Zionism is Still the Issue : Melbourne Indymedia

Zionism is Still the Issue

By Ghada Karmi

Palestine Chronicle

February 7, 2004

Fort those who have forgotten or never understood what Zionism was all about, two remarkable, recently published pieces will make salutary reading. The first is an interview with the Israeli historian, Benny Morris, that appeared in the Israeli daily Haaretz on January 4th 2004 and the second is an article by Morris in the January 14th edition of the London Guardian newspaper. In these he explains with breathtaking candour what the Zionist project entailed. Few Zionist outside the ranks of the extreme right have been prepared to be so brutally honest and Benny Morris claims to be on the political left. More significantly, it was he who first exposed the true circumstances of Israel’s creation. Using Israel State archive documents for his groundbreaking book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem published in 1987, he was hailed as a courageous ‘revisionist historian’. His work suggested to many that, having learned the facts of the case, he was bound to be sympathetic to the Palestinians. In the last few years, however, he has been expressing ever more hardline views, as if he regretted the pioneering research that helped expose the savage reality of Israel’s establishment. This shift seems to have culminated in his most recent utterances about the nature of Zionism. Unpalatable as these are, we must thank him for saying so bluntly what all Zionists, however ‘liberal’, at bottom really think but do not say.

The author, Palestinian academic, Dr. Ghada Karmi

There was a time when the Arabs understood Zionism to be the basic cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. From the 1920s onwards, the Palestinians, being the ones most targeted, feared that Zionism would take over their country. They tried to fight it but failed and the Zionist project took hold. As this happened, the other Arabs joined the fight and it was commonplace to hear Israelis being called simply, ‘the Zionists’ and Israel, ‘the Zionist entity’. People wrote tracts, articles and books about Zionism and it seemed a black and white issue. But after the 1967 war, a new ambiguity appeared. Resolution 242, accepted by the Arab states, introduced the idea that the basis of the conflict was the Israeli occupation of post-1967 territory, without reference to what had gone before. This set the pattern for all subsequent Arab-Israeli peace proposals which aimed to bring about Israeli withdrawal from these territories in exchange for Arab recognition. The first successful application of this principle was the 1979 Camp David Agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1979, trading Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory occupied in 1967 for a peace treaty. By the time of the 1991 Madrid peace conference, the (post-1967) land-for-peace formula was firmly established. Madrid involved the Arab front-line states only, but in the March 2002 Saudi peace proposal, the offer had been upgraded to one of Israeli withdrawal from all the 1967 territories in exchange for normalisation of relations with the whole Arab world.

Meanwhile, the Arab stance towards Israel as an illegitimate body forcibly implanted into the region whose ideology, Zionism, inevitably meant aggression and expansion to the detriment of the Arab world, quietly slipped out of view. Now, it was only Israel’s post-1967 occupation that was the problem and, once rectified, Israeli integration into the region could proceed. The Palestinians had a clearer view of Zionism. In 1969, the PLO propounded a vision of a democratic state replacing Israel that would give equal rights to all its citizens, Muslims, Christians and Jews. This was a direct challenge to the idea of an exclusive Jewish state, but more importantly a refusal to acquiesce in the Zionist theft of 1948 Palestine. However, the huge power imbalance between the parties forced the PLO to modify its stance and by 1974, a decision was taken to accept much less. The two-state solution was born and in 1988, the PLO formally recognised Israel in its 1948 borders. By 1993, the PLO had signed up to the Oslo Agreement that finally legitimised Zionism. The terms of the agreement excluded any discussion of 1948 Israel and confined themselves to the dispute over the 1967 territories. And by accepting these terms, the PLO signalled its acceptance of the original Zionist claim to Palestine. This process has found its apotheosis in the recent Geneva Accords, which require the Palestinians to recognise Israel as ‘the state of the Jews’. No greater turnabout in history could be imagined.

Accompanying this evolution of attitudes has been a sort of Arab flirtation with Zionism. Following the Israel-Egypt treaty, a number of Arab-Israeli projects and initiatives came into being. These were mirrored in the West during the 1980s, where various Arab-Jewish ‘dialogue groups’ sprang up and the breaking of traditional taboos became enticing. Exchanges between Arab and Israeli scholars and academics became popular and after the Oslo Agreement numerous Israeli-Palestinians joint projects were initiated. Contacts between several Arab states and Israel were made, either officially or in secret. Even previously hardline anti-Israel states like Libya and Syria have started to make overtures towards Israel, (though admittedly with mixed motives). The majority of these initiatives have involved ‘liberal’ Zionists, not the small minority of radical but marginalised anti-Zionist Jews. It is as if the old antipathy towards Zionism as the root cause of the Palestinian tragedy and the turmoil in the Middle East had been forgotten. Like Marxist terminology in the West today, the anti-Zionist rhetoric so prevalent amongst Arabs in the past, is passé and many believe that Zionists are people you really can do business with.

