Trending Topics:

Zionists should be excluded from left-oriented protests

Activism
on 61 Comments

Should Zionists be excluded from left-oriented protests?  The short answer is yes.  But given the complexity of terms like “Zionism” and “exclusion” (and even “protest”), any answer requires solid reasoning.

Last week I provided a response on Twitter without having posed the question.

As expected, some users took me to task for being harshly selective.  I cannot deny that the position I put forward is exclusionary, but in itself this shouldn’t be seen as a problem.  All political formations are necessarily exclusive.  The question is whether exclusions are justified, and, if so, what rationale can justify them.  Analyzing those questions can put our commitments into better focus.

I submit that it’s both smart and reasonable to exclude Zionists from participating in protest that bills itself as leftist (which can include local organizing, party building, and mass action) for three main reasons:

  1. Even in its progressive manifestations, Zionism is in essence reactionary.  Nearly all of its variations accept (or promote) structural iniquity mediated by state power.  It therefore contravenes the fundamental aspirations of leftist protestors, who, whatever their disagreements, purport to share a desire for access and equality.
  2. Palestine is a central feature of the global left, both imaginatively and materially.  Israel can be found in systems of colonization, imperialism, police violence, capitalism, militarization, border control, racialized citizenship, and incarceration.
  3. Liberal Zionists have a remarkable ability to dominate conversation.  In their presence, we always seem fixated on their needs, their feelings, their anxieties, and their limitations.  The Holy Land, if only by implication, ends up being the exclusive concern of American Jews, with Palestine serving as an occasional interruption.  We intensely debate what is or isn’t anti-Semitism; how various Jewish demographics relate to Israel; why certain outcomes are unacceptable to Israelis; and where Israelis may be willing to compromise.  Meanwhile, Palestinian sensibilities disappear into a bottomless void of settler anguish.  I know this point will generate indignation and anger.  I also know that the pattern I describe is pervasive and can be exhausting for Palestinians.

“No Zionists” isn’t necessarily an individual litmus test.  Protest leaders cannot vet the opinions of each participant, nor should they desire that kind of power, but they do influence messaging and sense of community.  And in these areas Zionism is a hindrance.

For instance, at the recent Women’s March, a multicity effort drawing large crowds, instigators calling themselves “Zionesses” showed up.  Displaying a logo that featured a whitewashed South African hip hop artist, Dope Saint Jude (who later disavowed them), the Zionesses promoted Israel as a feminist interest.  A similar contretemps occurred at last year’s Chicago Dyke March, though organizers of that event asked the Zionist contingent to leave, stirring a round of Facebook bickering and accusations of anti-Semitism.

When Palestinian journalist Ali Abunimah criticized the Zionesses, they called him a “bigot” and claimed he supports inequality, a curious accusation from a group whose main platform is upholding ethnocracy.  The accusation is empirically false, which a quick review of Abunimah’s work over three decades would show.  Dyke March organizers likewise experienced harsh (and defamatory) criticism.

Herein lies the problem with Zionist participation in supposedly egalitarian spaces.  When they insist on announcing support for Israel, those pursuing justice, not the sources of injustice, become subject to acrimony and pressure.  Zionists occupy a normative position and repeatedly prove willing, or eager, to strengthen the hierarchies that protest seeks to diminish.  Moreover, they frequently wave Israeli flags (or pinkwashed facsimiles).  Nobody clamoring for equality wants to see emblems of settler colonization.

“No Zionists” complements acceptable demands like “no cops” or “no corporate sponsors.”  Allowing homophobes into left-oriented protests is a nonstarter.  (Homophobes certainly attend left-oriented protests, but they generally don’t out themselves as homophobic.)  This exclusion is possible because we understand that homophobes harm queer comrades and hold beliefs anathema to a just society.  “No Zionists” isn’t controversial because it is exclusionary; every political gathering has dozens of limitations, explicit and implicit.  Controversy exists in the idea that Zionism is harmful.  The entire conceit of Zionist participation is premised on a misconception.

Plenty of people are opposed to the Israeli occupation but still consider themselves Zionist.  Views change all the time, often when we engage new communities.  Protest doesn’t exist simply to make a point.  It creates an environment in which people can search, debate, and, ideally, grow.  I have no problem sharing a picket line with folks whose views on Palestine differ from mine.  The problem arises when those with a messianic attachment to the fantasy that Israel and justice are compatible perform displays of Zionism in order to aggravate or proselytize.  Lest we forget, Zionism is an expansionist ideology that endeavors to dominate its opponents, so it is difficult to accept the presence of its advocates in good faith.

