The explosion hidden inside the UN Apartheid report

Israel/Palestine
on 36 Comments

The UN-commissioned report on Israeli Apartheid that was shelved last week (two days after it appeared), is no doubt explosive. The very idea that Israel is guilty of the crime of Apartheid, one of the two gravest crimes against humanity (second only to Genocide), is, in itself, one that should give everyone pause.

But there is another explosion in the report.

Israel and its patrons have desperately sought to shelve a discussion about Zionism as a racist ideology. The Apartheid report brings it back to the front.

The report renders invalid all those apologetic ‘warnings’ of Apartheid that have been part of mainstream Israeli and American leadership rhetoric for years now (for instance, John Kerry, 2014). The report’s implication is that Apartheid is not something that is soon to arrive or has just arrived; it is something that has been there all along, from the very birth of the state — in the “State’s essentially racist character.”

The report is bound to open up a debate about the foundation of the State of Israel, as well as the ideology that has informed it all along – Zionism. The discussion is bound to roll back to another shelved document – the UN Resolution 3379 (1975), which equates Zionism with racism.

The report states that Apartheid exists not only in the West Bank right now, but implies that it exists elsewhere, and has from the start. In fact, the Israeli Left’s notions of ‘separation from the Palestinians’–whether titled ‘Peace plan’ (as in Isaac Herzog’s 10-point and 10-year plan) or conveyed by slightly more overtly racist scare campaigns for ‘separation’ by ‘liberal’ Generals– arguably falls squarely into the exact language of Apartheid. For Apartheid is Afrikaans for ‘separateness’, as racial segregation and institutionalized racial discrimination.

The 1967 occupation and the ‘demographic threat’ of all the Palestinians in that occupied territory do not pose the imminence of Apartheid – no, it already exists. What the occupation does threaten to do, is endanger Israel’s PR: It will becomes more difficult for Israel to veil the Apartheid as a mere ‘temporary’ exigency, if the occupation is not ‘temporary’.

Veiling Israeli Apartheid as ‘democracy’ was one the very first of the acts of Israel, as noted in the report, in the chapter titled ‘Demographic engineering’ (p. 31):

 “The first general policy of Israel has been one of demographic engineering, in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority in Israel. As in any racial democracy, such a majority allows the trappings of democracy — democratic elections, a strong legislature — without threatening any loss of hegemony by the dominant racial group. In Israeli discourse, this mission is expressed in terms of the so-called “demographic threat”, an openly racist reference to Palestinian population growth or the return of Palestinian refugees.”

And what ideology has informed and rationalized these practices? Zionism.

The report does not treat Zionism as its primary subject – rather Israel. But it does take care to note Zionism as the central ideology informing “Jewish nationalism” in its discussion of ‘Israel as a racial State’. That part, “Israel Jewish-National institutions,” deserves extensive quoting:

“Israel has designed its domestic governance in such a way as to ensure that the State upholds and promotes Jewish nationalism. The term “Jewish people” in political Zionist thought is used to claim the right to self-determination. The quest of an ethnic or racial group for its own State amounts to a national project, and so Israeli institutions designed to preserve Israel as a Jewish State are referred to in this report as “Jewish-national” institutions.

In Israel, an interplay of laws consolidates Jewish-national supremacy. For example, regarding the central question of land use, Basic Law: Israel Lands provides that real property held by the State of Israel, the Development Authority or the Keren Kayemet Le-Israel (JNF-Jewish National Fund) must serve “national” (that is, Jewish-national) interests and cannot be transferred to any other hands. It further establishes the Israeli Lands Authority (ILA) as administrator of such lands. The ILA (as successor of the Israeli Lands Administration) is charged with administering land in accordance with the JNF Covenant, which requires that land held by the JNF be held in perpetuity for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish people. The ILA also operates in accordance with the World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency Status Law (1952), which sets forth the responsibility of those conjoined organizations for serving Jewish settlement and development. Thus, State land, which accounts for 93 per cent of land within the country’s internationally recognized borders, is managed through laws prohibiting its use by non-Jews.” [….]

“The Jewish Agency and World Zionist Organisation (hereafter JA-WZO) deserve special attention for their role in establishing the racial character of the Israeli regime. According to Israeli law, they remain the “authorised agencies” of the State regarding Jewish-national affairs in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. [….]

