delusion." (ref 13)

This is a must reading for those who really want to understand the nature of
Zionist designs un-encumbered with nice words or skillful maneuvering. The
"wall" refers to the wall of bayonets, British and/or Zionist, necessarily
required to establish a colonial Jewish State. The author persuasively
argued why Arabs would not accept a Jewish State in Palestine. His vision,
as articulated in this 1923 article, is amazingly prophetic in what was to
transpire in Palestine over the next 80 years.

Is Zionism the Other Side of the Coin of Anti-Semitism?

Zionism in essence was a project that accommodated slightly varied modes of
operations, such as using Arab labor or not, working with existing political
systems to achieve its goals, or using only military means. The essence of
it was and still is the creation and maintenance of a Jewish state with a
clear and unambiguous Jewish majority (as long as this Jewish majority
supported Zionism). In a land already occupied by another people, its
tactics were viewed as a traumatic, but necessary, loss. The main device
towards the realization of this dream was "anti-Semitism". This form of
racism was well intertwined, and is also explained by deep psychological
phenomena.

The term anti-Semite was coined by anti-Jewish bigot Wilhelm Marr in 1879.
According to Yahoo encyclopedia, Marr's 1862 pamphlet titled Der
Judenspiegel ("Jews Mirror") was followed by the influential "The Victory
of
Judaism over Germandom, Considered from a Non-Religious point of View".
Marr apparently did not want to use Jew as it connotes a religion and wanted
a term that is referring to ethnicity. He was likely never introduced to
the word Ashkenazi and he assumed Ashkenazi/European Jews to be "Semitic."
Marr thus introduced in 1879 the word "anti-Semite" into the political
vocabulary by founding the League of anti-Semites, which organized lectures
and published a short-lived monthly. The "league" failed as an
organization, but it was historically important for it was the first effort
of creating a popular political movement based on hatred Ashkenazim. As
pointed out in chapter 2, Semites refer to all people who speak Semitic
languages (Arabic Hebrew, Aramaic). Ashkenazi Jews would technically not be
Semitic since they spoke Yiddish. The fact that this term developed by a
racist was adopted by many Jews and Zionists is astonishing yet fits well
within the context of development of Zionist thoughts as discussed above
(i.e. a solution to the "Jewish problem" being relocation to a "Jewish
state").

That Zionism and Judeophobia are intimately connected is evidenced by
writings of early Zionists. Here is Vladimir Jabotinsky, the ideological
forefather of the Israeli Likud Party, writing in 1904 about the "Jewish
problem" :

"It is inconceivable from a physical point of view, that a Jew born to a
family of pure Jewish blood over several generations can become adapted to
the spiritual outlook of a German or a Frenchman. A Jew brought up among
Germans may assume German customs, German words. He may be wholly imbued
with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will
always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical-racial type
are Jewish ... And a man whose body is Jewish can not possibly mold within
himself the spirit of a Frenchman ... It is impossible for a man to become
assimilated with people whose blood is different than his own " 14

Perhaps this parallel quote from Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" needs to
be pondered and analyzed:

"Yet I could no longer very well doubt that the objects of my study were not
Germans of a special religion, but a people in themselves; for once I had
begun to concern myself with this question and to take cognizance of the
Jews, Vienna appeared to me in a different light than before. Wherever I
went, I began to see Jews, and the more I saw, the more sharply they became
distinguished in my eyes from the rest of humanity. Particularly the Inner
City and the districts north of the Danube Canal swarmed with a people,
which even outwardly had lost all resemblance to Germans. And whatever
doubts I may still have nourished were finally dispelled by the attitude of
a portion of the Jews themselves. Among them there was a great movement,
quite extensive in Vienna, which came out sharply in confirmation of the
national character of the Jews: this was the ZIONISTS" (emphasis in
original) (ref 15)

