US and Israel rewrite history of UN resolution that declared Zionism is racism

Middle East
on 94 Comments

“Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination,” reads UN General Assembly Resolution 3379. The measure was adopted 40 years ago, on Nov. 10, 1975, and the majority of the international community backed it. 72 countries voted for the resolution, with just 35 opposed (and 32 abstentions).

Although little-known in the US today (it is remarkable how effectively the US and its allies have rewritten history in their favor), UN GA Res. 3379, titled “Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination,” made an indelible imprint on history.

The geographic distribution of the vote was telling. The countries that voted against the resolution were primarily colonial powers and/or their allies. The countries that voted for it were overwhelmingly formerly colonized and anti-imperialist nations.

Map of the votes on UN GA Res. 3379 (CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons)

Map of the votes on UN GA Res. 3379 (CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons)

The resolution also cited two other little-known measures passed by international organizations in the same year:

  • the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity’s resolution 77, which ruled “that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure”; and
  • the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, which called Zionism a “racist and imperialist ideology.”

When the resolution was passed, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Chaim Herzog — who later became Israel’s sixth president, and the father of Isaac Herzog, the head of Israel’s opposition — famously tore up the text at the podium.

Herzog claimed the measure was “based on hatred, falsehood, and arrogance,” insisting it was “devoid of any moral or legal value.” Still today, supporters of Israel argue UN GA Res. 3379 was an anomalous product of anti-Semitism. In reality, however, the resolution was the result of international condemnation of the illegal military occupation to which Palestinians had been subjected since 1967 and the apartheid-like conditions the indigenous Arab population had lived under as second-class citizens of an ethnocratic state since 1948.

In 1991, resolution 3379 was repealed for two primary reasons: One, the Soviet bloc, which helped pass the resolution, had collapsed; and two, Israel and the US demanded that it be revoked or they refused to participate in the Madrid Peace Conference.

At the UN on Nov. 11, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and Secretary of State John Kerry eulogized the late Herzog and forcefully condemned the resolution on its 40th anniversary.

In his 2,500-word statement, Kerry mentioned Palestinians just once, and only then as an extension of Israelis. In her remarks, Power did not mention Palestinians at all.

The “right” kind of “national liberation movement”

In his speech, Kerry smeared resolution 3379 as “anti-Semitic” and “absurd.” Kerry called it “a bitter irony that this resolution against Zionism was originally a resolution against racism and colonialism” and lamented that “reasonableness was detoured by a willful ignorance of history and truth.”

Sec. Kerry insisted “we will do all in our power to prevent the hijacking of this great forum for malicious intent” — a fascinating claim, considering how incredibly often the US itself hijacks the UN against the will of the international community, in the interests of both itself and Israel.

Kerry warned about “the global reality of anti-Semitism today” (he made no mention whatsoever of the global reality of rampant, rapidly accelerating, and viciously violent anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Black racism), and implied that the “terrorist bigots of Daesh [ISIS], Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, and so many others” are part of this larger anti-Semitic trend. One could argue Sec. Kerry downplayed the severity of the present political situation by characterizing these fascistic groups’ violent extremism as rooted in anti-Semitic bigotry, rather than in radicalization under conditions of intense oppression, bitter poverty, and brutal tyranny.

The US secretary of state extolled “Zionism as the expression of a national liberation movement.” The national liberation movements of Vietnam, Korea, China, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, Congo, South Africa, Burkina Faso, and so many more nations, however, did not get such approval from Washington; au contraire, they were mercilessly crushed under the iron fist of American empire. Traditionally, only right-wing and settler-colonial “national liberation movements” have garnered the US’s official approval.

“Why do we Americans care so much about the rights of others being respected?” Kerry asked unprovoked. “Because, in an interconnected world, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He should tell that to the victims of US-backed dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Brunei, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda, and, once again, so many more nations.

“Times may change, but one thing we do know: America’s support for Israel’s dreaming and Israel’s security, that will never change,” Kerry proclaimed.

“Legitimacy” and imperial hubris

In her speech at the UN, Power, like Kerry, conflated the heinous Nazi attacks on Jewish civilians in the Kristallnacht with UN GA Res. 3379. Both speakers cited the abominable horrors of the Holocaust several times as reasons to support Zionism, glossing over the fact that Zionism was created in the late 19th century and that the Balfour Declaration dates back to 1917, decades before World War II.

Amb. Power — a serial warmonger and veteran blame-dodger — did what she did best: rewrote history in the favor of US imperialism. She called the resolution “1975 smearing of Jews’ aspirations to have a homeland” and insisted multiple times that resolutions like 3379 “threaten the legitimacy of the UN.”

Like Kerry, Power conveniently forgot to mention that, when it comes to the halls of the UN, there is no other rogue state as blunt as the US, which regularly spits in the face of the international community, defying UN resolutions, violating the UN Charter, and breaking international law when it sees fit.

Power’s speech exposed the fault lines in the contentious (to put it mildly) relationship between the US and the UN — that is to say, between the US and the international community. Such tensions are not the fault of the UN; the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of Washington, with its doctrinal “American exceptionalism” and the flagrant disregard for international law that so frequently accompanies such imperial hubris.

UN machinations

In their speeches, both Kerry and Power also thanked Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon, who was described by an Israeli Labor Party lawmaker as “a right-wing extremist with the diplomatic sensitivity of a pit bull” and who proposed legislation that would, in his own words, have the Israeli government “annex the West Bank and repeal the Oslo Accords.” Amb. Danon insists that God gave the land of historic Palestine to the Jewish people as an “everlasting possession” (while forsaking the US). He also told the Times of Israel that the “international community can say whatever they want, and we can do whatever we want.”

Netanyahu addressed the session with a video message. He claimed that Israel, which has for years led the world in violating UN Security Council resolutions, “continues to face systemic discrimination here at the UN.” In a January 2013 statement submitted to the UN Human Rights Council, the Russell Tribunal calculated Israel had defied a bare minimum of 87 Security Council resolutions.

The Russel Tribunal also crucially noted “that Israel’s ongoing colonial settlement expansion, its racial separatist policies, as well as its violent militarism would not be possible without the US’s unequivocal support.” The tribunal pointed out that Israel “is the largest recipient of US foreign aid since 1976 and the largest cumulative recipient since World War II” and that, between 1972 and 2012, the US was the lone veto of UN resolutions critical of Israel 43 times.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Kerry, Power, and Netanyahu in the echo chamber, albeit with a bit more subtlety. “The reputation of the United Nations was badly damaged by the adoption of resolution 3379, in and beyond Israel and the wider Jewish community,” he said. Unlike the others, Ban condemned not just anti-Semitism, but also “wide-ranging anti-Muslim bigotry and attacks [and] discrimination against migrants and refugees.”

Although the Israeli government accuses the UN of bias, the evidence demonstrates the opposite. Secret cables released by whistleblowing journalism organization WikiLeaks revealed that the US and Israel worked hand-in-hand with the UN and Sec.-Gen. Ban in order to undermine investigation into and punitive action on Israel’s war crimes in Gaza.