A principle task of the JA-WZO is to work actively to build and maintain Israel as a Jewish State, particularly through immigration policy: 

… 5. The mission of gathering in the [Jewish] exiles, which is the central task of the State of Israel and the Zionist Movement in our days, requires constant efforts by the Jewish people in the Diaspora; the State of Israel, therefore, expects the cooperation of all Jews, as individuals and groups, in building up the State and assisting the immigration to it of the masses of the [Jewish] people, and regards the unity of all sections of Jewry as necessary for this purpose (emphasis added).

Such explicit language by the State’s authorized agencies conclusively underlines the State’s essentially racist character.”

Now let’s pause there, and emphasize, in the last part (JA-WZO mission), that which Falk and Tilley do not emphasize:

“The mission of gathering in the [Jewish] exiles, which is the central task of the State of Israel and the Zionist Movement in our days, requires constant efforts by the Jewish people in the Diaspora” [my emphasis].

The Zionist movement is not some archaic notion that disappeared for any practical purpose in the early days of the state. Zionism is alive and kicking. There is a reason why the left-center block led by Labor Zionist Herzog is called ‘The Zionist Union’. The ‘World Zionist Organization’ has not changed its name. Neither did ‘Zionist Organization of America’ We are in this respect not in any ‘post-Zionist’ era. These are not just names.

It is important to remember that last October a British Parliamentary Committee recommended that the UK outlaw the word “Zionist” when used “in an accusatory context”. So if one is harshly critical of Zionism, one’s critique may be conflated with anti-Semitism. That position is maintained in the UK’s recently adopted definition of anti-Semitism. These efforts at censorship are eerily similar to the recent shelving of the UN report – an attempt to shut down a critical debate about Israel’s policies and actions.

UN Resolution 3379 (1975), equating Zionism with racism

The typical motto of the attempts at stifling critique of Israel’s policy and actions is ‘anti-Semitism’, as we have seen. This was also the claim of Israel’s Ambassador to UN Chaim Herzog, when he famously ripped apart the UN Resolution 3379, regarding it as “another manifestation of the bitter anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish hatred which animates Arab society”.

The Resolution, titled “Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination,” unequivocally concluded that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

Ben Norton notes:

“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”.

He adds that

“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.”

Indeed – Israel, under PM Itzhak Shamir, was given a prize so that it could engage in the budding ‘peace process’, where Shamir could practice his ‘teaspoon policy’: endless negotiating sessions at which countless teaspoons amounting to mountains of sugar would be stirred into oceans of tea and coffee, but no agreement would ever be reached. (For Israel, with or without a ‘peace process’, this continues to be policy).

The Resolution continues to draw condemnation in our times, as when US Secretary of State John Kerry called it “anti-Semitic” and “absurd”, referring to Zionism as “the expression of a national liberation movement.” US Ambassador to UN Samantha Power strengthened the argument by referring to Nazi attacks on Jews at Kristallnacht, 1938.

One sentence by Kerry merits special attention:

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

Stop there. “Israel’s dreaming”. Really. That’s what USA is going to eternally support, unequivocally. Israeli dreams mean more than all Palestinian nightmares.

Coming back to the current report on Israeli Apartheid, this report rests on the same general body of international law which informed the mentioned UN 3379. As noted in the report executive summary:

“The analysis in this report rests on the same body of international human rights law and principles that reject anti-Semitism and other racially discriminatory ideologies, including: the Charter of the United Nations (1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965). The report relies for its definition of apartheid primarily on article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973, hereinafter the Apartheid Convention)”.

The UN report does not have a main prerogative to investigate or relate to Zionism as such. It’s mission is, as stated, to investigate “whether Israel has established an apartheid regime that oppresses and dominates the Palestinian people as a whole.” (My emphasis). This is why the noting of Zionism is more in passing. But this will have to open up the discussion in another forum, where the question is more specifically, whether Zionism can be separated from Israel.

Some argue that Zionism cannot even be separated from Judaism – as did Chief UK Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who wrote in the Guardian that “one can no more separate [Zionism] from Judaism than separate the City of London from Great Britain”. But we need to separate Judaism from Zionism. We have to separate religion from state, even if Israel and Zionist rabbis won’t. Zionism and Judaism are not one and the same. But then the question must be asked: Are Zionism and Israel’s Apartheid regime one and the same? The report seems to suggest that the two are inextricably connected.

About Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

36 Responses

  1. CitizenC
    March 21, 2017, 4:36 pm

    I would say not only the UN wants to bury the issue of Zionism as racism, but so does the Jewish left, from Chomsky on down. Chomsky still defends Zionism as a “form of ethnic identification as long as it doesn’t lead to racism” (but it does by design), still extols the kibbutz as anarchism and Zionist socialism, and defends a Jewish national right to settle Palestine.

    JVP refuses to take a position on Zionism, on the advice of counsel, Stanford prof Joel Beinin. Beinin knows that examining Zionism would expose the racialism and racism of Jewish identity politics. JVP does feature a workshop on being a “Self-Loving Anti-Zionist” at its upcoming Woodstock. That surely is the first question to consider in opposing Zionism, whether one can still love one’s self.

    The great anti-Zionist Reform rabbi Elmer Berger, who helped lead a heroic rear-guard action against Zionism in the 1940s, co-drafted, with Palestinian diplomat Fayez Sayigh, the UN 3379 on Zionism as a form of racism, and wrote on the subject himself, as an associate of EAFORD, Org for Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Look around at this link

    http://eaford.org/

    • JWalters
      March 21, 2017, 9:22 pm

      Thanks for bringing up Rabbi Berger. Here’s a link to a Mondoweiss article about his opposition to Zionism.
      http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/reform-judaism-and-the-challenge-of-zionism/

      Israel was in effect designed to create an intractable religious conflict. While there can be compromise on material resources, religious extremists are inherently unable to compromise on their beliefs. Hence a religious war is the most long-lasting and profitable kind of war. In 1791 Tom Paine wrote, “That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking as it is true”. And it remains true today, e.g. “War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror” for readers who haven’t seen it.

      • Elizabeth Block
        March 22, 2017, 10:10 am

        And if you have a strong enough stomach, Thomas Suarez’s “State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel.” Details of monthly, then daily, terror attacks, drawn from British and Israeli records.
        There were indeed Zionists who didn’t envision an apartheid state, but they were few and weak, and they lost.

        At our weekly vigil in front of the Israeli consulate in Toronto, we sometimes get questions from people who actually want to know stuff. One man, just before the assault on Gaza in 2014, asked what life was like for Israeli Jews. “Fine,” I said. “They go to the beach, they go to the mall, they go to work, they go to school. The occupation doesn’t touch them.” Suarez points out, in passing, that this isn’t really true. The occupation has had a terrible effect on Israeli Jews, for instance on their domestic crime rate.
        But you know what? I don’t really care. Just as I don’t care about the psychological effects on torturers of participating in torture.

      • CitizenC
        March 22, 2017, 11:19 am

        Thanks for mentioning Rabkin’s discussion of Ross’s book, which I had missed. I did read the book, and found it rather weak. I think Rabkin is making the most of it for Berger’s sake, which is understandable. I think anyone interested in Berger should read his own writings, such as Memoir of an Anti-Zionist Jew and others. The Memoir was published by the Institute for Palestine Studies. Thomas Kolksy’s “Jews Against Zionism” is also informative, about the American Council for Judaism in its heyday.

    • Lillian Rosengarten
      March 22, 2017, 1:04 pm

      Citizen Z: I think perhaps you re confusing JVP with JStreet . It is J Street which still remains committed to “Liberal Zionism” a complete oxymoron for the dream of a Jewish State has been transformed into a nightmare of genocide and stolen land. JVP should not be denigrated. I have spoken there many times and although they are not yet completely clear to put out a statement. What is clear, JVP does not support Zionist Genocide but as far as I could gather a biNational democratic state. It serves no purpose to denigrate the Jewish left, (including Chomsky.) Most are committed anti-Zionists.
      Thank you Jonathan for this excellent piece.

      • CitizenC
        March 22, 2017, 5:41 pm

        Lillian, JVP is the current incarnation of the identity politics that has replaced secularism on the left over Palestine since 1967, and effectively destroyed our ability to think, let alone act.

        What do you think “anti-Zionism” means? It means, as it did for Berger, that people of Jewish background are either a religious minority, or secular citizens, period. It rejects the notion of “the Jewish people” and the “secular Jew”, and identity politics, as racialist.