At this point, Benny Morris’s revelations are like a slap in the face. He reminds us that Israel was set up by expulsion, rape and massacre. His recent researches, cited in the new edition of his book, The Birth of the Palestine refugee problem revisited, provide the authentic evidence. The Jewish state could not have come into being without ethnic cleansing and, he asserts, more may be necessary in future to ensure its survival. Force was always essential to the imposition and maintenance of Israel, he explains; native hostility to the project was inevitable from the start and it had to be countered by overwhelming strength. The Palestinians will always pose a threat and they must therefore be controlled and “caged in” (as per the West Bank barrier wall). He recognises that the Jewish state project is an impossible idea and that, logically, it should never have succeeded. Nevertheless, it was worthwhile because it was a moral project justified, despite the damage it caused, by the overriding need for a solution to Jewish suffering. The Arabs in any case have a tribal culture, he says, “with no moral inhibitions” and “they understand only force”. Muslims are no better. “There’s a deep problem in Islam…in which human life doesn’t have the same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy openness, and creativity are alien.”

These utterances capture the essence of Zionism: that a Jewish state could never have been established without force, coercion and ethnic cleansing; that its survival depended on superior power to crush all opposition; that it was fired by a conviction of its moral rightness which accorded Jews a special place over others; and because of this, viewed everything as instrumental to its goal. Morris regrets the Palestinians suffering entailed in Israel’s creation, but sees it as a necessary evil in pursuit of the greater good. “The right of refugees to return to their homes seems natural and just”, he says. “But this ‘right of return’ needs to be weighed against the right to life and well-being of the five million Jews who currently live in Israel.”

Thus he eloquently shows why Zionism is a dangerous idea: at its root is a conviction of moral righteousness that justifies almost any act deemed necessary to preserve the Jewish state. If that means nuclear weapons, massive military force, alliances with unsavoury regimes, theft and manipulation of other people’s resources, aggression and occupation, the crushing of Palestinian and all other forms of resistance to its survival, however inhuman - then so be it. The Zionist idea has lost none of its force today; it is deeply implanted in the hearts of most Jews, whether Israelis or not. No Arab should be under any illusion that it is a spent force, no matter what the currently fashionable discourse about ‘post-Zionism’ or ‘cultural Zionism’ may be. No region on earth should have been required to give this ideology houseroom, let alone the backward and ill-equipped Arab world. It is perhaps a measure of this backwardness that some Arabs, governments and people, believe that an accommodation with Zionism is possible. We owe a debt of gratitude to Benny Morris for disabusing them of such a notion. The Zionist project has no long-term future, the fact that it has got this far is remarkable but that holds out no guarantee of survival. As he himself says, “Destruction could be the end of this process.”

>>>The Jewish state could not have come into being without ethnic cleansing and, he asserts, more may be necessary in future to ensure its survival.<<<

Ghada Karmi is a woman.

But you guys are still, and ever shall be, a bunch of Jew haters, no matter whose opinions you frottage.

regards,
Loonar Watch.

this picture is on the same website you linked to and you still assumed it was a man who wrote it! Wow, you must have thought it was really good...

Loonar Watch

your fly's undone.

"At this point, BennyKillerMorrisCentres revelations are like a slap in the face..."

quote:
==================
Ghada Karmi is a woman.
==================

Where exactly did bkm(c) imply or state otherwise, Lunar?

The article is a verbatim copy of the report posted at the link bkm(c) provided--with not a single additional word or comment added. (the article also appears at counterpunch)

Therefore, all references to "he" would appear to be those of Ghada Karmi referring to Benny Morris.

Oh yes...your fly's undone.

====================================
March 1, 2004

A Cul-de-Sac of Bias
George Will and Anti-Semitism
By MIKE WHITNEY

In his most recent Washington Post article, political pundit, George Will levels the charge of anti-Semitism against left-leaning intellectuals. This accusation, which is entirely without merit, comes from a journalist, who, during his dubious career has eagerly attacked blacks, aliens, Muslims and, his favorite "whipping boy", liberals. His animus towards these groups is only partially disguised by the lofty rhetoric he employs to hide his own deep-seated prejudices.