“Something colonial”

The real victim of the 40th anniversary event was the truth — and, of course, as it was four decades ago, the Palestinians. Yet, while UN GA Res. 3379 was repealed, the truth cannot be revoked. Zionism was and remains an unequivocally racist movement — just like any other hyper-nationalist and ethnocratic movement.

None other than the founding father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, recognized this elementary fact. In a 1902 letter to Cecil Rhodes — a diamond magnate and white supremacist British colonialist with oceans of African blood on his hands — Herzl, writing of “the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea,” requested help colonizing historic Palestine.

“It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishmen but Jews… How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial,” Herzl wrote. “I want you to… put the stamp of your authority on the Zionist plan.”

About Ben Norton

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer based in New York City. His work has been featured in a variety of publications. You can follow Ben on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton. His website is BenNorton.com.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

94 Responses

  1. lysias
    November 13, 2015, 10:07 am

    And colonial considerations were responsible to a large extent for the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Shocked by two Turkish attacks on the Suez Canal during World War One, Britain wanted to put a buffer between the Arab states and that strategically vital canal. Hence approval of Zionist colonization in that region next to the canal. Divide and conquer.

    This is discussed in Eugene Rogan’s recent The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East.

    • YoniFalic
      November 13, 2015, 1:10 pm

      Of course, the Ottoman threat to the Canal ended with the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire, and there really was no particular reason to believe that an Arab Palestine or an Arab greater Syria would have been a threat to the Canal especially if a British military presence could be established as it was in Egypt until 1952.

      We really have to look at oil politics and the influence of wealthy Jews who like Walter Rothschild, who funded many British politicians like Balfour and George.

      The British Rothschilds had been shut out of Czarist oil by the French Rothschilds, who had promised to help the Czarist government with its Jewish (radical) problem by creating immigration opportunities in colonies like Petah Tikvah.

      The British Rothschilds and their associates like Herbert Samuel saw an opportunity to get access to Mesopotamian oil via the proposed Haifa Mosul pipeline and the Jewish National Home, which might attract Czarist Jews with oil industry expertise to come work for British Rothschild oil interests.

      In other worlds, wealthy nominal “Jews” subverted the British government before using the same tactics in the USA.

      The attempt to exploit and to extract resources that rightfully belong to the native peoples of the ME (in this case mostly Lebanese and Palestinians) and not to white racist genocidal European invaders continues to this day in the case of coastal natural gas, whose largest share is claimed by the racist genocidal invader state and which the Netanyahu is working to turn over to hyper-wealthy “Jewish” oil entrepreneurs (Delek), who help fund his political campaign.

      To be honest, Noble Energy looks less “Jewish” than Delek, but I would be interested to learn who the major shareholders are. It is worth mentioning that Eastern European “Jews” still maintain a tradition of having a gentile partner, who can be the culpable goy in case anything goes wrong on a business deal.

      • Mooser
        November 13, 2015, 3:35 pm

        “The British Rothschilds had been shut out of Czarist oil by the French Rothschilds”

        I was beginning to wonder if this tribal unity thing is all it’s cracked up to be, but this takes the biscuit!

      • DaBakr
        November 14, 2015, 2:26 am

        @yf

        the breadth and girth of your mediocre minded, racist and bigoted fixation with ‘Jewish’ power and how it was manifested through one particular banking dynasty (the fractured Rothschilds) which is more often then not the root cause of all die-hard Jew-haters neurotic obsession with Jews in the first place is, astounding. If anyone were to make an effort to elucidate your intellectual prowess they need go no further than:

        ” In other worlds(sic), wealthy nominal “Jews” subverted the British government before using the same tactics in the USA. ”

        For even bigger laughs one can scroll down a bit more to:

        “It is worth mentioning that Eastern European “Jews” still maintain a tradition of having a gentile partner, who can be the culpable goy in case anything goes wrong on a business deal. – ”

        Oh those poor dumb gentiles.

        You should be incredibly proud of yourself and the benefits this post has contributed to the educationally hungry and studious masses on MW commenter boards.

      • Mooser
        November 14, 2015, 11:35 am

        “fixation with ‘Jewish’ power…”

        While “Yoni Falic” is fully capable of speaking for himself, I’ll be culpable and say that Mr. Falic has indicated he grew up in Israel.
        I would think that might tend to concentrate one’s mind upon that topic, and make it a subject of intense interest to him. Seems like a natural thing for him to be interested in, or is “Jewish power” (your locution, Dabakr, he doesn’t use it.) a subject of complete disinterest in Israel and for Zionists?

      • lysias
        November 14, 2015, 5:41 pm

        The threat to the Canal may have ended, but that doesn’t mean the British recognized that fact. Countries always plan to fight the last war, and in any case the Balfour Declaration came out in 1917, when the Ottoman Empire was still in existence and an Ottoman army continued to be near the Canal.

    • Citizen
      November 13, 2015, 1:20 pm

      Key Zionists in the US close to the WH and in England worked on the Balfour Declaration for two straight years before it was introduced to the public. It was fine-tuned to the nines; then the part guaranteeing the rights of the natives was totally ignored.

    • JWalters
      November 13, 2015, 6:01 pm

      Thanks all for adding these relevant historical details. The Zionists are like the Soviets in their shameless “cleansing” of history. No morality, no ethics whatsoever. Their claim to being moral is just another part of their scam, like any petty con artist. They just operate on bigger profit margins. War is SO lucrative.

    • truthurts
      November 14, 2015, 2:31 am

      Herzog claimed the measure was “devoid of any moral or legal value.” –
      quite ironically there’s not many better phrases that so aptly describe the terror state of israel;
      immoral for slaughtering all the innocent christian and muslim palestinians so bravely trying to defend their homes and forcing them off their native lands while the zionists carry out their original plans of hertzl of jewish “living space”(see nazi living space program)
      illegal cause the UN had no legal authority whatsoever to parcel up palestine to anybody let alone zionist european immigrating jews.
      furthermore, international law in 1948 and up till the present day strictly forbids the acquisition of land by military conquest so every itty-bitty square in that israel has :acquired” from the palestinians was, is, and will be ILLEGAL.
      yup, as jewish US marine vietnam veteran dr. alan sabrosky once so appropriately exclaimed”israel will be the cause of WWlll”. and its right around the corner!

  2. Qualtrough
    November 13, 2015, 1:56 pm

    A rose by any other name is still a rose.

  3. Boomer
    November 13, 2015, 3:51 pm

    re “The real victim of the 40th anniversary event was the truth — and, of course, as it was four decades ago, the Palestinians.”

    Thanks for this report, though it is, like so many here, a depressing one. The Palestinians are the principal victims, (and as you say, “the truth”), but American citizens have been victimized too, in a significant, albeit less obvious way.

    • JWalters
      November 13, 2015, 6:05 pm

      “American citizens have been victimized too”

      Having their free press strangled, and thereby their democracy sabotaged.

      • Boomer
        November 13, 2015, 8:27 pm

        re: “Having their free press strangled, and thereby their democracy sabotaged.”