Hitler's book is the most horrific denigration of Jews and other people and
the most racist book one could even imagine. For him to state that whatever
"lingering doubts" about his anti-Semitism were dispelled because Zionists
agreed with him about the national character of Jews is amazing and has
historically almost completely been ignored. It is an important notion
because Zionists not only agreed with Hitler that Jews should go away from
Europe but they actually worked towards that goal. Here is what The Zionist
Federation of Germany wrote in a letter to the new Nazi regime:

"Zionism believes that a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in
German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also
take place in the Jewish national group" (ref 16)

Both Zionists and Nazis believed that Jews couldn’t be Germans. They both
believed that Jews could not function normally in other societies as equal
citizens. Zionists in fact were clearly putting a primary goal of colonial
Jewish presence in a majority in Palestine ahead of any other issues even
when this goal contradicted the welfare of Jews. This is why they
collaborated with the Nazis and thwarted some efforts to rescue Jews.

The Zionists cooperated with the Nazis in the mid-thirties to facilitate
Jewish immigration to Palestine. The details of this agreement were given
by Edwin Black's book (ref 17). After commencement of attacks on Jews under
German control, the British, in the hope of easing the pressure for
increased immigration into Palestine, proposed that thousands of Jewish
children be admitted directly into Britain. Ben-Gurion, the recognized
leader of labor Zionism at the time was absolutely against the plan, telling
a meeting of Labour Zionist leaders on 7 Dec. 1938:

"If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by
bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to
Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must
weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the
People of Israel" (ref 18)

Rabbi Shonfeld quotes the Zionist leader Yitzhak Greenbaum, as stating after
the war:

"When they asked me, couldn't you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal
funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said, 'NO!' and I say again 'NO!'
. . . one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to
secondary importance" (ref 19)

Most Jews in the 19th and early 20th century criticized Zionist
methodologies and even the whole concept of Zionism. They saw this
movement as a cynical use of religion to establish state power. Perhaps the
most interesting were views of highly intelligent and humanistic Jews like
Einstein and Freud who while openly not opposing Zionism, simply refused to
take part in it. They reflected the majority Jewish opinion before the
establishment of the state of Israel.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychotherapy, was opposed to Zionism. When
approached to sign a petition to condemn the Arab riots in Palestine and to
support the settlement of Jews in Israel, he wrote politely to decline:

"Dear Sir,

I cannot do as you wish. I am unable to overcome my aversion to burdening
the public with my name, and even the present critical time does not seem to
me to warrant it. Whoever wants to influence the masses must give them
something rousing and inflammatory and my sober judgment of Zionism does not
permit this. I certainly sympathize with its goals, am proud of our
University in Jerusalem and am delighted with our settlement's prosperity.
But, on the other hand, I do not think that Palestine could ever become a
Jewish state, nor that the Christian and Islamic worlds would ever be
prepared to have their holy places under Jewish care. It would have seemed
more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less
historically-burdened land. But I know that such a rational viewpoint would
never have gained the enthusiasm of the masses and the financial support of
the wealthy. I concede with sorrow that the baseless fanaticism of our
people is in part to be blamed for the awakening of Arab distrust. I can
raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece
of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of
the natives.

Now judge for yourself whether I, with such a critical point of view, am the
right person to come forward as the solace of a people deluded by
unjustified hope." (ref 20)

Freud was referring to the clear methods of Zionists of the day to assert
sovereignty on areas of Palestine and to regularly confront and show the
natives that their interests were incompatible. Zionism was for a state of
the Jews and not for a democratic state for a variety of people. As Freud
pointed out it is born of a preference for a tribal affiliation that still
haunts us to this day. Hillel Halkin wrote in the Jerusalem Post in 2002:

"You would like me to look at it objectively. Objectively, I agree: we are
only breeding more hatred and violence. You want me to imagine how I would
feel if I were a Palestinian. I suppose that if I were, I might want to
kill Israelis myself. But I am not objective and I am not a Palestinian.
It's not that the lives of Palestinians don't matter to me. But Israeli
lives matter more.

I know this doesn't sound terribly enlightened. And it certainly doesn't
lead to any of the political solutions that we both know are necessary if
this horror is going to end. But being objective would not make me more
human. It would make me less.