The following question can be helpful:  to which class are our peers devoted?  There is only one reassuring answer to this question.  The onus is on anybody with socio-political advantages to de-escalate rather than reinforce disparities of power, which means knowing when to stand down and how to earn the benefits of solidarity.  This ethic applies to those limited by filial identities.  Men can disinvest themselves of masculinist ideologies, just as white people, with requisite self-reflection, can repudiate the racism into which they were socialized (and from which they benefit).

Given the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Trump’s America, it’s important to note that “no Zionists” should never be predicated on ethnic or religious identity.  Some would argue that it’s easy to draw a line from “no Zionists” to “no Jews,” and that in fact “no Zionists” is just a sneaky way to banish Jewish people.  There are a few problems with this argument.

First, it reinforces the conflation of Jewishness and Zionism.  Next, it uses concern about inclusion to normalize ethnic cleansing.  It also elides the inconvenient fact that alt-right luminaries admire Israel.  And finally, “no Zionists” would only exclude Jews according to the very logic anti-Zionists seek to undermine.  In actuality, it helps exclude Christian fundamentalists, liberal celebrities, state technocrats, Congress people, and corporate pundits—i.e., our supposed opponents.  (Laugh if you want, but this sort regularly gets invited onto speaker platforms.)  The demonstrable reality is that “no Zionists” is code for “no Jews” among racists, not the Palestine solidarity community.

The most important reason why “no Zionists” is justified has less to do with strategy than with comradely spirit:  is the US left finally willing to respect Palestinian (and more broadly Arab) sensibilities?  Or will it continue to demand that Palestinians defer their liberation in order to assuage Zionist fragility?

Fighting for justice in an environment that attracts police and alt-right violence requires a high level of trust among protesters.  Many Palestinians already suffer military occupation; others exist as intergenerational exiles; yet more have been arrested, fired, and deported for taking up the struggle.  It doesn’t seem unreasonable, then, to request just one space free of Zionist supervision.

Steven Salaita
About Steven Salaita

Steven Salaita's most recent book is Inter/Nationalism: Decolonizing Native America and Palestine.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

61 Responses

  1. Steve Macklevore
    Steve Macklevore
    January 30, 2018, 10:17 am

    This is an excellent article which explains an excellent idea.

    In my own country, a nasty group called “Labour Friends of Israel” have caused huge problems to the Labour Party. They’ve made wild unjustified accusations of antisemitism with associated witch-hunts and gleeful reporting from the right-wing media.

  2. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    January 30, 2018, 10:43 am

    Zionism is no longer a theory but a practice and as such it is a practice which harms Palestinians, as such opposition to Zionism should be expected.

  3. hophmi
    hophmi
    January 30, 2018, 12:09 pm

    1. “Even in its progressive manifestations, Zionism is in essence reactionary. Nearly all of its variations accept (or promote) structural iniquity mediated by state power. It therefore contravenes the fundamental aspirations of leftist protestors, who, whatever their disagreements, purport to share a desire for access and equality.”

    It is in bad faith for anyone to refer to Zionism as reactionary. It is national liberation movement. Almost by definition, movements of national liberation are not reactionary. And of course, drilling down to the details, Israel remains the only country in the region that promotes anything resembling real minority rights and real civil and political rights.

    Salaita writes that leftist movements should not include reactionary forces. Would he ever dare apply that standard to people who march under the banner of respecting traditional religious worship? Like, say, Linda Sarsour, who insists on her right to wear a hijab and to worship as a traditional Muslim, and consciously marches for that objective? I certainly support her right to do so, but there is little that is more reactionary than the gender roles presumed by traditional Islam, and the vision of traditional religion, whether Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, is generally not a vision of access and equality.

    Moreover, leftists have a huge blind spot when it comes to their own reactionary forces. Anyone who has paid any attention to Venezuela, as great an example of reactionary leftist ideology as there is, knows that Chavez and Maduro were cause celebre on the global left – and still are.

    2. “Palestine is a central feature of the global left, both imaginatively and materially. Israel can be found in systems of colonization, imperialism, police violence, capitalism, militarization, border control, racialized citizenship, and incarceration.”

    It’s also a central feature of the global left not to support military intervention against genocidal dictators, and not to take a strong position against antisemitism. Moreover, the resistance movement is not synonymous with the global left. (Heaven forfend, given how awful the record of the global left on human rights.)

    3. “Liberal Zionists have a remarkable ability to dominate conversation. In their presence, we always seem fixated on their needs, their feelings, their anxieties, and their limitations. The Holy Land, if only by implication, ends up being the exclusive concern of American Jews, with Palestine serving as an occasional interruption. We intensely debate what is or isn’t anti-Semitism; how various Jewish demographics relate to Israel; why certain outcomes are unacceptable to Israelis; and where Israelis may be willing to compromise. Meanwhile, Palestinian sensibilities disappear into a bottomless void of settler anguish. I know this point will generate indignation and anger. I also know that the pattern I describe is pervasive and can be exhausting for Palestinians.”

