Gideon Levy calls out Israel’s fundamental, racist religion: Zionism
Gideon Levy published a column in Haaretz yesterday that goes to the furthest extent I have seen in Israeli mainstream media in challenging Zionism. He calls it a movement that “contradicts human rights, and is thus indeed an ultranationalist, colonialist and perhaps even racist movement, as proponents of justice worldwide maintain”.
His piece, titled “Minster of Truth”, was a typically sarcastic one, set against the background of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who had said earlier in the week that
“Zionism should not – and I’m saying here that it will not – continue to bow its head to a system of individual rights interpreted in a universal manner”.
Levy takes Shaked’s words and elucidates the message further:
“Thus Shaked believes, as do so many around the world, that Israel is built on foundations of injustice and therefore must be defended from the hostile talk of justice. How else can the repulsion to discussing rights be explained? Individual rights are important, she said, but not when they are disconnected from ‘the Zionist challenges.’ Right again: The Zionist challenges indeed stand in contradiction to human rights.”
And Levy is very clear about what opposing this will mean:
“Zionism is Israel’s fundamentalist religion, and as in any religion, its denial is prohibited. In Israel, ‘non-Zionist’ or ‘anti-Zionist’ aren’t insults, they are social expulsion orders. There’s nothing like it in any free society. But now that Shaked has exposed Zionism, put her hand to the flame and admitted the truth, we can finally think about Zionism more freely. We can admit that the Jews’ right to a state contradicted the Palestinians’ right to their land, and that righteous Zionism gave birth to a terrible national wrong that has never been righted; that there are ways to resolve and atone for this contradiction, but the Zionist Israelis won’t agree to them.”
The background is that Shaked was responding to the Supreme Court’s decision last Monday, ruling against indefinite imprisonment of African asylum seekers who refuse to be deported to a third country (typically Uganda or Rwanda). Whilst permitting the deportation of what the court terms “infiltrators,” the court limited the term of their imprisonment to two months. Now notice what Supreme Court President Miriam Naor wrote:
“During this time, it’s permissible to try to persuade him through means that don’t infringe on his free will, or to try to find other ways to deport him against his will”.
This is the typical “light coercion” of the “Israeli democracy”, similar to the uniquely-Israeli expression “moderate physical pressure” as a legalized euphemism for torture.
Court President Naor adds: “Similarly, the state can consider alternatives to deportation, including the alternative of restricting his place of residence” (that is, within Israel).
Many people would naturally balk at this contempt for human rights. But for Israeli leaders, this was outrageous for the opposite reason: the court was too liberal.
Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, whilst welcoming the decision that “infiltrators” could be sent to third countries, nonetheless decried the court for depriving him of a “very important tool”, and criticized the court for allowing only voluntary deportations (in some cases).
“The decision not to allow the state to deport infiltrators against their will is very problematic,” Deri said. “We have to care for the citizens of Israel, the residents of south Tel Aviv and other cities where residents’ lives are unlivable.”
And Prime Minister Netanyahu? He said:
“We’ll have to enact new laws that will enable us … to send the illegal infiltrators out of our country.”
In saying that human rights must yield to “the Zionist challenges,” Shaked was basically making it clear, as Levy stated, that Zionism stands in opposition to universal human rights – intrinsically so. Levy seems to hedge, writing that Zionism is a “perhaps even racist movement” (my emphasis), but the hedge disappears when he describes Zionism as a colonialist and ultranationalist movement. In other words, Levy is calling Zionism racism.
The historical notion of Zionism as racism is clear to Levy, and he mentions the UN Resolution 3379 of 1975, equating Zionism with racism, in his second paragraph. I have also mentioned that resolution (which Israeli UN Ambassador Haim Herzog famously tore apart, and which was later rescinded), in conjunction with the recent UN agency commissioned report on Israeli Apartheid, which noted the “state’s essentially racist character”.
What’s also important to note in this case is the background – not of Palestinians, but simply of non-Jewish asylum seekers. This is an important notion, because it flies in the face of the notion of Israeli policies being merely a response to Palestinian aggression, as it were. There is no aggression here as such, and there are no Palestinians in this story. It is merely about the presence of non-Jews.
When Zionism’s founder Theodore Herzl wrote in his diary in 1895 that “We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border … while denying it any employment in our own country”, he was not likely thinking of African refugees. But reality has shown that Zionism will enact such policies against anyone who endangers its racist, colonialist and ultranationalist designs.