I can try to be objective about Russians and Chechnyans, or about Hindus and
Muslims in Kashmir, without drying up the milk of human kindness in me, just
as you can try to be objective about us here, but that is only because I am
not a Russian or a Chechnyan. If I were, and if I didn't put my own people
first, I would simply be an emotional monster. Nothing good could come of
that" (ref 21)

Thus, Zionism's victims were not only the intended native displacement but
it could be argued that humane Jewish values were also its victims. In his
book "Ben Gurion's Scandals" Naeim Giladi ,an Iraqi Jew and ex-Zionist,
discusses Zionist tactics in trying to import Jews from Iraq to Israel in
the 1950s. He immigrated to the US and recently wrote an article in 'The
Link', a publication of the Americans for Middle East Understanding about
his book. In part he said that "about 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in
the late 1940s and into 1952, mostly because they had been lied to and put
into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs [referring to the
bombings done at Synagogues and other areas of Jewish public concentration).
But my mother and father were among the 6,000 who did not go to Israel”
(ref 22). Other books discuss Zionist discourse and its relationship to
anti-Ashkenazim and Judeophobia. Some of these are cited in the
recommended readings below.

A Post-Zionist Discourse

This Zionist program tried but failed to make its ideology the ideology of
"the Jewish people." Many even argued that Zionists tried to replace
Judaism with Zionism or at least to make sure that Zionism is a dominant
feature of mainstream Jewish thought. Hence, one understands the incessant
need to label anti-Zionists or even non-Zionists as "anti-Semitic" or if
they are Jewish as "self-hating Jews." In the first 80 years of Apartheid
South Africa, the leaders of the White South Africans also labeled apartheid
as a national movement for white safety and all opposition within blacks as
anti-White racism. Jewish intellectuals and many others opposed Zionism
simply because they knew it was not a workable construct for Jewish
self-determination or freedom.

When Palestinians return to their lands and form a pluralistic society for
all, will the descendants of those expelled Palestinians remember more the
words and actions of Heztl, Ben Gurion, Barak, and Sharon or will they
remember the words and actions of Martin Buber, Israel Shahak, Uri Avneri,
or Norman Finkelstein? Will those memories teach us to be more tolerant of
each other or will it instill in us the kind of self-righteous, know it all,
"we were the perpetual victim" mentality that was so characteristic of many
Zionists. Victims of the Holocaust took different lessons from it. Some,
perhaps goaded or misled by simplistic and rather unrealistic notion of
separation/apartheid, thought "never again" but meant never again to us Jews
and thus we must separate ourselves from humanity. To make sure this does
not happen, we will build a very strong state based on Jewish power. A
logical place was Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews. Of course
the only problem was that Palestine was already heavily inhabited and the
native population was not simply going to consent to having sovereignty of
their land transferred to an extra national entity. Other Holocaust
survivors and their children like Norman Finkelstein, Israel Shahak and tens
of thousands like them took the message that never again will we allow
hatred or racism against anyone. Others also rejected the notion of a new
secular "Jewish state" based on theological arguments (this was true of
essentially all Orthodox Jews until 1967 and still now common among the
ultra-orthodox like the Naturei Karta).

I am confident that an exclusionary Palestinian movement analogous to
Zionism will not gain widespread recognition nor would ever be allowed to
get a foothold analogous to that of Zionism in Jewish masses. I know this
because I saw it happen with natives in other parts of the world. In South
Africa, the Blacks won their freedom but did not push the whites into the
sea as was feared. Palestinians will not push Jews into the sea. The
reverse of this actually did happen in 1948 where Palestinians were
literally pushed into the sea at Jaffa and were loaded into boats to end-up
in places like Gaza. It is also something that the world would never
tolerate in the 21st century as witnessed in Bosnia.