        This was the view of the classical liberal traditions of the Enlightenment and Jewish emancipation, like Marxist internationalism or plain secularism. It was restated by Shlomo Sand in his three books, which had zero impact in the US.

        Chomsky still extols Zionism and the kibbutz. JVP’s literature and web site are full of sentimental nonsense about “Jewish values”. A JVPer maundered on “Jewish values” at the Israel Lobby conference, and was scornfully dismissed by Gideon Levy. “I recognize only universal values.”

        It took JVP ten years to endorse the Palestinian call for full BDS; Chomsky still rejects it as anti-Semitic.

        During JVP’s jihad against Alison Weir, some JVPers proposed a statement on Zionism. A “study group” was to be formed. The issue came up periodically, and nearly a year later Joel Beinin advised against having a position on Zionism, and it was dropped. This was all in the JVP member forum.

        The key issue is the Israel Lobby, an argument that JVP still deprecates and attacks as anti-Semitic, as do Beinin and Chomsky. The moral antipode to the Israel Lobby (and to anti-Semitism) is the aforementioned classical traditions that rejected Zionism, not controlling the discussion with the “strategic asset” orthodoxy and anti-anti-Semitism persecutions

        See my piece on Alison Weir, linked below, on these matters. See also the upcoming JVP Woodstock, the workshop about being “Self-Loving and Anti-Zionist”. This is moral and intellectual infantilism.

        I realize that Jewish people have been totally brainwashed over these matters , and I do not object to good faith efforts to learn and grow. JVP is about confirming “Jewish identity” in the face of Judeo-Nazism, not about opposing it. The whole notion of “Jewish politics” is inadmissable.

        https://questionofpalestine.net/2016/09/09/ms-weir-goes-to-washington/

      • George Smith
        March 23, 2017, 10:15 am

        “What do you think “anti-Zionism” means? It means, as it did for Berger, that people of Jewish background are either a religious minority, or secular citizens, period. ” –CitizenC

        This is very confused. One can vehemently reject the racialized notion of a “Jewish people” and the Zionist cause it has inspired, while at the same time embrace membership in a Jewish community with (imperfectly) shared values. Such overlapping, non-mutually-exclusive “imagined communities” (to use Benedict Anderson’s term) enrich and give shape to our lives. Most members of the Jewish community that I know are also secular citizens. The image of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on the front line of the Selma march (https://jwa.org/media/abraham-joshua-heschel-on-selma-march-1965) still inspires human rights activism on the part of American Jews. Sure, the community has been slow to reject Zionism, but JVP, Open Hillel, IfNotNow, etc. have been instrumental in reversing that stance.

        I agree with CitizenC in decrying JVP’s dismaying vilification of Alison Weir, and like many other JVP members complained vociferously to the leadership. I didn’t drop my JVP membership, but I rushed on over to IfAmericanKnew to donate. Again: two overlapping, non-mutually-exclusive communities.

      • MHughes976
        March 23, 2017, 1:56 pm

        To me anti-Z would be the denial of Z claims to certain exclusive rights in Palestine for those who are Jewish. This denial might be based on a wider denial that rights such as those claimed by Z do not exist for anyone in any circumstances: I hope it would. If the only basis for denying Z claims is denial that Jews form a group of the right kind – they are ‘merely’ a religious rather than a national group, perhaps – I would think that a weak kind of denial, provoking many sorts of supplementary disputation, and too open in principle to aggressive claims of the nationalist kind.

      • CitizenC
        March 23, 2017, 9:50 pm

        George Smith:

        One can vehemently reject the racialized notion of a “Jewish people” and the Zionist cause it has inspired, while at the same time embrace membership in a Jewish community with (imperfectly) shared values.

        You agree about the “dismaying vilification of Alison Weir” and “rushed to IAK to donate.” You cite “other members who complained vociferously.”

        You know as well as I do that it came to exactly zero. The criticism of their decision on Weir was too much for the leadership and they shut down the forum for a month, then returned with warnings about “civility” (familiar censorship gambit) and the discussion stopped. Some members wanted a position on Zionism, and after desultory effort and occasional inquiries from the membership that was eventually dropped.