Nevertheless, voices like Will's are becoming increasingly commonplace as the marketplace of ideas has been reduced to the shrill invective issuing from America's right wing think tanks.

Will defines these leftist intellectuals in a circuitous, Rumsfeld-like language, "people who think about ideas-about thinking-but also people who think they do." If the intention is sarcasm, it's lost in its oblique delivery.

Mr. Will continues, speaking in the voice of an alleged "leftist" anti-Semite, "We do not dislike Jews, we only dislike Zionists-although to live in Israel is to endorse the Zionist enterprise, and all Jews are implicated, as sympathizers, in the crime that is Israel."

This is a sweeping statement and one that lies at the heart of attacks on liberals as anti-Semites. Will deftly conflates anti-Semitism with resistance to the ILLEGAL [& UNETHICAL] OCCUPATION of the West Bank and Gaza. What is striking about Will's comment is that by his own logic both Colin Powell and George Bush anti-Semites, since they have both publicly advocated a two-state solution.

This is how pundits like Mr. Will back themselves into an intellectual cul-de-sac. They begin with assumptions that are entirely untenable and then they invoke linguistic trickery to hide their feeble argument. In reality, NO DEFENSE IS POSSIBLE. The issue was decided decades ago when the world body agreed "unanimously" that Israel should accept the 1967 borders as the legitimate boundaries of the Palestinian State.

That hasn't changed.

That won't change.

Regardless of the legions of op-ed writers like Will who are employed to defend the indefensible, and regardless of the benign-sounding language ("security barrier") used to mask the brutal reality on the ground; the facts remain the same. Israel is in VIOLATION of UN resolutions, continues to IGNORE the clear intentions of the world community, and shows NO WILLINGNESS to change. In fact, the VIOLENCE AND LAND THEFT has only increased under Sharon.

There's nothing "leftist" intellectuals can do about this, nor is their anything anti-Semitic about pointing it out. It simply demonstrates A COMMITMENT TO BASIC ***PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE***. Only the Israeli leadership can affect a substantive change. And, much like the American leadership, Israel's government is NOT reflective of the collective will of the people, 56% of who STILL WANT A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT. (Even after three years of unrelenting war and acrimony)

This proves that Will's opinion is in the MINORITY
EVEN IN ISRAEL.

As for the charge of anti-Semitism, it should be noted that Will's "selective indignation" was NEVER aroused when Muslims were being locked up wholesale in the US after 9-11. Nor has he been outspoken about the disgraceful and lawless two year detention of Muslims in Guantanamo Bay. He hasn't wasted ONE WORD on their account.

With George Will civil rights and personal liberties are only defended if you have THE RIGHT PEDIGREE; Muslims and liberals need not apply.

And, Will's distain for Muslims couldn't be more obvious. He opines on the "Arab world's addiction to political lunacy"; a DISMISSIVE AND RACIST comment that would NEVER BE DIRECTED AT JEWS, but CAN safely be levied at Muslims without fear of reprisal.

repeat:
==============================
a DISMISSIVE AND RACIST comment that would NEVER BE DIRECTED AT JEWS, but CAN safely be levied at Muslims without fear of reprisal.

["But who in the Arab world doesn't hate his neighbors, anyway" - ChrisFX]
================================

It's just another illustration of the intolerance and bias that dominate Will's writings. It's clear that if it wasn't for double standards, he'd have no standards at all.

Taking a broader view of the nagging problems of discrimination and bigotry, Mr. Will can be consoled in knowing that both are safely accounted for in their natural quarters, the right wing of the Republican Party.

Mike Whitney can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
=======================================

Shall we let this one ride Shane?

You're not going to apologize, are you "Shane"?

Haven't visited for a while, so I only found out about the error just now.

Pretty insignificant mistake. The real issue is that the BKMC are obsessive jew-haters pretending to be thoughtful critics of Israel. I think that point is easily proven by doing a search of this site for "bk", "artifex", "spentfx", and a few others.

That's the point. Not whether I read the BKMC's cross-posted articles closely enough.

And I *am* Shane.

shane lyons
LOONAR WATCH

bkmc - The Baby Killer Media Centre is:

Richard Wolstencroft
Alexander "Sandy" Mangum
Paul Ashton
John Fox
Igor Primiratz
and...

Shame on you Shane!

"Pretty insignificant mistake...That's the point. Not whether I read the BKMC's cross-posted articles closely enough." whimpers Shane.