Jewish voices against Zionism and against Israeli actions are gaining
momentum but it is true that the dominant feature in at least the organized
Jewish community is Zionist. However, one must realize that a majority of
Jews in all surveys state that they are not Zionist and even today a
majority of Jews live outside Israel. Further, the growth of the Jewish
anti-Zionist and post-Zionist movements has been dramatic. What are some of
the good things about these movements?

1) Jewish opponents to Zionism make it rather impossible for both Zionists
and other racists to make generalizations about "the Jews." This is
important in many ways but the most important is that generalizations can
lead to racism and attacks on the whole community. I think it is an ironic
twist that these Jews whom Zionists vilify as "self-hating" or as traitors
to their religion actually do a lot of good for the religion and enhance
protection for their co-religionists while Zionists who perpetuate
brutalities and claim they represent all Jews increase anti-Jewish paranoia.
The lesson to all, including Palestinians, is to never vilify those who
stand up for justice/freedom for all.

2) Jewish opponents of Zionism take a moral stance on issues regardless of
the victim or the perpetrator. They provide the highest of human ideals in
rejecting tribalism and the philosophies of "us" and "them." They
view each
event on its own merits and are thus freed from the hypocrisy of ideological
adherence. Zionists must continuously play a game of moral relativism and
hypocritical support of human rights in some cases while opposing them on
others (depending on whether the tribe is affected or not). This is not a
healthy way to live and creates many sleepless nights among some Zionists I
know. The lesson to all, including Palestinians is to never think or act
tribally, think and act as a human being.

Those Jews who oppose Zionism are not doing what they do to provide us an
example, nor are they doing it because they think they can change history.
They do it for a very simple reason - because it is just. In fact, the more
of us think like that, the less likelihood there is for wars, for tribal
conflicts, for nationalism, and the more likelihood there is for peace and
prosperity to all of us.

The questions asked by those skeptical of Zionist aspirations are still
relevant today. Were Jews really able to survive only because of the
creation of the Jewish State of Israel and the continuing dispossession of
the native Palestinians? What price is a Jewish state to the natives? Does
Zionism really solve the lingering feeling of being oppressed or
discriminated against? Do Zionism and anti-Jewish feelings
("anti-Semitism") feed on each other to grow? In the US, Jews, Christians,
Muslims and others are well adapted as members of a society that protects
their rights. During the zenith of Arabic/Islamic civilization, Jews,
Christians and Muslims similarly prospered together and built a great
economic, architectural, intellectual, and cultural heritage. The best
example of this is the pluralistic society developed in Al-Andalus (Spain).
My grandfather frequently spoke of the amicable relationships he, as a
Palestinian Christian, observed between all communities in Palestine well
before the disasters imposed by the British-Zionist project unfolded.
Jewish colleagues agree with my grandfather's statement, “It is not true
what Zionism preached to us that we could not live together. It is a shame
that instead of building a pluralistic country for all, some chose to build
a country for one and dispossess the other.”

The record shows that Zionism and anti-Jewish feelings (anti-Semitism) had a
symbiotic relationship. Victims of Zionist ideology were not limited to the
Palestinians (the native inhabitants) but extended to Jews and many others.
Sephardic Jews who were forced to flee their homes and rather comfortable
lives in Arab countries as Israel pushed to undermine their presence in
those countries and as anti-Jewish feelings increased due to the repression
of the Palestinians by self-declared Jewish representatives. Even today,
actions of the State of Israel do increase and certainly do not decrease
threats or danger to Jews around the world. So even strictly judging from
its own stated goals of providing normality and safety to Jews, Zionism has
been a failure. But perhaps these stated goals were not truly genuine and
that Zionism, like so many other -isms, has been mainly about power and
control. Declassified documents are shedding light on these things and
raise very troubling questions.

These questions about relationship of Zionism to anti-Judaic feelings and
Jewish reactions to it are all worth exploring. But the story with regard
to the native Palestinian inhabitants is much simpler and much less
controversial. In practice to fulfill the dreams of Zionist leaders, ethnic
cleansing was and continues to be practiced. After taking 78% of the land
from its native people and expelling over three fourths of them, Zionism
still was not satisfied and Israeli leaders are aggressively and violently
insisting on partitioning the remaining 22% (apartheid) while insisting on
no return of Palestinian refugees and on maintaining racist laws that
discriminate against non-Jews. The idea is to keep the Jewish character of
the state. These laws and beliefs are the topic of the next chapter.