        The attack on Weir led to an incident of violence and an arrest at one speaking engagement of Weir’s. Thuggish disrupters tried to shout her down and distributed copies of the contrived JVP attack on her. The same JVP info was used in threats against a second appearance by her. Many SJP chapters dropped her, tho she spoke at one chapter in the midwest recently. They continue to deprecate the Israel Lobby argument and attack it as anti-Semitic

        JVP encouraged the cancellation of Miko Peled’s appearance at Princeton, and RV later issued a mealy-mouthed stmt about “possibly overreaching” while never apologizing. JVP for ten years supported only “anti-occupation” BDS, finally endorsing full BDS only in Feb 2015 when it became impossible not to.

        Their critique of “international law” and “peace and justice” is minimal, anodyne language, contemptuous of the victims, that contrasts with condemnations of Judeo-Nazism from Israeli and European Jewish critics like Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Israel Shahak and Hajo Meyer.

        You sweep all this under the rug as “imperfectly shared values”. No, shared values, on the importance of “Jewishness”, far more important that mere life and death in Palestine and west Asia.

        “Jewish politics” is simply Jewish power and privilege, a form of Zionism, drawing distinction between Jew and gentile.

  2. just
    March 21, 2017, 5:18 pm

    I can’t thank you enough for your careful reading of this excellent report and for your always invaluable contributions of plain and verifiable truth on these pages, Jonathan.

    Thanks for keeping the report ‘alive’~ as it should, and will, forever be. The “explosion” continues apace. Try as many might, this can’t be “shelved” nor buried ever again. Thanks to our access to various alternative sources to MSM, we have been, and are, witnesses in real time.

    • JWalters
      March 21, 2017, 9:28 pm

      I agree. What passes for analysis by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media (and establishment politicians) is a disgrace to the human race.

    • Jonathan Ofir
      March 22, 2017, 2:03 am

      Thanks Just. Some truths I think are self evident.
      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

      We should know better than to let words die on paper in favor of ‘realpolitik’.

      • just
        March 22, 2017, 6:25 am

        Amen.

  3. QQQ
    March 21, 2017, 10:33 pm

    Excellent and important analysis of the implications of the report for raising the old controversy. It was always impressive how thoroughly the equation of Zionism with racism was said to have been discredited to the point of permanent obsolescence,while it has been the elephant in the room. Actually, given the early diversity of Zionist thought (including spiritual Zionists like Ahad Ha’am, for example), it was a bit simplistic as a formula, but it was entirely apt regarding the political and revisionist Zionist camps that dominated the state-building campaign and do so to this day.

    Nice here too to recall the venerable Elmer Berger.

    Perhaps part of the challenge, in rejecting an apartheid state, is to start building a new “vision” of the “Jewish national home” that can coexist with others in a pluralist state. South Africa remains a kind of Afrikaner national home in this sense – a place where Afrikaner society can flourish without dominating others. Hard to envision in Israel-Palestine, and maybe anathema both to Zionists and to those seriously ticked off about Zionism, but pragmatically necessary in offering an alternative future for the 6 million-strong ethno-national culture that has developed (been orchestrated) in Israel over the decades.

    One little correction: the ESCWA apartheid report has not been “withdrawn” in the sense of being retracted. It has only been taken off the UN-ESCWA website. It remains an ESCWA document and is currently being translated into other UN languages. Its debate is pending in other UN forums, perhaps the General Assembly.

    • Jonathan Ofir
      March 22, 2017, 2:19 pm

      Thanks very much QQQ. I used the euphemism ‘shelved’ so it would serve as a connenctive one between the report and UN 3379 – although their cases are different in several senses.

      I will follow with interest to see the developments the report may cause. It cannot be buried.

  4. SamT
    March 22, 2017, 8:26 am

    Excellent analysis – cannot add..

  5. Ronald Johnson
    March 22, 2017, 9:05 am

    You did well to retrieve the image of Chaim Herzog on the podium of the United Nations in 1975, in the act of tearing up the copy of the Zionism=Racism resolution. That act reflected perfectly the hubris that cannot read the yellow lights, the semaphores, that warn of impending blowback. Forty-one years later, the signals are red-over-red, and Israel still fails to observe.