After infusing you're initial attack on me with a truckload of pedantry I would have have thought the onus was on you, as a defender of Zion, to be meticulous with your work.

Not actually bothering to read the article I posted is about as sloppy as you can get.

Don't worry about issuing fucking report cards mate, you're the one who'll be repeating the year!

Remedial class for you young man!

Then there's the issue of your ad hominem attack. Rather than admire the quality of the post I made, you accuse me of obsessing on a single issue.

Specialisation is a feature of capitalist ecology Shane. I'm like a baleen whale swimming through the cesspool of the free market. As a specialist I filter the dross and present MIMsters with quality information on my areas of interest. You'd know that if you bothered to READ IT.

Also, if you and others are going to be critics of specialisation, what have you got to say about the phalanx of mutated spinifexi that roam these waters like carp, muddying the waters and poisoning the ecology of the MIM environment? That's a specialisation similar to pilot fish but it revolves around arselicking neo-conservatism. ( That's a green light to the collective if they wish to preserve the pristine MIM environment by culling this introduced pest, their natural habitat being the Herald-Sun)

Oh yeah, that's right, you're only interested in defending the racist western concoction of "Israel".

See, you're a specialist too.

I *am* bkm(c), bkm(c) I *am*.

Keep guessing Shane, it's fun to watch you floundering.

Pretty insignificant mistake.
- Loonar
===================

Yet you considered it pretty significant--even worthy of an abusive response--when you imagined that bkm(c) had misrepresented the gender of the author - a confabulation of yours having no relevance to the content presented in the article by Ghada Karmi.

...to get on his nerves. Couldn't have cared less really...

SL

Hi Shane, BKMC from BKMC here, I'm writing a story on sexual dysmorphia and I was just wondering if you'd like to make a comment on the conduct of your little mate spinifex/chris parsons/ zvinger/ed fusco/ lesbian and proud/ col farnsworth (oh fuck it, I haven't got all day, you know who I mean) etc. etc?

Yeah that's him! The racist, lying, homophobic, twisted, aggresive repressed, anal retentive twit who beats his wife (probably because he is a repressed homosexual in denial- not that there's anything wrong with with that - homosexuality I mean, a violent repressed phobia borne of denial is something else though...not healthy at all).

He's a good mate of yours isn't he? Didn't you invite him down to a Loonie Tunes love-in? Do you need the URL for a reminder?

Just quietly, do you share his revulsion with caring, sharing, socialism and all things P-I-L-G-E-R?

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/65247_comment.php#65325

PS Now Shane...Shaney...Shaney

"Just an attempt...
by Loonar Watch Wednesday April 07, 2004 at 07:52 PM

...to get on his nerves. Couldn't have cared less really...

SL"

Deeply hurtful mate, deeply hurtful. I thought you and Nessy cared. I thought we had something special.

Hi bkmc. Calm and rational as ever.

What I didn't care about was that (I thought) you mixed up someone's gender.

I care very deeply about everything you say and do...from a psychiatric perspective.

What do you mean by quisling?

Shane L

You seem to be avoiding the *****CONTENT*** again, lunar:

QUOTE:
=======================
..if you'd like to make a comment on THE CONDUCT OF YOUR LITTLE MATE spinifex/chris parsons/ zvinger/ed fusco/ lesbian and proud/ col farnsworth (oh fuck it, I haven't got all day, you know who I mean) etc. etc?

Yeah that's him! The racist, lying, homophobic, twisted, aggresive repressed, anal retentive twit who beats his wife...
=======================

What are Manly rates for, Shane?
What is a Code of Conduct for?
What is the PNAC War Against Arabs for?

...anything about Spinifex. Don't even know if "Spinny" is a boy or a girl.

But he/she isn't Chris Parsons...

I don't even care what this discussion's about. I'm just here to point out when you nob-ends spout neo-nazi opinions and when you start cross-posting articles from neo-fascist "news" sources.

SL
Loonar Watch.

quote:
=============
DON'T KNOW...
by Loonar Watch Friday April 09, 2004 at 07:45 PM

...anything about Spinifex. DON'T EVEN KNOW if "Spinny" is a boy or a girl.

But he/she ISN'T Chris Parsons...
==============

How is it that you can be so confident of this claim, "Shane"?

quote:
=============
DON'T KNOW...
by Loonar Watch Friday April 09, 2004 at 07:45 PM

...anything about Spinifex. DON'T EVEN KNOW if "Spinny" is a boy or a girl.

BUT he/she ISN'T Chris Parsons...
==============

How is it that you can be so confident of this know-lege, "Shane"?