    This is really garbage. LIberal Zionists have an incredibly hard time being heard today. If there’s one guarantee about being a liberal Zionist, it is that one will be attacked by everyone, the left for not being anti-Zionist and the right for not supporting Israel unreservedly. I’m sorry Steven Salaita doesn’t like talking about antisemitism; he’d clearly rather talk about himself and about how he wishes settlers would be kidnapped. Those of us who have watched antisemitism surge, particularly across Europe, have noted the near-silence of the global left. Jews today are counciled not to cover their heads when they walk in public. What has Salaita said about that?

    I’m also sorry that he thinks that liberal Zionists, most of whom actually do the hard work of peacemaking instead of easy work of grandstanding, only care about Israelis and Jews. That’s frankly a smear that has antisemitic overtones; Salaita is really saying here that Jews only care about Jews.

    Salaita can hide all he wants behind the bogus idea that excluding Zionists is not the same as excluding Jews because there are non-Jewish Zionists. I doubt he’d ever apply the same logic to any other minority group. The fact of the matter is that Zionism is synonymous with supporting the concept of a Jewish state, and the fact of the matter is that the people most affected by a no-Zionist policy are Jews, and Jews, like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them, and not their loud critics, who seek to use anti-Zionism as a mask for their own bigotry.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      January 30, 2018, 1:20 pm

      “Hophmi”! Haven’t seen you around for awhile. Don’t blame you. Having dispensed with Phil Weiss, it’s only right to wait until there is a foeman worthy of your steel.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      January 30, 2018, 2:54 pm

      Hophmi: “It is national liberation movement”.

      ROFL. Liberation from what or whom? Zionism is settler colonialism and not an ideology based on anticolonial struggle.

      Hophmi: “Israel remains the only country in the region that promotes anything resembling real minority rights and real civil and political rights.”

      No it doesn’t. Israel promotes Apartheid and the idea that its territory doesn’t belong to its citizens, but to the Jewish people and even Jews who are not citizens of Israel.

      Hophmi: “I’m also sorry that he thinks that liberal Zionists, most of whom actually do the hard work of peacemaking instead of easy work of grandstanding, only care about Israelis and Jews. ”

      It’s true. “Liberal Zionist” don’t supports the Palestinian’s right to return.

      Hophmi: “That’s frankly a smear that has antisemitic overtones; Salaita is really saying here that Jews only care about Jews.”

      Nope. Salaita speaks about liberal Zionists. Jews as such are not liberal Zionists.

      Hophmi: “… Jews, like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them …”

      Hophmi: “The fact of the matter is that Zionism is synonymous with supporting the concept of a Jewish state, and the fact of the matter is that the people most affected by a no-Zionist policy are Jews …”

      Yes, yes. Therefore anti communism was just hatred towards Russians, right?

      Sure. As everyone else retains the right to lough about irrational definitions of antisemitism.

      • annie
        annie
        January 30, 2018, 3:10 pm

        Jews, like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them

        i didn’t know about the right of a minority “to define what constitutes hatred against them [selves]”. i thought minority rights were the same for all minorities. i’m not aware of one or any particular minority having a particular right of definition. is this codified anywhere?

        Minority rights are the normal individual rights as applied to members of racial, ethnic, class, religious, linguistic or gender and sexual minorities; and also the collective rights accorded to minority groups. Minority rights may also apply simply to individual rights of anyone who is not part of a majority decision.

      • eljay
        eljay
        January 30, 2018, 3:34 pm

        || Annie Robbins: Jews, like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them

        i didn’t know about the right of a minority “to define what constitutes hatred against them [selves]”. … ||

        What hophmi is saying is that non-Jewish Israelis, like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them.

        ZioHQ is going to want to have a few words with him.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        January 30, 2018, 7:00 pm

        .” i thought minority rights were the same for all minorities.” “Annie”

        Keep in mind the proposition that “the allrightnik becomes the Alt-Rightnik”

        When “Hophmi” talks about minority rights, he conceives of the movement as it is portrayed on Fox News and other right-wing sources.

        In that view of the “minority rights” issues, minorities are getting all sorts of special entitlements and money other people don’t get. So naturally, “Hophmi” thinks some of this “affirmative action” should apply to us Jews, being a minority and all.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      January 30, 2018, 3:08 pm

      “National liberation movement” – total rot. Nation ‘creating’ movement which was predicated on destroying the nation that already existed on the coveted land. And so it has become a nation oppressing movement. Nothing to take (vicarious) pride in. A century of shame.