        Yes, that’s true. I was thinking more about having our foreign policy dictated by a small group motivated by things other than the interests of the United States, the expenditures of blood and treasure that resulted, and the bad karma accrued by supporting evil policies. I don’t go so far as the attribute the terrorist attacks on the U.S. entirely to our support of Israel, but that plays a large role.

      • Sibiriak
        November 13, 2015, 8:41 pm

        Boomer: our foreign policy
        ————–

        Seriously? Who is the “we” implied there?

        “…dictated by a small group motivated by things other than the interests of the United States”

        “Our” foreign policy is routinely dictated by a small group–the political class beholden to the 1% ruling class–with its own self-serving definition of “U.S. national interests.”

  4. Donald
    November 13, 2015, 6:51 pm

    I’ve never examined the history of the UN declaration, but it’s long been obvious that the condemnation of it as antisemitic was meant to intimidate critics of Zionism and prevent Israel from being compared to other settler colonialist countries.

  5. lysias
    November 13, 2015, 6:56 pm

    Spanish High Court issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu and six Israeli ministers:

    Arrest warrant has been issued for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Avigdor Liberman and 4 other ministers by the Court of Spain.

    The law suit was started by Spanish citizens who were present on the Mavi Marmara with the Israeli attack upon the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on May 31, 2010. The Israelis responsible for the crimes commited have had an arrest warrant issued against them. Spanish citizens of Mavi Marmara filed a criminal complaint with Mavi Marmara Advocates in Spain and investigation has been started. Process has been carried out with difficulties by the pressure Israel is applying; with the case finally being taken to High Court of Spain. At the end of the case, the court has issued an arrest warrant for 7 people including Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israeli Minister of Defense of the time Ehud Barak, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs of the time Avigdor Lieberman, Deputy Premier of the time Mosheya’alon, Israeli Commander of the Naval Forces of the time Eliezer Marom, Minister of State of the time Benny Begin and Deputy Premier Eli Yishai.

    • Boomer
      November 13, 2015, 8:20 pm

      re “Arrest warrant has been issued for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Avigdor Liberman and 4 other ministers by the Court of Spain.”

      A bit of good news! Thanks!!

  6. inbound39
    November 13, 2015, 10:19 pm

    America and Israel dig their hole deeper and display to the World the sheer buffoonery of their statements. Zionism is racist and discriminatory. That is plain for all to see. To deny it is sheer arrogant blindness. I am extremely happy about the arrest warrants for the Zionist Government members. Long overdue. America will come to seriously regret supporting Israel. Kerry always was an enemy agent….he cosied up to the NVA with Jane Fonda during the Vietnam war.

  7. talknic
    November 13, 2015, 10:21 pm

    @ Ben Norton — Perhaps next an expose on the Three No’s http://wp.me/pDB7k-18N

    • inbound39
      November 14, 2015, 2:38 am

      Marvellous suggestion talknic…..it would certainly be worth seeing how Israel could justify it all. :)

  8. Jon66
    November 14, 2015, 12:17 am

    There was considerable backlash at the time from many in the civil rights community.

    For example, the Black Americans to Support Israel Committee
    “Zionism is not racism, but the legitimate expression of the Jewish people’s self determination…From our 400 year experience with slavery, segregation, and discrimination we know that Zionism is not racism.”
    (From a column by Bayard Rustin, Director of Black Americans to Support Israel Committee)

    http://www.ibsi-now.org/assets/basic-reproduction-copy.pdf

    Signed by many including,
    A. Phillip Randolph
    Lionel Hampton
    Hank Aaron
    Ralph Abernathy
    Harry Belafonte
    Etc.

    • Donald
      November 14, 2015, 9:47 am

      This is your specialty here, isn’t it? Pointing to black Americans who defended Israel. Perhaps you have combed through their writings and speeches and statements and can tell us how many knew about the Nakba and what they had to say about it. I would be especially interested in how they argued about how it was justifiable.

      Seriously, if they knew anything at all they probably repeated the story Israel had put out, about how the Palestinians fled at the behest of their leaders even though the (Jewish) mayor of (I think) Haifa begged them to stay. Such a tragedy–the Zionists so much wanted their Arab neighbors to live alongside them and have equal rights, the vote, and so on, but the Arab leaders filled their minds with fear and the desire to loot their Jewish neighbors after they returned on the heels of the invading Arab armies.

      I actually read more or less that scenario in a historical novel published by a well-known liberal writer of the time–James Michener in his book “The Source”. It came out in the mid 60’s. Possibly that was what mainstream American liberals, white and black, believed at the time.

  9. DaBakr
    November 14, 2015, 3:31 am

    what a waste of time.

    of course there is no reference to the USSR and China at that time being two of the most pernicious violators of the most simple human right to speak, write or even think. naturally there is no reference to that.

    No reference to the tight group of ‘sponsoring’ nations (+Cuba) who were then and still are Israels arch enemies in their 27yr quest to destroy Israel by any means possible.

    No mention of the outrageous hypocrisy of the northern African Arab/Muslim nations claiming ‘unity’ with southern Africa when they acted in the most outlandish display of racism and bigotry towards people with darker skin and even worse-murder and LEGAL slavery for Christian Africans deemed to inferior to deserve anything but enforced servitude. In fact-it was this that led to the more recent genocide in Darfur where a brutal Arab/white/Muslim leader committed genocide against millions of African/black/Christian men, women and children. This same leader is extended credibility by this author since he is still in power and would likely support a UN bill reinstating the charge of Zionism being ‘racist’. Forgetting the hypocrisy of Russia and China voting ‘for’ -this alone-the rank and patent racism displayed by northern Arabs to southern Blacks in Africa is enough to label this author as completely devoid of any objectivity, lacking in any true empathy and is reduced to nothing but a mere propaganda mouthpiece for the Palestinian PR machine. Labeling Zionism will do absolutely nothing-as in ZERO-to improve the situation of the Palestinian people. It is less then mature and vengeful-it is simply a way for incompetent nations to display their meaningless veneer of importance at a body -the UN- that is almost as disingenuous and useless as this article and its author.

    Another point of interest for MW commenters who are constantly referring to the former Shah of Iran as the lapdog of Israel and ‘worse then the mullahs’ and blah-d-blah. Well here is ‘Israels lapdog and servant voting for a vicious piece of anti-Israeli trash. Turkey as well.

    The best take on the pernicious shameful ‘Zionist-Racist’ vote of ’75 is not by Herzl but but former NY senator Moynihan. A liberal-lefty icon (and surely a PW fave, i’m guessing) He words stand the test of time and would be just as appropriate now as they were in ’75. In fact-this vote alone succeeded in destroying a huge % of the credibility the U.N. had built up since inception. I would place my bets that when the history of the dismantled UN is written-this one vote will be noted as the first in a long continuous string of votes dedicated purely to the whims of a dysfunctional Arab and Muslim block and its supplicant client states in Africa and S.America. It also was used by 2 great powers of the world as a counterweight and bargaining chip to extract concessions from US foreign policy and dominance-especially back in the 70s when the cold wars were still very much hot and diplomacy was highly restricted.