Me - Thursday October 09, 2003 at 05:32 PM:
================================
can we have references, CHRIS PARSONS?
================================

Chris "spinifex" Parsons
Thursday October 09, 2003 at 06:24 PM:
================================
Dear stupid fascist stooges, YES: YOU CAN have references.
================================
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/55858_comment.php#66606

"Loonar Watch": Friday April 09, 2004 at 07:45 PM
==============
DON'T KNOW..anything about Spinifex. DON'T EVEN KNOW if "Spinny" is a boy or a girl.
BUT he/she ISN'T Chris Parsons... [!!!]
==============
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/64015_comment.php#66729

>> "can we have references, CHRIS PARSONS?"
======================================

"Dear stupid fascist stooges, YES: YOU CAN have references."

- "SPINIFEX" Parsons
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/55858_comment.php#66606

*******************************************
DON'T KNOW..anything about Spinifex. DON'T EVEN KNOW if "Spinny" is a boy or a girl. BUT he/she ISN'T Chris Parsons... [!!!]
*******************************************
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/64015_comment.php#66729

If anyone needs me to clarify anything....

"This war will not be like the war fought against Iraq a decade ago with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion."
- George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

========================================
Sharon Coup: U.S. Go-Ahead
By JAMES BENNET

Published: April 15, 2004
[...]

Mr. Bush's statements will doubtless appeal to Jewish and Christian supporters of Israel in the United States. They are also consistent with the policy tilt toward Israel evident since he entered office, refusing to meet with Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, whom he accused of being an obstacle to peace.

That tilt became more pronounced
after THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS in the United States,
WHICH LED MR. BUSH TO DECLARE A WAR ON TERRORISM
THAT HAS OFTEN SEEMED TO EMULATE ISRAEL'S MILITARY TACTICS,
AND TO MIRROR ITS FEARS.

Mr. Bush has rarely emphasized any role of Israeli settlements as an "obstacle to peace," the longstanding formulation in American policy. Noting that West Bank settlements doubled in size after the Oslo peace accords were signed, Palestinians point to them as evidence that Israel never intends to part with much of the West Bank.

Asked on Monday if settlements were an obstacle to his Middle East peace initiative, the road map, Mr. Bush spoke instead about terrorism. "The problem is, is that there's terrorists who will kill people in order to stop the process," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/international/middleeast/15MIDE.html?hp
========================================

"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
September 2000
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

to the Euphrates
by by the rivers of Babylon, remember Zion Friday April 16, 2004 at 03:31 AM

Wednesday, 14 April, 2004, 12:02 GMT 13:02 UK

Analysis: US 'emulates' Israeli tactics

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC defence correspondent

With sporadic fighting in Falluja and US forces moving into position outside Najaf, the Arab press is pointing to similarities between US military operations in Iraq and the tactics Israeli forces employ in the West Bank and Gaza. Such similarities are not coincidental.

========================================
Sharon Coup: U.S. Go-Ahead
By JAMES BENNET

Published: April 15, 2004
[...]

Mr. Bush's statements will doubtless appeal to Jewish and Christian supporters of Israel in the United States. They are also consistent with the policy tilt toward Israel evident since he entered office, refusing to meet with Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, whom he accused of being an obstacle to peace.

THAT TILT became more pronounced
after THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS in the United States,
WHICH LED MR. BUSH TO DECLARE A WAR ON TERRORISM
THAT HAS OFTEN SEEMED TO EMULATE ISRAEL'S MILITARY TACTICS,
AND TO MIRROR ITS FEARS.

Mr. Bush has rarely emphasized any role of Israeli settlements as an "obstacle to peace," the longstanding formulation in American policy. Noting that West Bank settlements doubled in size after the Oslo peace accords were signed, Palestinians point to them as evidence that Israel never intends to part with much of the West Bank.

Asked on Monday if settlements were an obstacle to his Middle East peace initiative, the road map, Mr. Bush spoke instead about terrorism. "The problem is, is that there's terrorists who will kill people in order to stop the process," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/international/middleeast/15MIDE.html?hp
========================================

...just got other things to do.

How do I know Spinifex isn't Chris Parsons?

I'll never tell...

Shane Lyons
LOONAR WATCH

[IMC-Editorial] RE: "honestreporting" correction [IMC-Editorial] RE: "honestreporting" correctionChris Parsons Chris.Parsons at manlycouncil.nsw.gov.au
Fri Nov 1 17:43:11 PST 2002