      • rhkroell
        rhkroell
        January 31, 2018, 2:14 am

        “Liberal” Zionist credo: “Lupus est homo homini, non homo, quom qualis sit non novit.”

    • festus
      festus
      January 30, 2018, 3:21 pm

      “Jews, like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them.”

      Yet they are the only one that does, with dozens of Orgs devoted to looking for anti-Semitism, Jew hatred, or whatever term Frank Luntz has them using now.

    • Keith
      Keith
      January 30, 2018, 3:25 pm

      HOPHMI- ” It is national liberation movement.”

      No it is not. It is an imposed system of Blood and Soil nationalism fused with Judaic religious symbolism and mythology, closely linked with Western imperialism and Jewish neo-tribalism.

      The rest of your comment is typical Hophmi, where you ludicrously label authentic populists such as Chavez as “reactionaries.” Your loyalty is to tribe and empire, with the tribe coming first. Are you, perchance, a sayanim?

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        January 31, 2018, 4:21 pm

        Perhaps he’s a sayan but sayanim is the plural.

      • Keith
        Keith
        January 31, 2018, 6:25 pm

        STEPHEN SHENFIELD- “Perhaps he’s a sayan but sayanim is the plural.”

        Perhaps so, but sayanim is easily recognized whereas sayan is not. Enter “sayan” into Google and you get a mountain range in Siberia.

      • gamal
        gamal
        January 31, 2018, 6:36 pm

        “Enter “sayan” into Google and you get a mountain range in Siberia.”

        Or like Robert Maxwell the whole Atlantic Ocean to swim in.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        January 31, 2018, 6:58 pm

        Yes, “Hophmi” is a paid hasbara agent.
        And if his checks don’t come on time, he starts posting longer and more frequent comments.

      • Keith
        Keith
        February 1, 2018, 11:03 am

        GAMAL- “Or like Robert Maxwell the whole Atlantic Ocean to swim in.”

        Indeed! One of the reasons I made reference to the sayanim is in response to the nonsense that questioning Jewish Zionist loyalty is an anti-Semitic trope. What other nationality/ethnicity/religion has anything comparable to sayanim? Yet, to discuss this significant reality is considered anti-Semitic. Why is that? Why is Jewish Zionist loyalty to Israel considered understandable and normal whereas knowing someone with a Russian name treasonous? Speaking of Jewish celebs and Israel, I link to an article on Jerry Seinfeld taking his family to a military theme park in Israel. The picture alone is worth a thousand words.

        “Finally we are allowed to tell you!! The legendary Jerry Seinfeld and his family were at Caliber 3 during their visit to Israel last week, they came to us for shooting training with displays of combat, Krav Maga [martial arts], assault dogs and lots of Zionism,” the post – which has since been deleted – said, according to Haaretz.” (David Sheen) https://www.blackagendareport.com/seinfeld-boosts-israels-shoot-kill-fantasy-tours

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 1, 2018, 5:54 pm

        “Enter “sayan” into Google and you get a mountain range in Siberia.”

        Mossad has agents everywhere.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 1, 2018, 5:58 pm

        OT, but Maxwell just happened to fall over a guard rail on his yacht, at night, in a dead flat calm, without anyone hearing anythingy. His dodgy dealings were coming undone, and he had cancelled a speech in London and rushed to his yacht.

        Complete accident, of course.

    • ritzl
      ritzl
      January 30, 2018, 5:27 pm

      Hophmi: “Jews, like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them.”

      As Palestinians, via Salaita, just did in this article. And therefore such claims have be taken equally seriously, consideration of which in movement strategy must have equal weight to Zionist sensitivities. If Palestinians say that Zionism is a bigoted worldview – it IS, by [your own] definition, and cannot be included as part of a larger movement strategy that protests for equal rights.

      That assumes you (or any Zionist) believe your own self-interested assertions. If you do, you MUST agree with Salaita.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        January 30, 2018, 6:37 pm

        hophmi’s “right” raises the possibility that two opposed minority groups could define the very existence of the opposing group as hatred. This would mean that we, the decent majority who care about the well-being of minorities, would be obliged to remove the hatred by eliminating both groups.

      • eljay
        eljay
        January 30, 2018, 6:56 pm

        || RoHa: hophmi’s “right” raises the possibility that two opposed minority groups could define the very existence of the opposing group as hatred … ||

        Elsewhere, perhaps, but in Israel there is a majority (Jewish Israelis) and a minority (non-Jewish Israelis) and only the latter, “like every other minority, retain[s] the right to define what constitutes hatred against them”.

        I’m glad he finally realized that “Jewish State” is a form of hatred that can’t be silenced by his cries of “anti-Semitism” (not that he won’t try).