    The bottom line is that: Its well known by scholars of the UN that it has been reducd to an institution that expends an inordinate amount of its time and resources to holding a string of countless sessions and votes on anti-Israeli resolutions. The UN is a hostage to the Arab block and is supported almost automatically by the additional Muslim block of nations. There have been millions of dead in documented genocides committed under nose of this same UN that never intervened let alone devoted precious time to condemn these perpetrators with endless rez. There are presently over a million dead Syrians and now Yemenis , Africans and more that have no hope that the UN will stand up for them the way they have gone to extremes with the Palestinians. No other people has been granted the ‘infinite’ refugee status granted and the 100million dollar+ budgeted UNHCR. And the UN or its feckless leaders can explain why the Palestinians are deserving of more money, voting, resolutions and care then the millions of other refugees and war ravaged people.

    In other words-the day the UN voted on this resolution is the day the UN became a morally bankrupt institution of infinite idiocy and hypocrisy. Congratulations on the authors deep insight into this matter. Perhaps he will explain in his next brilliant piece how exactly this kind of thing – pretending a resolution by the UNGA equates with legitimacy and morality-benefits the Palestinian people and their needs and their cause? It would be eye-opening.

    • eljay
      November 14, 2015, 8:23 am

      || DaBakr @ November 14, 2015, 3:31 am ||

      All those words – and there sure are a lot of them – just to say “Murderers exist, so it’s okay to rape.”

    • diasp0ra
      November 14, 2015, 8:35 am

      Seems like a lot of text to write in response for a waste of time.

      So in all that you didn’t really address anything, but you just basically said “others are much worse” and went into a rant against the UN, which partition plan is holy, but everything else is trash.

      You could have said that in one paragraph, are you being paid by the word?

    • Donald
      November 14, 2015, 9:36 am

      That was an amazingly silly rant, DeBakr. Moynihan, of course, said that he worked to keep the UN from doing anything effective regarding Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor. Using him as a left icon is absurd. Yes, the UN was and is hypocritical, because most of the nations comprising it are hypocritical. The US and Israel are prime examples, not exceptions to the rule. Israel was condemned alongside South Africa for the same reason–they were seen as the last vestige of European settler-colonialism. Did the corrupt governments of nations condemning Israel ignore their own crimes? Yes, just as the US and Israel do. Notice that Central American countries voted against the resolution–most were under the rule of rightwing dictators supported by the US and armed by the US and Israel. Guatemala later committed genocide against the Mayans with its Israeli trained army. So yes, there is plenty of hypocrisy at the UN, but you are somehow missing some of it.

      As for the UN, the UN commission on human rights as put out numerous reports on the atrocities of the Assad government and its enemies, and reports on Sri Lanka, Eritrea, North Korea, and Gaza, among others. Israel apologists find it useful to repeat the claim that the UN does nothing but condemn Israel and you guys have done it so often it has become a fact in your minds.

    • talknic
      November 15, 2015, 6:31 pm

      @ DaBakr ” there is no reference to the USSR and China at t…”

      That’s right. It’s a resolution about Israel.

      Resolutions on those other countries don’t mention Israel. e.g., China Tienanmen Square resolution 1989/5 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G89/137/73/PDF/G8913773.pdf?OpenElement

      Russia http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-un-rights-russia-idUSKBN0MT18L20150402

      Did you have a point?

  10. can of worms
    November 14, 2015, 3:42 am

    I’ve been rethinking this, and I’ve come to a contrary conclusion: that “Zionism is racism” was a totally under-theorized formula.

    In fact, “the issue” that should have been recognized from the first was that Zionism is a facet of an enduring racism that permeates globally – it is the effect of European expansion. Therefore, if you say that Zionism is racism, well you know, you’d also have to say that so are all the ‘liberal’ systems most of us live under. If it comes to that, Liberalism itself is Racism.

    “Zionism is segregation” is what the UNGA should have voted for that day in 1975. Once you declare that Zionism is segregation, then the inevitable logical step is to see that without segregation there can be no Zionism in Palesine/Israel, period.

    Please understand. The (racist and silly) doctrine of Jewish Nationalism utterly, absolutely, unconditionally depends on the maintenance of separate systems, separate schools, separate “nations”, separate laws, and, most of all, conspicuously separate living areas.

    http://onedemocracy.co.uk/digressions/how-will-israel-come-to-love-one-democracy/#more-185

    • can of worms
      November 14, 2015, 4:17 am

      Not to mention the obvious — that the ideology of segregation ultimately depends on an ongoing Judaization or ethnic cleansing of spaces (it’s a cycle).

      And not to mention that if 3379 had empirically shown that “Zionism is segregation”, it would be that much harder for Kerry and those other liberals to pontificate today that it was either “anti-Semitic”or “absurd.”

      Bottom line is Palestinians whether in 1948 or 1967 occupied Palestine don’t have any protection, anywhere, whatsoever, precisely because of so many decades of segregation and exclusion.

      The PA is put there to prevent one democratic state:
      http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/a-single-democratic-state-for-two-peoples

      • can of worms
        November 15, 2015, 11:51 pm

        The question I was raising is a practical one for all 1SS people.

        (1) axiom: Zionism, by definition, is segregation.

        (2) corollary [A]: No Zionism without segregation.

        (3) corollary [B]: In order to effect segregation over time, on land taken by force, a state has to deploy extreme means
        (e.g., periodical ethnic cleansing, separate laws, institutionalized racism, & separate education fit for separate “peoples”.)

        —————
        1SS Hypotheses:

        The Zero-Hypothesis [H0]: The One State Solution is going to be a ‘natural’ operative against segregation (and therefore against Zionism).

        Hypothesis 1 [H1]: The One State Solution will maintain the structures of segregation, and thus the legacies of Zionist inequality will be maintained long after it has ceased to exist as the official state ideology.

        Hypothesis 2 [H2]: The path of least resistance in opposition to Zionism is the structure of segregation itself. 1ssers need to be amplifying talk of desegregation NOW, as a way of speeding the One State Solution.

        To me, [H2] proceeds from the first axiom and its two corollaries.

  11. James Canning
    November 14, 2015, 1:06 pm

    In my view, the great flaw in deeming Zionism “racism” is simply that a black Jew in Israel has rights that a white non-Jew does not have. Where is the “racism”?

    • eljay
      November 14, 2015, 1:19 pm

      || James Canning: In my view, the great flaw in deeming Zionism “racism” is simply that a black Jew in Israel has rights that a white non-Jew does not have. Where is the “racism”? ||

      Zionism is supremacism of and for Jews. Actually, it’s even more than that: It’s supremacism of and for the “right kind” of Jews (as determined by Zio-supremacists).

      • James Canning
        November 14, 2015, 1:46 pm

        Does your comment address the supposed racial issue? If a black man can obtain rights superior to those of a white man, by espousing Judaism, where is the “racism”?

      • eljay
        November 14, 2015, 2:41 pm

        || James Canning: Does your comment address the supposed racial issue? … ||

        Yup: It states that Zionism is supremacism (and not racism).