  6. Boomer
    March 22, 2017, 11:03 am

    As Ben Norton explained in the link you provided, Resolution 3379 was revoked. Perhaps the world would be different today if it had been allowed to stand, but that’s an alternative fantasy history.

    See also:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379#Revocation

    • Boomer
      March 23, 2017, 10:22 am

      PS re UN on Zionism:

      According to the Wikipedia article mentioned above, “Israel had made revocation of Resolution 3379 a condition of its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference . . . .”

      Thus, Zionists got something of lasting value from the Madrid Peace Conference. I wonder what the Palestinians got from it? If they received anything of lasting value, I’m not aware of it, but perhaps someone here knows more about that.

      The tactics used by the Zionists seem to have been successful in accomplishing their objectives.

  7. Kay24
    March 22, 2017, 12:01 pm

    At least Australia has done the right thing (which will never happen in the US) and cleared World Vision of the accusations by the zionists, of funding Hamas. This lie has been disproved.

    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/australia-clears-world-vision-israeli-claim-it-aided-hamas

    • rosross
      March 22, 2017, 8:14 pm

      It would be one of the very few ‘right’ things Australia has done, a country known for acting as lackey to the United States and craven coward in regard to UN Mandated Israel.

      • RoHa
        March 22, 2017, 10:30 pm

        I’m sure it was an accident. Julie Bishop is probably, even as I write, trying to think of ways to recant it.

      • Kay24
        March 23, 2017, 9:58 am

        I still think Australia is a tad better than the US, the zionist poison has not seeped there fully yet.

      • straightline
        March 24, 2017, 12:56 pm

        This was mentioned on the ABC website but no mention in either of the main newspaper groups or on the DFAT website according to MERC

        http://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-halabi-affair.html

        And I disagree Kay. Zionism is so totally integrated into Australian politics and media that it rates no mention – which is the way it likes it. The number of Australian federal politicians I can think of who have taken a mildly non-Zionist position without later retracting is one – Bob Carr. Our national icon of liberalism (small ell for Australians), Phillip Adams, called on Wikipedia a humanist, is a Zionist. Remember Julie Bishop has said that if Australia had been on the UN Security Council in December it would have opposed the resolution on Israeli settlements. It would have been the only country to do so. Even the US abstained.
        Australia not only has the poison, it has become an addict.

    • inbound39
      March 29, 2017, 7:27 am

      Unfortunately Kay24,The Israel Lobby in Australia has undermined the current Australian Government. Australian Government Members have made idiots of themselves attempting to justify support for Israel. The current Australian government will fall at the next election because of its support of Israel. I liken it to Trumps support of Netanyahu and his Right Wing Israeli Terrorist government. Trump will be no more successful in getting support for Israel than if he stood before the Senate and said similar statements about Adolf Hitler and Americas unshakeable Special relationship and shared values with the German Nazi Party. The Apartheid Report hit the nail on the head and American and Israeli Pressure to have it withdrawn will only make matters worse for Israel because enough people have read it to realise the truth it spoke. The fact Israel is planning another all out assault on Gaza will seal Israel’s fate. Israel is crumbling…..its integrity is smashed wide open.(not that it ever had any)

  8. Ossinev
    March 22, 2017, 5:12 pm

    “It is important to remember that last October a British Parliamentary Committee recommended that the UK outlaw the word “Zionist” when used “in an accusatory context”. So if one is harshly critical of Zionism, one’s critique may be conflated with anti-Semitism. That position is maintained in the UK’s recently adopted definition of anti-Semitism. These efforts at censorship are eerily similar to the recent shelving of the UN report – an attempt to shut down a critical debate about Israel’s policies and actions”

    Don’t expect any prosecutions here in the UK soon. The “definition” is by definition ZioBollocks and any prosecution would simply serve to illustrate further if needed to the general UK citizenship the sinister control which a tiny repeat tiny group of supposed Britain first (LOL) citizens have in our politics and society. It will also bring to centre stage and open to forensic examination the Apartheid nature of Zioland and the ongoing Fascism of their occupation.Just like spoilt children Zios cry complain whine and wail about being bullied and victimised but when asked to explain exactly what has happened and justify their complaints they will bolt away into the shadows at a rate of knots.

  9. rosross
    March 22, 2017, 8:13 pm

    The United Nations included religious bigotry as racism equal to any other form, many years ago.