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        January 30, 2018, 7:00 pm

        Exactly RoHa. You express the practical reality perfectly. In a situation where everyone has veto power over everyone else a new, negotiated, advocacy reality must emerge.

        To date Zioinists have reserved that veto power for themselves. That’s changing. Other groups, Palestinians here, are claiming the same veto rights using Zionism’s own well-established power-principles.

        You’re right. It leads to a “52-card pickup” situation in movement politics, but also must, imo, lead to a more egalitarian outcome – whatever form that outcome may take otherwise.

        Great comment.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      January 30, 2018, 6:02 pm

      “, like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them,”

      There are not many RoHas in the world, so I’m a member of a minority group. And I will tell you that the world has failed to provide us with huge quantities of money and a continuous stream of eager seventeen-year-old girls for our entertainment. We define this as hatred towards RoHas, and demand an end to this pervasive anti-RoHaism.

      And any other minority group can similarly define anything as hatred.

      Honestly, hophmi! Where do you get this nonsensical “right” from?

      “a smear that has antisemitic overtones; Salaita is really saying here that Jews only care about Jews.”

      If that is the way it seems, is he not allowed to say it? And if it is true?

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        January 31, 2018, 4:38 pm

        It is certainly true of many Jews. It is more accurate and fairer to insert a qualifier but even without one he should be allowed to say it. People should be allowed to say anything except direct incitement to violence because prohibitions on certain types of speech, however well intentioned, can so easily be abused. The accusation of ‘hate speech’ is used to delegitimize sharp criticism of many groups and movements that claim to represent broad population groups.

    • annie
      annie
      January 30, 2018, 6:51 pm

      the fact of the matter is that the people most affected by a no-Zionist policy are Jews

      ah no, the people most affected by a no-Zionist policy are Palestinians and all the other people protesting injustice. and if you truly believe minorities have a right to define what constitutes hatred against them, one would imagine you’d respect their right to resist their oppressors,

      • rhkroell
        rhkroell
        January 31, 2018, 1:01 am

        Exactly. Why would any anti-war group welcome champions of ethnonationalism, Maccabean [the “hammer”] militarism, and/or flag-waving jingoists into the ranks of their non-violent demonstrations? Its absurd to imagine groups employing nonviolent tactics — such as boycotting and picketing/protesting — “welcoming” advocates of Blood & Soil ideologies into their (nonviolent) rallies/demonstrations. Champions of militant nationalism, permanent-war theory, imperialism, colonialism can organize their own counter-protests if they choose, but don’t expect anti-war protestors to welcome xenophobic ethnonationalists into their ranks.

      • January 31, 2018, 11:51 pm

        So beautifully said – thx Annie

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer
      January 30, 2018, 8:55 pm

      @hophmi

      “like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them, and not their loud critics, who seek to use anti-Zionism as a mask for their own bigotry.”

      It depends on how you mean that. Of course every minority gets the right to say what they about someone or a position. Even the majorities have that right. It’s called free speech.

      There is no corresponding right to be taken seriously and no minority to make such a definition with any legal weight or consequence.

      Freedland of the guardian was pushing this crap too. Many zionist sites push it as if it was fact and they typically misinterpret a court ruling.

      Of course no group gets to define such a thing. And when zionists go over the bounds of reason they damage their own credibility and cause.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      January 31, 2018, 10:39 am

      @hophmi

      “…[Zionism] is [a] national liberation movement.”

      Nonsense.
      Zionism is racism, Zionism is theft, Zionism is fascism.

      Ahad Ha’am (nee, Asher Ginsberg) observed while in Palestine in 1891 (when Jews privately owned less than one per cent of the land), that “throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains that are not fit to grow anything but fruit trees – and this only after hard labour and great expense of clearing and reclamation – only these are not cultivated.” (Quoted by Rashid Khalidi, “Peasant Resistance to Zionism” in Blaming the Victims…” ed. by Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, London & New York: Verso, 1988, p. 216)

      The mistreatment of Palestinians by Jewish settlers caused Ahad Ha’am (nee, Asher Ginsberg) great distress. In 1891 he wrote: “They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, unscrupulously deprive them of their rights, insult them without cause, and even boast of such deeds; and none opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.” (Ha’am, Ahad, by Am Sheideweg, Berlin 1923, vol.1, p.107; quoted by Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p. 24)

      Ha’am concluded that this aggressive behaviour on the part of Jews stemmed from anger “…towards those who remind them that there is still another people in the land of Israel that have been living there and does not intend to leave.” (Hans Kohn, Zionism Reconsidered, Michael Selzer, ed. London: 1970, p. 195; quoted by Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians…, p. 7)