      • James Canning
        November 14, 2015, 6:19 pm

        Eljay – – I gather you would remain strongly anti-Israel even if Israel ended the occupation of the West Bank, the blockade of Gaza, etc.?

      • eljay
        November 14, 2015, 6:27 pm

        || James Canning: Eljay – – I gather you would remain strongly anti-Israel even if Israel ended the occupation of the West Bank, the blockade of Gaza, etc.? ||

        If Israel were to do that and become just another supremacist state that fails to honour its obligations under international law, I suppose I would be less anti-Israel than I am today.

        But I would continue to expect Israel to advocate and uphold the same things I expect all countries to advocate and uphold: Justice, accountability and equality.

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 12:48 pm

        Would we agree that the primary problem is Israel’s abject refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank?

      • eljay
        November 15, 2015, 2:04 pm

        || James Canning: Would we agree that the primary problem is Israel’s abject refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank? ||

        I’d have to say that, for me, the primary problem comprises:
        – everything Israel does outside of its / Partition borders; and
        – it’s refusal to repatriate its refugees.

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 5:38 pm

        Eljay – – I assume you are aware that all Arab countries seem to accept that there will be almost no “right of return” for the Palestinians driven from Palestine, at least from within the pre-1697 borders.

      • echinococcus
        November 15, 2015, 2:26 pm

        Canning
        “…agree that the primary problem is Israel’s abject refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank? ”

        That is at best a secondary or tertiary problem, obviously.
        The primary problem is Zionism, invading Palestine with the intent to colonize, and creating a racial supremacist state on other people’s land fully in the middle of the decolonization period.

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 5:36 pm

        Echin – – To be clear, you seek the dismantling of the Israeli state?

      • eljay
        November 15, 2015, 6:45 pm

        || James Canning: Eljay – – I assume you are aware that all Arab countries seem to accept that there will be almost no “right of return” for the Palestinians driven from Palestine, at least from within the pre-1697 borders. ||

        I wasn’t aware that I was supposed to base my primary problem with Israel on what “all Arab countries” accept.

        But let’s for a moment say that the Palestinians have agreed to relinquish their RoR. Have “all Arab countries” offered citizenship to all of Israel’s refugees, and has Israel offered fair compensation in lieu of return to all of its refugees?

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 7:15 pm

        eljay – – Has Israel offered any compensation to refugees and their descendants? The compensation element of any resolution of the problem is of course highly important.

        Obviously you are welcome to reject Israel, even if all Arab countries have made clear they are willing to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders.

      • eljay
        November 15, 2015, 8:43 pm

        || James Canning: … The compensation element of any resolution of the problem is of course highly important. ||

        As is the resettlement element. Given that “all Arab countries seem to accept that there will be almost no ‘right of return'” have they – has any of them – offered citizenship to all of Israel’s refugees, something that is within their power to do?

        || Obviously you are welcome to reject Israel … ||

        Thank you. And obviously you are welcome to clasp it to your bosom.

      • Sibiriak
        November 15, 2015, 11:05 pm

        echinococcus: The primary problem is Zionism, invading Palestine with the intent to colonize…

        ———————

        I believe Zionist colonization WAS the original problem, but that colonization cannot be reversed. The millions and millions of Jewish colonists and their descendants cannot be expelled from Palestine, despite your fervent hopes to the contrary.

        Therefore, I believe the problems that CAN BE dealt with are 1) the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza ; 2) The denial of the Palestinian right of national self-determination ; 3) the plight of Palestinian refugees and their descendants; 4) discrimination against non-Jews in Israel.

        YMMV. There is no law against fantasizing.

      • Kris
        November 15, 2015, 11:43 pm

        @James Canning: ” Eljay – – I assume you are aware that all Arab countries seem to accept that there will be almost no “right of return” for the Palestinians driven from Palestine, at least from within the pre-1697 borders.”

        The right of return is a basic human right, so it doesn’t really matter what “all Arab countries seem to accept.” Are you saying that international law doesn’t matter?

        Do Palestinians have a right to return to the places from which they or their ancestors were displaced?

        Palestinian refugees’ right to return to the homes from which they were displaced is well established in international law. The first source of support for Palestinian refugees’ claims to a right of return is U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) Of December 1948, paragraph 11, in which the U.N. General Assembly,

        “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible;

        Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation…”

        Since 1949, this resolution together with UNSC Res. 242 and 338 have been regularly reaffirmed by the U.N. General Assembly.

        The rights outlined in this resolution are firmly grounded in international humanitarian, human rights, and refugee law. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) Executive Conclusion No. 40, “…the basic rights of persons to return voluntarily to their country of origin is reaffirmed and it is urged that international cooperation be aimed at achieving this solution.”[xi] UNHCR’s support for the right of return is based on the idea that the right of return is a recognized customary norm of international law which is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Fourth Geneva Convention.[xii] https://afsc.org/resource/palestinian-refugees-and-right-return

      • echinococcus
        November 15, 2015, 11:53 pm

        Canning,

        Of course I seek the dismantling of what you call “the Israeli state”. Essentially, put-upon peoples never stop pushing back if justice is not done, no matter what governments agree to –so save that “Arab countries agree-Palestinian Pétain agrees” litany.
        Unless successful genocide intervenes.
        In the case of the Zionist invasion, justice requires the undoing of the whole shebang. It has been done under even worse conditions in a string of former colonies, from Kenya to Algeria (not that anyone would say that the Zionist abomination is exactly the same as these colonies.)
        That being said, if you can lift occupation and duress and guarantee an entirely blackmail-free referendum of the entire Palestinian people asking for the continuation of the bloody Crusader state on their land, I’ll go with whatever you say.

      • echinococcus
        November 16, 2015, 2:11 am

        Sibiriak,

        “I believe Zionist colonization WAS the original problem, but that colonization cannot be reversed. The millions and millions of Jewish colonists and their descendants cannot be expelled from Palestine, despite your fervent hopes to the contrary. ”

        Recent history of decolonization shows that it can be reversed. It takes a lot of insisting and the side effects may be worse than the disease itself but spoliated, oppressed peoples cannot be dissuaded from fighting for it –no matter the wishes of this or that person, or anyone’s hopes. It takes a successful genocide to stop that.

        It was done, say, in Algeria. The very many colonists, with their local lackeys, just left, they weren’t massacred or expelled. They were offered to become loyal Algerian citizens. Nasty colonial tongues have made it “la valise ou le cercueil” but the citizenship offer was very public and real. Few took it up; I imagine very few will ever accept it in the Zionist entity. But never mind, that’s not such a big tragedy. They almost all have the rights to additional passports and the US has already guaranteed in advance to take anybody from the Herrenvolk.

        Your “there is no law against fantasizing” is just as much propaganda as relentlessly repeating that there can be no going back –to the point of having made it “self-evident” to most here. There is a going back, it has been effected several times, it only needs a correct alignment of the international situation and an uncoupling of the US. Not easy, but this US here is still an electoral republic and things may happen –in which case the Zionist entity won’t last long at all. People have to be moved.
        The first step should be to relentlessly make clear that one can restore justice, that it has been done in other cases, and that there is not a single square inch legitimately in Zionist hands, anywhere at all.