    Racism whether based on race as it was in South Africa or religious bigotry as it is in UN Mandated Israel and Occupied Palestine, is all racism and has no place in a civilized world.

    • echinococcus
      March 23, 2017, 1:12 am

      Well, the United Nations has done many a stupid and murderous thing –including the illegal partitioning of Palestine.

      In this case, too, we see an elephantesque dose of bullshit. Calling “religious bigotry” the exercise of the most basic right to criticize superstition is the worst tyranny.

      Racism, once more, only refers to characteristics acquired by birth. Superstition and obscurantism are not an accident of birth. They require a conscious decision to believe or pretend to believe. There is no civilization without the right to criticize any acquired traits.

      Also, calling “religious bigotry” the Zionist abomination, which is pure racism and racial supremacism, is the height of absurdity.

  10. GusCall
    March 23, 2017, 4:58 am

    Excellent work, Jonathan. But why do you suddenly bring in “Falk and Tilley”? This is confusing.
    I myself know that both those writers sometimes do not quite ‘walk the last mile’ against Zionism. But why bring them up?
    Thanks

    • Jonathan Ofir
      April 1, 2017, 4:35 am

      Thanks GusCall, well you may have a point there – I could have gone ‘the report’ rather than ‘Falk and Tilley’ – as it is noted in advance in my former linked article that they are the authors. I mentioned their names in regards to the emphasis they did not make, which I would make for the purpose of my focus. True, I could have written ‘the report’, and it would have been less personal. I did not mean it as any sort of attack on their person, merely an additional focus.
      I think I have made it clear that their prerogative was more on the question of Israel as an Apartheid state, where Zionism plays as a side question which they do address.
      It could be a thing to change if it was crucial, but in respect of generally not changing article texts unless a direct false claim is noticed, I would opt to leave it at that.
      But thanks for noting that, I see how such noting can cause an implicit sense of uncertainty about why names are stated all of a sudden.

      • MHughes976
        April 1, 2017, 9:03 am

        Some Falk news – after intensive heckling and disruption of his address to students at LSE his planned speeches at two more London area universities have been cancelled. Another major win for the forces of Zionism, I think.

  11. Boris
    March 25, 2017, 1:49 am

    So, the report was “shelved” because its authors had hidden explosives inside it.

    How does the UN plan to detonate it? Or is it Mondo trying to do this?

    • Mooser
      March 26, 2017, 12:45 pm

      Hey, you just gotta love “Boris” and the rest of the herd of ilk.

      Every day filled with imagined mortal affronts to the Jews, and every night, fantasies of revenge and retribution.
      What a life.

  12. Dan Walsh
    March 27, 2017, 10:53 am

    “It is important to remember that last October a British Parliamentary Committee recommended that the UK outlaw the word “Zionist” when used “in an accusatory context”.

    I have never used, and will never use, the term “Zionist/Zionism” in a accusatory context or tone: however I regularly use it in a condemnatory tone. Is that more acceptable? What does it say about contemporary British Zionism that it is able, indeed is driven to, proscribe not merely lexical aspects of the discourse but their tonality as well?

    I wonder how political Zionism might be written about so as to be comprehensible to children. Would they be driven mad by the present discourse and its maddening contradictions, insults-to-common sense and morality that suffuse this topic? Consider that today, just over 100 years after Herzl-at-Basel and the world still lacks a rational, credible definition either of antisemitism or Zionism. Is there any other important issue that lacks such a fundamental plinth?

    To be meaningful the contemporary discourse on Zionism must focus on Herzl’s seminal quote: “If you will it (Zionism) it is no dream”. Zionism can then be seen and comprehended for what it is: an act of will and not a product of religion, race, nationality or ethnicity. To lose sight of this is to allow oneself to be drawn off into the weeds.

    Ask any Palestinian kid about Herzl, Zionism, antisemitism or the Basel Program. You will be educated as never before.

    The Jews Who Will It Will Have Their State:

    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/the-jews-who-will-it-will-have-their-state

    • talknic
      March 27, 2017, 7:01 pm

      The Zionist Federation who will it have had over a century of practicing the art of cultivating and putting the right people and money in the right sphere of influence at a time to suit their cause.

      Generations of a carefully cultivated political and financial dynasty with one aim in mind

Leave a Reply