So here we are: things are being said out loud. No more apologies. This is also evident in what Netanyahu recently said to a settler audience: “We are here to stay forever,” Netanyahu reassured. “We will deepen our roots, build, strengthen and settle” (as noted by Jonathan Cook).
And Levy sets the stakes:
“Now, then, is the time for a new division, braver and more honest, between those Israelis who agree with Shaked’s statement and those [who] disagree. Between supporters of Zionism and supporters of justice. Between Zionists and the just.”
Indeed, and not a moment too soon.
Anxiously awaiting the shit fest.
it;s getting late on saturday night,s fest not likely–
Good luck with that.
Chinese have a right to their ancient homeland and the nation of China….
India has a right to their ancient sovereignty and a land of Indian people….
Africans have cleared out the “colonists” and the world cheers the elimination of whites from the Dark Continent….
Ninety-eight percent of the Middle East is controlled by Arabs and the sons of Ishmael and nobody has an issue with their claim to their ancestral homelands…..
Japan has over 95% of their population as Japanese and allow the barest minimum of non-Japanese citizenship or immigration….
This is the same the world over except for the self destructive white people of Europe and North America.
Except of course for Israel. The Jews have no right to exist at all in their ancient homeland. Even with a 25% Arab population, Druze, Bedouins, Armenians, Greeks and Christians welcomed and allowed as citizens- the fact that Jews have a place to call home is zionism and racist.
Even with a 25% Arab population, Druze, Bedouins, Armenians, Greeks and Christians welcomed and allowed as citizens- the fact that Jews have a place to call home is zionism and racist.
_______________________
The words of an idiot.
The idiot is the one who uses “Zionism” the same way that American leftists use “Nazi or racist”. Because we don’t want to be flooded by illegals or millions of Islamic immigrants who have no interest in being part of our country–just the freebies and perceived luxuries– we are called intolerant, hateful and bigots.
You use the same strategy of name-calling and Alinsky’s ” accuse them of what you are doing” to justify your position that Jews have no right to a tiny speck of land in their ancestral, ancient home. There are more non-Jews in Israel than blacks and Asians in America ( percentage wise). Are we racists? Should we open our doors to millions of Nigerians, Leonese, Somalis, Sudanese etc? Are we intolerant racists if we want to retain some semblance of our culture and our homeland for Americans? It is the EXACT same thing you are railing against that the Jews of Israel want.
I have been to the Holy Land on 2 occasions and it is amazing how many Arabs, burqas and islamists one sees. Wherever you see a building it is covered with Arabic graffiti–Muslim neighborhoods are like black neighborhoods here–the trash is on the ground, graffiti, crime, garbage and stray animals. Going through the Arab and Muslim parts of Israel/Jerusalem/Tel Aviv is like going through any inner city in the USA, you lock the doors, keep your method of self-defense close at hand and leave as quickly as you can.
Because they don’t want their entire little nation to turn into a cesspool they are “Zionist, racists.”
The author you are quoting is a typical self-hating liberal. Just like the self-loathing white people in this country who disavow their heritage and culture.
You are a double-tongued hypocrite.
You’ve missed the entire point.
Zarathustra is pointing out the hypocrisy being levied against Europe and the US by these people. Either what these people are pushing on the US and Europe would be good for them too, or we should be shutting down their efforts to impose these things on us (immigration from the people you mention).
Right now THEY are getting away with forked tongue behaviors because too many Westerners are living in cognitive dissonance regarding Israel’s policies for themselves as they contrast with the policies they are pushing us to adopt for ourselves.
At least somebody gets it.
Pardon me, sir, but no people anywhere have a “right” to their “ancient homeland”; sadly, might makes right; just ask the Irish, who were finally able to partially reclaim their “ancient homeland” from the English and Scots invaders. There were of course previous invaders, such as the Danes and the Normans (my lineage), but hey…
The Jewish people, or more accurately the Zionists (see Herzl) among them, also considered other “homelands” such as Uganda and Patagonia in Argentina and Chile, neither nation particularly known for indigenous persons of Semitic origin. Then again, the Jewish “people” (if you choose to categorize them as more an ethnic than religious group) had as their homeland after conversion the region known as Khazaria
), now a part of the Ukraine.