      • Sibiriak
        November 16, 2015, 5:07 am

        Sibiriak: “I believe Zionist colonization WAS the original problem, but that colonization cannot be reversed. The millions and millions of Jewish colonists and their descendants cannot be expelled from Palestine, despite your fervent hopes to the contrary. ”

        echinococcus: Recent history of decolonization shows that it can be reversed. It takes a lot of insisting and the side effects may be worse than the disease itself but spoliated, oppressed peoples cannot be dissuaded from fighting for it….
        —————

        But the Palestinian people are NOT fighting for it. The PLO has recognized Israel within ’67 borders. HAMAS has accepted ’67 borders. Most Palestinian organizations behind BDS support two states based on ’67 borders. The BDS platform calls for the end of Israeli occupation of Arab lands outside ’67 borders. That’s a pretty wide cross-section of the Palestinian community. What Palestinian organization is calling for the exodus/expulsion of Jewish colonists and their descendants from Israel?

        Even Palestinian leaders and their supporters who are calling for a single democratic state in Palestine are explicitly NOT calling for the exodus/expulsion of Jewish colonists from Israel.

        Someone recently posted this link to a group promoting the one-state concept: http://onedemocracy.co.uk/why_one_state/

        Among its statements and principles are:

        4.This union will be entered into with full consent and a process of reconciliation, recognising the human value of each future citizen. It is neither a defeat nor a victory for either side but a victory for good sense.

        * * *

        7. The state will recognise the special ties that both Jews and Palestinians have with their broader communities worldwide, and will welcome especially members of those communities who wish to immigrate to the country and help to build it, or who request asylum from persecution.

        * * *
        How it can happen

        * “Palestinians need to articulate a vision of the future in which Israelis can see themselves. … The oppressed must often show their oppressors a way out of the hole that they have dug.” They need to “reach out to Israelis with an inclusive vision of future reconciliation based on real equality” and present an alternative that “leads us out of our current impasse, addresses the fears and needs of Israeli Jews, preserves their identity and allows their community to flourish”. Therefore the explicit adoption of the One Democracy agenda, even if only as a Plan B, and clear recognition of the Jews’ right to stay, is an essential next step.

        * This not only cannot be imposed, but it needs to be the result of a mass desire for it producing the actions that will build it: “by talking of a common future and imagining it, we engage in the act of creating it”.

        * For the same reason, the dominant power cannot be bombed into it because that would make future reconciliation impossible. If One State is the goal, then acts of reconciliation must be a priority, even while fighting back. “It was crucial that the ANC, led by Nelson Mandela, was able to resist the Apartheid regime while at the same time appealing to the humanity of white South Africans, and convincing them that they had a place in the future.”

        Okay, I think we can exclude pro-Palestinian groups like that as well from your anti-colonization vision, don’t you? (How much of a fantasy is that, anyway? To think that Jewish Israelis and their global support team will somehow be induced to feel a “mass desire” for a single state in which Jews are a minority?)

        So, the PLO, Hamas, BDS, 1SS pro-Palestinian groups– not to mention the Arab League, the UN, International Law, and the consensus of the international community—none of them supporting an exodus/expulsion of Jewish “colonists” from Israel.

        How the hell is it going to happen if no one is calling for it, let alone fighting for it????

      • Mooser
        November 16, 2015, 10:47 am

        “YMMV. There is no law against fantasizing.”

        May the Holey One, YMMV bless all your fantasies!

        BTW, big news on the religious front for us. I have just received the announcement! The entire staff of Volkswagen AG has converted, and now openly worships YMMV!

      • echinococcus
        November 17, 2015, 7:01 pm

        Sibiriak,

        I wouldn’t go on confusing municipal governments and puppets with the Palestinian people. None of any plans were sanctioned y general and free referendum. Also, the charter of different resistance organizations, at least before the Oslo comedy, did clearly mention the aim of restoring Palestine (PFLP still does, perhaps also Hamas) so your statement doesn’t hold.
        Any plans by this or that faction are meaningless today. Let’s face it: there is no organized resistance since the 1990s, period.
        Also, the Algerian revolt did not start with a call to get out the invaders –even locally born. In fact, it did not expel them, as already discussed. They left. The Zionists are way more likely to clear out if they cannot complete the genocide of the owners of the country.
        Finally, of course it is incredibly naive to expect the Zionists to ever give up. It will take unheard-of violence to solve the problem one way or the other. The Liberal-Zionist hope to repeat the Roman peace miracle, while the Liberal-Palestinian-supporters hope for a South African miracle. Miracles, though, don’t exist and it’s hard to see any grounds for the optimism you guys display.

    • Donald
      November 14, 2015, 1:54 pm

      Seriously, who cares unless you want to propose another term which has as much moral force. You could call it bigotry, I suppose, but I don’t think that has quite as much bite.

      Are anti-Semites a category of racist? It depends on how one defines racism, how one defines Jews, and whether one takes into account the particular motives and beliefs of the individual anti-Semite. But they are all haters, whatever else one wants to call them. As it happens, the word ” anti- Semite” has as much bite as the word ” racist”, so it doesn’t much matter.

      I know an Islamophobe at another blog who objects to the term racist because “Muslims” aren’t a race. Again, though, it is because people tend to use the word racist as a catch- all category for people who hate a particular group. I’m fine if someone proposes an alternative word so we could avoid that type of pointless distraction.

      • James Canning
        November 14, 2015, 1:59 pm

        Indeed, religious bigotry is what in fact is the programme. And because that term lacks the “bite”, as you say, it is not used, even though it is accurate while “racism” is not accurate

        “Pointless distraction”? Not by a wide margin. In fact, I suspect many ignorant Americans favour Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians because they sense it is white people getting the better of dark people.

      • Sibiriak
        November 15, 2015, 9:30 pm

        Donald: Seriously, who cares unless you want to propose another term which has as much moral force.

        ————————

        Words have two types of semantic content: material content (logico-empirical) and value content (positive/negative).

        If you are not concerned with material content that matches reality and are only looking for words with hyper-charged negative- value content, then you could ratchet things up with “Zionism is Nazism”, “Zionism is Terrorism”, “Zionism is Genocide”, or “Zionism is Pure Evil”.

    • echinococcus
      November 14, 2015, 9:28 pm

      Canning,
      Your understanding of “racism” seems to fit that of the KKK.
      It has been understood, with a consensus all over the civilized world (which should exclude the US) as group discrimination based on accident of birth, i.e. characteristics not acquired later in life.
      Zionism is as fully racism as Nazism. It is based on the assumption that Jewishness is acquired at birth or earlier, by not limiting it strictly to the religious individuals. No possible discussion there.

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 12:53 pm

        Echin – – You in effect are claiming the Sunni leaders of Saudi Arabia are “racist” because they discriminate against Shia Muslims in Saudi Arabia? Are you conversant with the Lebanese constitution?