      Theodor Herzl’s diaries not only confirm that his objective was the establishment of a “Jewish state” in Palestine, but that it would be an expansionist state. In the year of his death he described its borders as being “…in the north the mountains facing Cappadocia [Turkey], in the south, the Suez Canal [Egypt] in the east, the Euphrates [Iraq].” (Theodor Herzl, The Complete Diaries, 11 p. 711)

      In true 19th century colonialist fashion, Herzl contended that his “Jewish state” would protect Europe and its superior culture from the uncivilized East. “We should there [in Palestine] form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.” (Theodor Herzl, Judenstaat (The Jewish State), 1896, p. 26)

      Even more revealing as to how Herzl intended to deal with Palestinians is the “Charter for Zionist Colonization of Palestine and Syria” which he drafted sometime between the summer of 1901 and early 1902. Much to his disappointment, however, he was denied the opportunity to present it to the Ottoman Sultanate. Article Vl of the charter called for Istanbul to grant the Zionists, in the form of the Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC), “complete autonomy, guaranteed by the Ottoman Empire” while Article III gave them in effect, the right to deport the native population to other areas of the empire. Article 111 “[pertained] to the Palestinian and other Arab owners and inhabitants of the three categories of land to be purchased/owned by the JOLC – the large and small private landholdings, the Sultan’s state domain, and the land for which there is no title.”

      Israel Zangwill, the influential Anglo-Jewish essayist and Zionist first believed that the Palestinians would simply “fold their tents and slip away.” It was Zangwill who first voiced the lie that Palestine was a “land without a people, waiting for a people without a land.” (Zangwill, Israel, “The Return to Palestine”, New Liberal Review 11, Dec. 1901 p 627, quoted by David Hirst, p. 19)

      In 1905, Zangwill contradicted himself during a talk in Manchester when he observed that Palestine was “already twice as thickly populated as the United States…. [W]e must be prepared to either drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population….” (Zangwill, Speeches, p. 210, quoted by Nur Masalah , Expulsion of the Palestinians…., 1992, p. 10)

      In the February 1919 issue of the League of Nations Journal, Zangwill proposed that the Palestinians “should be gradually transplanted” in Arab countries and at a public meeting in the same year he remarked that “many [Palestinians] are semi-nomad, they have given nothing to Palestine and are not entitled to the rules of democracy.” (Jewish Chronicle, Dec. 12 1919, quoted by Masalha, Expulsion…, p.14)

      In 1920, Zangwill proposed in The Voice of Jerusalem, that there should be an “‘Arab exodus’…based on ‘race redistribution’ or a ‘trek like that of the Boers from Cape Colony,’ which he advocated as ‘literally the only way out of the difficulty of creating a Jewish State in Palestine.’” He continued: “We cannot allow the Arabs to block so valuable a piece of historic reconstruction….To fold their tents and silently steal away is their proverbial habit: let them exemplify it now.” (Zangwill, The Voice of Jerusalem, p. 103, quoted by Masalha, EOTP pp. 13- 14)

      Other Zionist leaders saw the future Jewish state in Palestine not only free of Arabs, but the first step towards the creation of a much larger country. In 1918, Ben-Gurion described the future borders of the Jewish state as: “to the north, the Litani River; to the northeast, the Wadi’Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into the Sinai at least up to Wadi al-`Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan.” (Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, pp. 34-34; cited by Masalah, Expulsion…, p. 87)

      In 1930 (when Jews privately owned only about four per cent of Palestine), Arthur Ruppin, a pivotal figure in political Zionism wrote that displacement of Arab farmers was inevitable because “land is the most necessary thing for our establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands in Palestine, we are bound in each case of the purchase of land and its settlement to remove the peasants who cultivated the land so far, both owners of the land and tenants.” (Rashid Khalidi, in Blaming the Victims)

      In 1930, Britain’s Shaw Commission concluded: “The plain facts of the case are that there is no further land available which can be occupied by new immigrants without displacing the present population.” (Palestine Royal Commission Report, July 1937, Cmd. 5479, p. 176; cited by Alan George, JPS, #30, Winter, 1979, p. 91.) This situation caused the Shaw Commission to propose placing “limits on Zionist land purchases and on immigration to Palestine.” (Quigley, Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice, 1990, p. 19)

      The views of the Shaw Commission were echoed by John Chancellor, Britain’s high commissioner for Palestine. In a memorandum to Colonial Secretary, Lord Passfield, dated 17 January 1930, he called for a complete suspension of Jewish immigration and land purchase to protect Arab agriculture, pointing out that “all cultivable land was occupied; that no cultivable land now in possession of the indigenous population could be sold to Jews without creating a class of landless Arab cultivators.”