Notes to Chapter 6

1. Mohameden Ould-Mey, The non-Jewish Origin of Zionism, The Arab World
Geographer, 5:34-52, 2002.
2. Barbara W. Tuchman, Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the
Bronze Age to Balfour (New York: Ballantine Books, 1984).
3. The Times, 17 August 1840, Restoration of the Jews, p. 5, col 6(f).
4. Lord Lindsay, Letters on Egypt, Edom, and the Holy Land, , (London:
Henry Colburn, 1838), pp. 188-190.
5. L. J Epstein, Zion’s Call: Christian Contributions to the Origins and
Development of Israel. (New York: University Press of America, 1984).
6. George Gawler 1845, ‘Tranquilization of Syria and the East: Observations
and Practical Suggestions, in Furtherance of the Establishment of Jewish
Colonies in Palestine, the Most Sober and Sensible Remedy for the Miseries
of Asiatic Turkey" as quoted in Mohameden Ould-Mey, The non-Jewish Origin of
Zionism’, The Arab World Geographer, Vol. 5, pp. 34--52,( 2002).
7. Epstein, Zion’s Call.
8. ‘Zionism versus Bolshevism: A struggle for the Soul of the Jewish
people’ Illustrated Sunday Herald 8 February 1920, reprinted in Lenni
Brenner, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis (New Jersey:
Barricade, 2002), p. 27
9. Translated from German by Dr. D. S. Blondheim, Federation of American
Zionists, 1916, Essential Texts of Zionism; Jewish Virtual Library
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/pinsker.html
10. Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict,
1881-2001 (New York: Knopf, 2001), p. 21.
11. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website
http://www.israel.org/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ng0
12. Amnon Rubinstein, Haaretz, 13 March 2002.
13. Vladimir Jabotinsky, "The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs" First published
in Russian under the title "O Zheleznoi Stene" in Rasswyet," November 4,
1923. Translated by Lenni Brenner. It can be downloaded at
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm
14. Vladimir Jabotinsky, ‘A Letter on Autonomy, 1904', reprinted in
Brenner, 51 Documents, p. 10.
15. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Reissue edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1998), p. 56.
16. June 21, 1933 memo from The Zionist Federation of Germany, reprinted in
Brenner, 51 Documents, p. 43.
17. Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret
Pact Between the Third Reich & Jewish Palestine (New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1984).
18. Lenni Brenner, The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to
Shamir (Zed Books, 1984). cites as reference no. 23: Yoav Gelber, ' Zionist
Policy and the Fate of European Jewry (1939-42)' Yad Vashem Studies, vol.
XII, p. 199.
19. Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse, Neturei Karta,
USA, New York, 1977.
20. Freud's Letter to Dr. Chaim Koffler Keren HaYassod, Vienna: 26 February
1930; posted at the Freud Institute in UK website:
http://www.freud.org.uk./arab-israeli.html.
21. Hillel Halkin ,’Objectivity is morally overrated’, Jerusalem Post, 14
November 2002. Also on the web at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=10372489357
49
22. Naeim Giladi , Ben Gurion's Scandals (Flushing: Glilit Pub. Co., 1995).

Recommended Readings

Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between
the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine (New York : Carroll & Graf, 2001).
Marc H. Ellis, Israel and Palestine: Out of the Ashes, (London: Pluto Press,
2003).
Naeim Giladi , Ben Gurion's Scandals (Flushing: Glilit Pub. Co., 1995).
Lenni Brenner, The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir
(London: Zed Books, 1984).
Tom Segev with Haim Watzman (Translator) The Seventh Million: The Israelis
and the Holocaust, (New York: Owl Books, 2000).
-------------------------------------
Mazin
http://qumsiyeh.org