      • echinococcus
        November 15, 2015, 2:21 pm

        Canning — You can write but it seems that your reading is in serious need of improvement. No, I wrote (multiple times, and to you) the exact contrary: discrimination based on religion –an acquired trait readily corrected by exercising reason– is not based on an accident of birth and cannot qualify as racism.
        Zionism is racist, based on tribal belonging, an accident of birth (“being born to a Jewish woman”.) Also note that the newfound propagandistic readiness to convert a couple boobies does not make Zionism any less racist.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 15, 2015, 2:46 pm

        echi, practically speaking in legal terms, i think group discrimination based on religion is considered racial discrimination.

        from wiki’s racism link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

        Legal
        The UN does not define “racism”; however, it does define “racial discrimination”: According to the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

        the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[22]

        This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.[23] Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means “any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin”.[24]

        then, if you check out the definition of ethnicity religion is mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

        An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience.[1][2] Unlike most other social groups, ethnicity is primarily an inherited status. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance.

        if the leaders in saudi arabia or any other country discriminate against a group of citizens based on their ethnic affiliations (shia muslims) it’s a form of racial discrimination. when jhiadists in iraq target the shia population it’s the same thing. when we went into iraq and divided the community between sunni and shia (in a secular state where citizens in many of the communities, especially in urban areas were not identified by ethnic affiliations) affording positions of power based on ethnicity (which we did) and targeted people based on ethnicity (which we did) that was racist policy and facilitated fermenting a civil war.

        but this is nit picking. because within all religious groupings there are people who are more religious than not. in communities w/tribal affiliations someone could self identify as shia or sunni without being a religious person. whereas if a person did not like someone because they thought they were a religious fanatic and genuinely did not like the religious fanatics in general and avoided those people, like someone not liking religious people coming to their door to recruit them for a religion, i don’t think that qualifies as racist. but then it also doesn’t target an entire ethnic group based on their religion, vs extremists in the religion.

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 5:22 pm

        Echin, if you prefer to view Jewishness as a matter of race rather than religion or culture, so be it.

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2015, 2:50 pm

        Thanks, Annie.

      • oldgeezer
        November 15, 2015, 3:17 pm

        @annie

        I don’t see the need to quibble about whether it’s racism, bigotry or some other form of unreasoned group hatred (NB. I’m not aware of anything I would call reasoned group hatred).

        It’s a distraction. It’s wrong. We should stick with that and not get overworked on semantics.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 15, 2015, 3:21 pm

        ok oldgeezer, i wasn’t trying to quibble. it’s a 2 day old thread w/tons of comments and i just thought i’d put in my 2 cents worth regarding what constitutes racism. legally. didn’t mean to disrupt an otherwise on topic conversation (which i wasn’t really following!) sorry.

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2015, 4:43 pm

        Annie, the discussion was kicked off by this comment from Mr Canning:

        “Does your comment address the supposed racial issue? If a black man can obtain rights superior to those of a white man, by espousing Judaism, where is the “racism”?”

        There aren’t ‘real’ racial divisions which divide us and religious divisions which falsely divide us.

      • echinococcus
        November 15, 2015, 11:59 pm

        Canning,

        You’re too much. As if you didn’t know that the strictly atheist founders of Zionism appropriated the tribal definition, of being born into the tribe, of “Jewishness”, or that only a small part of even today’s Herrenrasse population of the Zionist entity has any religion.
        As far as I know, no one born into the tribe has to pass a test of religious belief to illegally immigrate into the Zionist entity.
        Now, bring me one, single “cultural” or linguistic Jewish thing common to Ashkenazis and Mizrahi and Sefardi and Falasha that is not strictly religious and I’ll buy your nonsense.

      • James Canning
        November 16, 2015, 12:38 pm

        Echin – – In your view, is a person a “Jew”, if that person is Episcopalian? Or Catholic?

        My point about the “right of return” is that anyone who is not a “Jew” can become a “Jew” by at least pretending to be a “Jew”, and thus have an absurd “right of return”. Remember the tens of thousand of Ethiopians shipped to Israel last century.

      • echinococcus
        November 16, 2015, 12:10 am

        Annie,

        All correct. Not a single crease in what you wrote, and better-written than most.
        That said, “religion” is belief and consistent practice, not to be confused with ancestry, nominal religion (or “millet” in the almost-technical term), group solidarity etc.
        The morons like Harris who practice murderous racism wholesale do not base it on individual belief, as they don’t pray with each one of their “Muslims” or don’t ask each one of them if they do it as a matter of theocratic conformity, they are just stoking racism based on geographic origin.

        Discrimination based on religious belief and practice is of course kosher! Want to bring back blasphemy laws? I don’t think so.

      • echinococcus
        November 17, 2015, 6:39 pm

        Canning,

        Don’t pretend to be dense; you are not and you played that comedy too many times. That being said,

        In your view, is a person a “Jew”, if that person is Episcopalian? Or Catholic?

        Not “my view”, silly, don’t you read? That’s the Zionists’ view, and that of tribal followers, i.e. people who are not religious but still call themselves Jewish or assume a cultural “Jewishness”. Ask the site owner, too.

        My point about the “right of return” is that anyone who is not a “Jew” can become a “Jew” by at least pretending to be a “Jew”, and thus have an absurd “right of return”. Remember the tens of thousand of Ethiopians shipped to Israel last century.

        Sure. It’s only an infinitesimal part of the illegal immigration (the Ethiopians being genuinely Jewish) and only has propaganda purposes, as Judaism rejects proselytism outside the tribal group.
        In what way does that confirm your inane understanding of racism? You have been advised that the consensus does not limit racism to what some people understand by “race”, an illusion of people without biology training; the consensus in the civilized world is to call racism any group discrimination based on accident of birth, i.e. traits or heritage one is born with.
        You have not answered or refuted credibly but you double down. Don’t.

      • James Canning
        November 18, 2015, 1:08 pm

        Echin – – You expunge any meaning from the term “racism”. If an Israel “Jew” becomes a Muslim, does his “race” change as a result? That seems to be your position.

      • echinococcus
        November 18, 2015, 10:19 pm

        Canning,

        Don’t pretend to be that dense, it’s impossible.
        Is religion an accident of birth? No.
        Is a change of religion an accident of birth?
        At any rate, I refuse to discuss anything with you from now on. Try your inane sophistry on others.

      • James Canning
        November 19, 2015, 12:52 pm

        Echin – – “Is religion an accident of birth?” You claim it is not? Most available evidence is to the contrary.

    • italian ex-pat
      November 15, 2015, 1:23 pm

      @ James Canning

      “Where is the racism?”

      Where, oh where. Please read today’s article by R. Silverstein in Tikun Olam. A BLACK Israeli man severely beaten by Israeli Border Police at an Eilat checkpoint, for no apparent reason, while on his way with his wife to celebrate her birthday at a local hotel. Saved by the intervention of a White Israeli man who got the episode on video. Wonder what would happened to HIM if he’d had also been black.

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 5:31 pm

        ex pat – – If a black Israeli policeman beats up a black man at a border station, is that a “racist” act?