      • February 1, 2018, 12:10 am

        Amazing stuff – all damning

    • genesto
      genesto
      January 31, 2018, 12:27 pm

      @hophmi

      I’d like to see a list of examples of the so-called rising anti-Semitism in Europe. Whenever examples are cited by Zionists, inevitably they are exclusively, or nearly so, legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy vis a vis the Palestinians. Gatekeepers, like you, work hard to turn attention to this false rise in anti-Semitism to discredit legitimate criticism and relieve the pressure on Israel to take action against it.

    • lyn117
      lyn117
      January 31, 2018, 12:36 pm

      “Jews, like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them, and not their loud critics, who seek to use anti-Zionism as a mask for their own bigotry.”

      It’s pretty clear that Zionism with its history of mass murder, apartheid and ethnic cleansing constitutes a hate movement against Palestinians. But, I’m sure hopmi doesn’t grant Palestinians (a minority in Israel and in most places) the right to define what constitutes hatred against them.

      • February 1, 2018, 12:15 am

        I’m sure you’re right

  4. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    January 30, 2018, 2:15 pm

    @Hophmi
    “It is national liberation movement. Almost by definition, movements of national liberation are not reactionary”
    You have got me there sunshine. So the Zionists from Brooklyn, North Finchley,Florida, Moldova etc etc actually came to Palestine to “liberate” it from the Palestinians. As such “Zionism” is not is not “reactionary” whereas the Palestinian struggle to actually as in actually liberate themselves from a brutal colonial presence is “reactionary”.
    Just to add icing on the cake:
    “And of course, drilling down to the details, Israel remains the only country in the region that promotes anything resembling real minority rights and real civil and political rights”

    Absolutely hasbaralarious. Have you thought about a career in comedy? Here in the UK I am sure you would slot in well to one of our famous pantos – as a dame of course.

    • eljay
      eljay
      January 30, 2018, 3:04 pm

      || Ossinev: @Hophmi
      “ … Israel remains the only country in the region that promotes anything resembling real minority rights and real civil and political rights”

      Absolutely hasbaralarious. Have you thought about a career in comedy? … ||

      You can always count on a Zionist to proudly point out that even as it continues to steal, occupy and colonize Palestine and oppress, torture and kill Palestinians, the “Jewish State” of Israel – a self-proclaimed “moral beacon”, “light unto the nations” and “Western-style democracy” – isn’t quite as bad as Saudi Arabia, Mali and African “hell-holes”.

  5. ritzl
    ritzl
    January 30, 2018, 5:12 pm

    Great article. Pitch perfect. The credibility of leftie protests is contingent on these principles.

  6. annie
    annie
    January 30, 2018, 6:19 pm

    excellent article! it reminds me of one a wrote a few years ago, “There’s no room on campus to be progressive and pro-Israel” http://mondoweiss.net/2016/09/theres-progressive-israel/

    but, unsurprisingly, Salaita takes it to a whole new level.

  7. Steve Grover
    Steve Grover
    January 30, 2018, 11:08 pm

    If you go carrying pictures of Steven Salaita
    You ain’t gonna make it with anyone any how!
    Don’t ya know its gonna be
    Alright alright alright!

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      January 31, 2018, 12:55 pm

      The next sound you hear will be “Steve Grover’s” head hitting the bar.
      Could somebody call him a cab?

  8. David Green
    David Green
    January 30, 2018, 11:47 pm

    I like Steven, but I don’t see the point in all this litmus-testing in relation to, for example, the Women’s March. This was a Clintonite effort that didn’t challenge prevailing American exceptionalism, war, etc. So what if a Zionist puts on a pink pussy hat? And I have to say, in this context, that Linda Sarsour is nothing more than an opportunist, and her own identification with the Palestinian cause is quite problematic; she has never really lifted a finger for a just peace in the Middle East.

  9. Emet
    Emet
    January 31, 2018, 8:15 am

    And yet you all want to put a wall smack bang in the middle of Jerusalem, dividing the city.
    Bunch of hypocrites that know very little, that’s what you are.

    • eljay
      eljay
      January 31, 2018, 8:27 am

      || Emet: And yet you all want to put a wall smack bang in the middle of Jerusalem, dividing the city. … ||

      I don’t want to put a wall smack bang in the middle of Jerusalem, dividing the city.

      || … Bunch of hypocrites that know very little, that’s what you are. ||

      Liar, hypocrite and supremacist, that’s what you are.

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer
      January 31, 2018, 9:09 am

      @emet

      Who wants to put a wall smack bang in the middle of Jersalem? I’ve never seen anyone suggest a wall in the city other than the racist zionists.