The Jewish faithful or “people” live in nearly every corner of the globe, but if they find themselves uncomfortable there, now they have a nation to which they have the right of anscestral return. If their primary loyalty is to Israel rather than to the nations in which they live, then I believe they should demonstrate it by emigrating there; if not, than they should stand for the ancestral traditions of the countries in which they live and practice their religion in peace as those countries permit, rather than hubristically telling all the rest of us (and we are many) how we should govern ourselves. Is there a non-Jewish equivalent to AIPAC in Israel? Not to my knowledge.
Israel has every right to defend itself, but not at great expense to non-Israelis.
Kudos, Mr. Levy! Mr. Deri might better think twice lest other peoples begin to ponder who might be classified as “infiltrators” in their “ancient homelands”.
Would it be racist of white people to say “We SO admire the Jews immigration rules for Israel that we want to do the exact same thing in our countries? We want a 90% white Christian country in the USA, like it was through most of it’s history till about 50 years ago? They would have a stroke right before lighting up the whole media, which coincidentally they totally own….
Judaism , Zionism , Nationalism are all the same for Israel and most Jews. As you call see it is going to be hard for Israel to survive once the USA is no longer in the picture.I think America will still be a player but our strength and power will be greatly reduced as we are already on our way to economic ruin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A94smJ9QJ5g
German and American researchers are wanting to use hormone treatments to make Germans less hostile to Muslim immigrants. http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/2017/08/germans-investigate-drugging-population.html
Everybody needs to click on KaD’s link above.It is incredible that they would be doing that kind of research.Unfortunately,it has worked in the lab so they will probably roll it out.
And don’t forget, MAGA is basically a swastika.
This teacher would probably not even notice a hammer and sickle t-shirt.
Too bad we couldn’t do something like make being here as a Muslim illegal. I just think they can’t play nice with Christians and nonbelievers. I have told my kids that one day our country will regret having Muslims here. They destroy societies. They sure as hell don’t blend in.
Crusaders and Zionists
by Uri Avnery Posted on September 02, 2017
A few days ago I found myself in Caesarea, sitting in a restaurant and looking out over the sea. The sunbeams were dancing on the little waves, the mysterious ruins of the ancient town arrayed behind me. It was hot, but not too hot, and I was thinking about the crusaders.
Caesarea was built by King Herod some 2000 years ago and named after his Roman master, Augustus Caesar. It once again became an important town under the Crusaders, who fortified it. These fortifications are what now makes the place a tourist attraction.
For some years in my life I was obsessed with the Crusaders. It started during the 1948 “War of Independence”, when I chanced to read a book about the crusaders and found that they had occupied the same locations opposite the Gaza strip which my battalion was occupying. It took the crusaders several decades to conquer the strip, which at the time extended to Ashkelon. Today it is still there in Muslim hands.
After the war, I read everything I could about these Crusaders. The more I read, the more fascinated I became. So much so, that I did something I have never done before or after: I wrote a letter to the author of the most authoritative book about the period, the British historian Steven Runciman.
To my surprise, I received a handwritten reply by return of post, inviting me to come and see him when I happened to be in London. I happened to be in London a few weeks later and called him up. He insisted I come over immediately.
Like almost everyone who fought against the British in Palestine, I was an anglophile. Runciman, a typical British aristocrat with all the quaint idiosyncrasies that go with it, was very likable.
We talked for hours, and continued the conversation when my wife and I visited him later in an ancient Scottish fortress on the border with England. Rachel, who was even more anglophile than I, almost fell in love with him.
What we talked about was a subject I brought up at the very start of our first meeting: “When you were writing your book, did you ever think about the similarities between the Crusaders and the modern Zionists?”
Runciman answered: “Actually, I hardly thought about anything else. I wanted to subtitle the book A Guidebook For the Zionist About How Not To Do It.” And after a short laugh: “But my Jewish friends advised me to abstain from doing so.”
Indeed, it is almost taboo in Israel to talk about the crusades. We do have some experts, but on the whole, the subject is avoided. I don’t remember ever having heard about the Crusades during the few years I spent at school.
Thus is not as astonishing as it may sound. Jewish history is ethnocentric, not geographical. It starts with our (legendary) forefather, Abraham, and his chats with God, and continues until the defeat of the Bar Kochba rebellion against the Romans in 136 AD.
From then on our history takes leave from Palestine and dances around the world, concentrating on Jewish events, until the year 1882, when the first pre-Zionists set up some settlements in Ottoman Palestine. During all the time in between, Palestine was empty, nothing happened there.
That is what Israeli children learn today, too.