      • Bumblebye
        November 15, 2015, 6:18 pm

        Canning

        If the black Israeli policeman at the “border station” beats up someone *he believes* to be either a black Palestinian, a black refugee or a black Israeli Arab, then it is racism – state sanctioned and approved.
        If the black Israeli policeman is off duty, out of uniform and decides to beat up someone who he thinks is one of the aforementioned categories, he is acting out his bigotry. If the state fails to sanction his behavior, or even supports it (impunity), that’s racism. Racism has power – ie that of the state. Individuals can still be racist without that.

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 7:11 pm

        So, to you what is most significant is the colour of the person who is attacked?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 15, 2015, 7:42 pm

        to you what is most significant is the colour of the person who is attacked?

        i’m not sure how you picked that up from what bumblebye wrote james. If the black Israeli policeman at the “border station” beats up someone *he believes* to be either …

        it reads to me as tho the most significant feature here is what’s in the mind of the person making the assault.

        i see that above you stated: In my view, the great flaw in deeming Zionism “racism” is simply that a black Jew in Israel has rights that a white non-Jew does not have. Where is the “racism”?

        if a black Jew in Israel has rights that a white non-Jew does not have it doesn’t relieve the institutional racism embedded in Israeli society because no matter how much a black jew might be privileged over a white non jew in israel he is still lower in stature (and in the eyes of law enforcement) than a white jew in israel. but you’re missing the point here by reducing the meaning of racism to a limited explicit definition of what, scientifically, constitutes “race”. society doesn’t function like that. it functions through how they are applied. for example how a hate crime is prosecuted. or — in israel there are neighborhood committees that are used to legally discriminate against people based on a whole range of things. racism is not defined exclusively by a scientific definition of race nor is the principle dealt with legally that way. i think you’re using semantics (black/white) to miss the principle behind the meaning of ‘zionism equals racism’. it’s not statement i agree with (because i think they have different meanings and do not “equal” eachother) but i do think zionism is clearly racist (functionally and in principle).

        and if you discriminate against someone because of their race it’s still racism even if you’re the same race. it’s the mind of the racist that determines whether an act is racially motivated, not the race of the victim.

      • James Canning
        November 16, 2015, 12:50 pm

        Annie, if you are suggesting some Israeli security people are happy to beat up a man because he apparently is a “Palestinian”, even if an Israeli, I agree with you.

        And many Israelis want the Sudanese et al. expelled from the country.

      • Bumblebye
        November 15, 2015, 7:37 pm

        Oh heck. You’re just being deliberately obtuse.

      • James Canning
        November 16, 2015, 12:32 pm

        Obtuse about what? If you want me to agree most Israeli Jews would like non-Jews to leave the country, I agree.

  12. Mooser
    November 14, 2015, 3:31 pm

    “Not by a wide margin. In fact, I suspect many ignorant Americans favour Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians because they sense it is white people getting the better of dark people. “

    But if they knew that in Israel in fact, “a black man can obtain rights superior to those of a white man, by espousing Judaism,” they will go over to antizionism? A long shot, I think.

    • James Canning
      November 14, 2015, 6:16 pm

      Mooser – – What do you mean by “antizionism”? My point is that educating ignorant Americans who are unaware of the scam, would perhaps help weaken the political power of the Christian Zionists.

      The notion of “God’s chosen people” is not strengthened when one points out that many of these supposedly “chosen people” are converts or descendants of converts etc etc etc etc.

      • Mooser
        November 14, 2015, 6:26 pm

        “What do you mean by “antizionism”? My point is that educating ignorant Americans who are unaware of the scam, would perhaps help weaken the political power of the Christian Zionists.”

        So you are saying that the egregious thing about the Israeli identity and law system is that “a black man can obtain rights superior to those of a white man” and Christian Zionists might abandon the ideology if they know that? Interesting.

        Gee, thinking about it that way, any Palestinian solidarity with BLM is a really bad idea, huh?

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 12:57 pm

        Mooser – – Black, brown, green, whatever. A man or woman can become a “Jew” and with it a right of “return” to Israel, and thus to settle illegally in the West Bank, when a non-Jew living in the West Bank cannot build a house, rent an apartment, etc etc in the same area.

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2015, 1:05 pm

        “Black, brown, green, whatever.”

        Yes sir, when good Americans find out that little “green” men, more than likely from Mars, too, “can obtain rights superior to those of a white man” they will hit the ceiling.

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 5:17 pm

        Mooser- Americans are generally grossly ignorant about the Middle East. They may be “good people”, but unaware of basic facts. I find it curious you seem to want to play down the scam element in the Israel narrative.

      • gamal
        November 15, 2015, 6:36 pm

        “any Palestinian solidarity with BLM is a really bad idea, huh?”

        Cannings point is that Zionists are not doing racism right and when Americans find that out….

        there will consequences, not too many though as he says Arabs will accept any shit whatsoever, its a great comfort, and the head Arab is eager sign whatever you’ve got.

        If only those pesky Zionist reverse racists would get on board, i share his frustration, if not his analysis.

      • James Canning
        November 15, 2015, 7:08 pm

        gamal – – It isn’t clear to me who is a “Zionist”, in your view.

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2015, 8:13 pm

        I don’t know, call me a Pollyanna, call me Rebecca of Sunnybrok Farm, just don’t call me late for dinner, I gotta wonder if an American “grossly ignorant of the Middle East” who would be incensed because “a black man has more rights than a white man” isn’t quite the person who would want to join in Palestinian Solidarity activism. Just a hunch.

      • James Canning
        November 16, 2015, 12:47 pm

        Mooser – – The idea is simply that grossly ignorant American Christian Zionists might be less prone to endorsing idiotic growth of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, if they understood the facts.

      • gamal
        November 15, 2015, 11:13 pm

        “gamal – – It isn’t clear to me who is a “Zionist”, in your view.”

        Repeat after me “I have no authority over Arabs and must stop telling them what to do”

        i never answer questions without a thorough water-boarding.

        that clear.

      • James Canning
        November 16, 2015, 12:43 pm

        Who “has no authority over Arabs”?

      • Mooser
        November 16, 2015, 12:53 pm

        ” The idea is simply that grossly ignorant American Christian Zionists might be less prone to endorsing idiotic growth of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, if they understood the facts.”

        Yup, there ain’t nothing makes “grossly ignorant American Christian Zionists” git ornery like the thought that a ‘black man may have rights superior to a white man’ . They’ll run the Zionists out of town on a rail, with tar and feathers.

      • James Canning
        November 16, 2015, 1:05 pm

        Mooser – – Wrong. I would expect the great majority of Christian Zionists to remain Christian Zionists. You are being silly.

  13. MHughes976
    November 15, 2015, 3:43 pm

    I use ‘racism’ to mean ‘prejudice on grounds of race or ancestry’. If the prejudice extends to denying political rights it is racism in severe form. I’m not saying that this usage is compulsory, but it is quite convenient. I think that the Zionist claim to exclusive rights based on relationship to ancestral religion and its practitioners – being a recognised believer or descended from such, without having adopted any other – clearly is racist in this sense. Same for Saudi discrimination against those to whom the ancestral religion of the royal family is not acceptable. There can be forms of racism which make no distinction on grounds of skin colour.

Leave a Reply