      There are lots of divided cities which fall into multiple jurisdictions which do not have walls in them. Some span nations, others span states or provinces. Jerusalem is even on this list. I don’t know the individual circumstances but I would question putting Niagara Falls on the list personally. The river is eqivalent to a wall and the two cities may share the same name but are not a single city.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_divided_cities

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      January 31, 2018, 10:44 am

      @Emet

      Give it up!! You’re only making a complete fool of yourself.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      January 31, 2018, 2:25 pm

      Emet: “And yet you all want to put a wall smack bang in the middle of Jerusalem, dividing the city. Bunch of hypocrites that know very little, that’s what you are.”

      This is rich. Who wanted to devide Palestine, again? So much for being hypocrit.

  10. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    January 31, 2018, 8:34 pm

    As a person who does not generally participate in left wing protests, this does not directly affect me. Whenever I participate in some general protest and listen to speakers, inevitably i disagree with every speaker to some degree and quite often i disagree with most speakers to a large degree.

    The nationalist Jewish urge seems quite natural if only because it was born in a storm. For the past 70 years (almost) the Zionist movement has ignored the need to attempt to assuage the Palestinians and has emphasized its own needs and wishes above the need to attempt to make peace with the Palestinians.

    • eljay
      eljay
      February 1, 2018, 7:34 am

      || yonah fredman: … For the past 70 years (almost) the Zionist movement has ignored the need to attempt to assuage the Palestinians and has emphasized its own needs and wishes above the need to attempt to make peace with the Palestinians. ||

      Yeah, it’s funny how a movement based on…
      – colonizing a geographic region; and
      – establishing in as much as possible of it a (religion-)supremacist state primarily of and for that movement’s adherents throughout the world,
      …ignores “the need to attempt to assuage” that geographic region’s indigenous population and its refugees (collectively referred to as a “demographic threat” by the movement’s adherents).

    • Keith
      Keith
      February 1, 2018, 11:21 am

      YONAH FREDMAN- “The nationalist Jewish urge seems quite natural if only because it was born in a storm.”

      It was stormy in 1897?

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 1, 2018, 2:20 pm

        More like 1878 in Petah Tikva.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        February 1, 2018, 7:11 pm

        ““The nationalist Jewish urge seems quite natural if only because it was born in a storm.”

        With only the assistance of a passing motorist, fortunately trained in first-aid, who stopped to help the bewildered couple.

  11. wdr
    wdr
    February 1, 2018, 3:35 am

    Since excluding “Zionists” from left-wing groups would be the fastest and easiest way to discredit both, personally I hope that this suggestion succeeds! It will obviously be seen as proof positive that the far left is anti-Semitic to its core, and will be compared to the Nazis’ boycott of Jews.

    • eljay
      eljay
      February 1, 2018, 8:51 am

      || wdr: … excluding “Zionists” … will obviously be seen as proof positive that the far left is anti-Semitic to its core … ||

      The fact that Zionists work so hard every day to conflate Zionism with all Jews and all Jews with Zionism is obviously proof positive that Zionism is anti-Semitic to its core.

      I still can’t understand why Zionists hate Jews so much.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      February 1, 2018, 2:26 pm

      Wdr: “It will obviously be seen as proof positive that the far left is anti-Semitic to its core, ….”

      Because supporting human rights and equality is antijewish to its core, right?

      Wdr”… and will be compared to the Nazis’ boycott of Jews.”

      Off course Zionist imbeciles will compare it to the Nazi’s boycott of Jews. But back then Jews were targeted as Jews. Nowadays Israelis are targeted because of what they do to Nonjews in Palestine. Like when Jews boycotted Nazis, because of what they did to Jews. A boycott which preceeded the Nazi’s boycott of Jews.

      So you are basically againt the fact that Jews boycotted Nazis. Good to know.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      February 1, 2018, 5:48 pm

      Other way round, surely. I have been reliably informed that nearly everyone in the world is a fierce anti-Semite, so, if the far left openly reveals its anti-Semitism, it will gain credit and popularity.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        February 1, 2018, 7:48 pm

        ” so, if the far left openly reveals its anti-Semitism, it will gain credit and popularity.”

        Exactly, “RoHa”, and it’s a win-win, a two-fer! When the far-left openly reveals its anti-Semitism, at long-last Judaism will be freed of the taint of socialism, communism, and left-wing causes. Jews will be known as loyal right-wingers.

  12. LarryDerfner
    LarryDerfner
    February 1, 2018, 4:11 am

    Is anybody who’s not a one-stater a Zionist by Salaita’s definition, and would, for instance, Uri Avnery and Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein thus be unwelcome at his idea of a left-wing protest? If so, then he’s an example of what’s wrong with the left – if not, then I think he’s right.

  13. wdr
    wdr
    February 2, 2018, 9:52 am

    Yes, adopting this rule would also have excluded Yasser Arafat post-Oslo, the present leadership of Fatah, and almost everyone else except for Iran and Hizbollah.

Leave a Reply