Actually, lots of things did happen during those 1746 years, more than in most other countries. The Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Ottoman and British empires followed each other until 1948. The crusaders’ kingdoms were an important chapter by themselves.
Most Israelis would be surprised to learn that the Crusaders resided in Palestine for almost 200 years – much longer than Zionist history until now. It was not a short, passing episode.
The similarity between the Crusaders and the Zionists strikes one at first glance. Both movements moved a large number of people from Europe to the Holy Land. (During the first half century of its existence, Zionism brought almost only European Jews to Palestine.) Since both of them came from the west, they were perceived by the local Muslim population as Western invaders.
Neither the Crusaders nor the Zionists had one day of peace during their entire existence. The perpetual sense of military danger shaped their entire history, their culture and their character.
The crusaders had some temporary armistices, especially with Syria, but we, too, now have two “peace agreements” in place – with Egypt and Jordan. Without any real feelings of peace and friendship with these peoples, our agreements do also resemble armistices rather than peace.
Then as now, the Crusaders’ lot was made easier by the fact that the Arabs were constantly quarreling among themselves. Until the great Salah-a-Din (“Saladin”), a Kurd, appeared on the scene, united the Arabs and vanquished the Crusaders in the battle at the Horns of Hattin, near Tiberias. After that, the Crusaders regrouped and hung on in Palestine for another four generations.
Both the Crusaders and the Zionists saw themselves, quite consciously, as “bridgeheads” of the West in a foreign and hostile region. The Crusaders, of course, came here as the army of the West, to regain the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, wrote in his book Der Judenstaat, the bible of Zionism, that in Palestine we shall serve as the outpost of (Western) culture against (Muslim) barbarism.
The Holy City, by the way, remains the focus of a daily battle. Just this week, two extreme-right Members of the Knesset were allowed by the Israeli authorities to enter the Temple Mount area, fortunately without inciting Jewish-Muslim riots as on previous such occasions.
Also last week, our Minister of Justice, (whom I have called “the devil in the guise of a beautiful woman”), accused the Israeli Supreme Court of putting human rights above the “values of Zionism” (whatever these are). She has already introduced a bill which makes it clear that those “Zionist values” are legally superior to “democratic values” and come first.
The similarity is most apparent when it comes to peace.
For the crusaders, of course, peace was unthinkable. Their whole enterprise was based on the aim of liberating Jerusalem and the entire Holy Land (“God Wills It!”) from Islam, the deadly enemy. This excludes a priori any peace with God’s enemies.
Zionists talk endlessly about peace. No week passes without Binyamin Netanyahu releasing some touching declaration about his craving for peace. But by now it is absolutely clear that he does not dream of giving up one inch of land west of the Jordan. Just a few days ago he again publicly confirmed that he will not “uproot” one single Jewish settlement in the West Bank. Under international law every one of these settlements is illegal.
There are, of course, huge differences between the two historical movements, as huge as the differences between the 11th and 21st centuries.
Can one imagine the Templar knights with atom bombs? Saladin with tanks? The journey of Hospitalers from Clermont to Jaffa by airplane?
At the time of the crusades, the idea of the modern “nation” was not yet born. The knights were French, English or German, but foremost they were Christian. Zionism was born of the will to turn the Jews of the world into a nation in the modern sense of the term.
Who were these Jews? In 19th century Europe, a continent of new nations, they were an unnatural exception, and therefore hated and feared. But they were really an unreformed relic of the Byzantine Empire, where the very identity of all communities was based on religion. Ethnic-religious communities were autonomous and legally under the jurisdiction of their religious leaders.
A Jewish man in Alexandria could marry a Jewish girl Antioch, but not the Christian woman next door. A Latin woman in Damascus could marry a Latin man in Constantinople, but not the Greek-orthodox man across the street. This legal structure still exists in many ex-Byzantine countries, including – you’ll never guess – Israel.
But given all the differences of time, the comparison is still valid, and provides much food for thought – especially if you sit on the shore of Caesaria, the imposing Crusaders’ wall just behind you, a few kilometers from the port of Atlit, where the last Crusaders were literally thrown into the sea when it all came to an end, just 726 years ago.
To paraphrase Runciman, I hope we learn not to be like them in time.
Uri Avnery is a peace activist, journalist, writer, and former member of the Israeli Knesset. He is also an old fucker who participated in the ’48 war.
Read other articles by Uri, or visit Uri’s website.
#NARZI NOT #NAZI – NationalRacialism with the #BlackNationalParty