However, in the world scheme of things as they stand in Australia and around the world is that zionism is the name of the cause of most of the world's tragedies as they manifest in this day and age, April 2015.
Zionism and its origins seem to be a product of mid-nineteenth century British anti-semitism when it seem that Christians in Britain reasoned that Jerusalem was a good place to develop for all Jews to be able to go and live in, and Britain would be able to address it's problem of having Jews living and working in Britain. Anti-semitism has been so widespread for so long that many around the world would support getting rid of Jews and getting them centred in one area well away from where "civilised" Christians lived.
However zionism turned into the hydra - cut off one head and more will appear to replace just the one removed.
The 21st century zionist development is now one where one might well say that zionism is a world conspiracy and many countries are complicit in its propagation.
This is just the beginning of a very long saga.
Before going any further I must make the point that any viewpoint I put together in this item is on the understanding that I am an atheist and do not accept any of the issues from the bible unless they have been accurately historically authenticated. Other items included in this blog may well be from people with different views, but the stories are widespread and from varied sources, so I hope it all ends up with some sort of historical background to zionism, judaism, anti-semitism and related issues including Palestine and apartheid Israel - as a South African born and bred who lived in apartheid South Africa for 50 years before coming to live in apartheid Australia where I have now lived for 33 years, I know apartheid when I see it!
The item from the Washington Institute is dated 2007 and therefore does not include the war crimes and genocides being perpetrated on the Palestinians in the intervening years up to and including 2015 - these are of course ongoing and still supported by much of the world!
By Hanna Braun, London
First Published: September 2001: In order to understand the circumstances that led to the birth of Zionism I shall sketch an outline of the history of Judaism and the Jews.
Since biblical times Jewish communities lived in Arab lands, in Persia, India, East and North Africa and indeed in Palestine. With the destruction of the Temple and the final fall of their state in 70 AD many Jews were taken out of Judea and hence to Rome and the Diaspora. Many poorer Judeans, however (such as subsistence farmers), were able to stay in Palestine. (Some of them had converted to Christianity and were one of the earliest Christian groups.) Modern research suggests that when Islam arrived in the area in 633 AD many of these Jews converted and that they form a considerable part of today's Palestinians. These various communities were on the whole well integrated into their respective societies and did not experience the persecutions that later became so prevalent in Europe. In Palestine, for instance, Muslims repeatedly protected their Jewish neighbours from marauding crusaders; in one instance at least, Jews fought alongside Muslims to try and prevent crusaders from landing at Haifa's port, and Salah al-Dinl-din, after re-conquering Jerusalem from the crusaders, invited the Jews back into the city.
The Jews in Spain under Moorish rule flourished and experienced a renaissance mirroring that of the great Islamic civilisation and culture at the time. As Christianity spread from the north of Spain, Jews were again protected by Muslim rulers until the fall of Granada - the last Moorish kingdom to pass into Christian hands - when both Jews and Muslims were expelled at the end of the 15th century (Jews in 1492 and Muslims 10 years later).
Most of the Jews from the Iberian peninsula settled in North Africa and the lands under Ottoman rule, including Palestine, and continued their peaceful co-existence with Muslims in those countries. The bulk of Portuguese "converted" Jews (these were forced conversions and such Jews were called Marranos, i.e. pigs, by Jews who had fled or who preferred to die for their faith) settled in Amsterdam, presumably because they had long established trading connections in that city. In 1655 they were invited to Britain by Oliver Cromwell. Most of them were glad to resettle since at the time the Netherlands had just freed itself from the Spanish yoke and the shadow of the dreaded inquisition was still uncomfortably close.
The fate of Jewry in European countries was very different: persecutions, killings and burnings were widespread and Jews were forced to live in closed ghettos, particularly in the Russian Empire, where they were confined to the "Pale of Jewish" (?) settlement, an area which consisted of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Byelarus or White Russia. Anyone who wished to move outside these borders needed special permission. However, by the mid-19th century some of the more progressive Jewish communities had established themselves in the big cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev.
In central and western Europe religious tolerance, followed by the granting of full citizen rights and emancipation, came relatively early, in the wake of general liberalization. However, Russian rulers remained opposed to any liberalization, including religious tolerance and emancipation, and as late as 1881 Tsar Alexander the third initiated a series of particularly vicious pogroms to divert unrest amongst the population, at a time when Britain, for instance, boasted of a Jewish prime minister.
Total segregation was not always imposed from outside, however; frequently it was enforced from within by highly authoritarian rabbis who exercised absolute power over their congregations, often including the right to life and the imposition of the death penalty. Thus it was a major decision for anyone to leave these congregations and to look for a broader education (known as "enlightenment"). In eastern Europe enlightenment was a relatively late phenomenon and it found expression initially in the mid-19th century, in a revival of Hebrew language and literature and in the modern idea of Jews seeing themselves as a people.
This distinction between a people and a religion was of course disapproved of by the Orthodox Jews, who still today regard Hebrew as a sacred language to be used solely for prayers and religious studies and the Jewish people and religion as indivisible. The concept of the Jews as people closely mirrored the relatively new European idea of a homogeneous nation state. An exception to this was the socialist "Bund" organisation whose members rejected nationalism and later Zionism.
Some of these early proto-Zionists, calling themselves "Hovevei Zion" (Lovers of Zion), started the first settlements in Palestine in the 1870's, and a larger number of immigrants followed after the Russian pogroms of 1881-82. These settlers distinguished themselves by their deliberate segregation from the indigenous population and their contempt for local customs and traditions. This naturally aroused suspicion and hostility in the locals. This exclusivity was largely based on a sense of superiority common to Europeans of the time, who believed they were the only advanced and truly civilised society and in true colonial fashion looked down on "natives" or ignored them altogether. However, beyond that there was also a particular sense of superiority of Jews towards all non-Jews. This belief in innate Jewish superiority had a long tradition in religious Jewish thinking, central to which was the notion of the Jews as God's chosen people. Moshe Ben Maimon (Maimonides) had been an exponent of this theory and quite often thinkers with a more humane outlook, e.g. Spinoza, were excommunicated. The accepted thinking in the religious communities was that Jews must on no account mix with gentiles for fear of being contaminated and corrupted by them. This notion was so deeply ingrained that it quite possibly still affected, albeit subconsciously, those Jews who had left the townships and had become educated and enlightened. Thus the early settlers from eastern Europe transferred the "Stettl" (townlet) mentality of segregation to Palestine, with the added belief in the nobility of manual labour and in particular soil cultivation. In this they had been influenced by Tolstoy and his writings.
The "father" of political Zionism, Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), came from a totally different perspective. Dr. Herzl was a Viennese, emancipated, secular journalist who was sent by his editor to Paris in 1894 to cover the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus had been a captain in the French Army who was falsely accused and convicted of treason (although he was acquitted and completely cleared some years later). The case brought to light the strength of a strong streak of anti-Semitism prevalent in the upper echelons of the French Army and in the French press, with profound repercussions in emancipated Jewish circles. Herzl himself despaired of the whole idea of emancipation and integration and felt that the only solution to anti-Semitism lay in a Jewish Homeland. To that end he approached various diplomats and notables, including the Ottoman Sultan, but mainly European rulers, the great colonial powers of the time, and was rewarded for his efforts by being offered Argentina or Uganda by the British as possible Jewish Homelands.
Herzl would have been quite happy with either of these countries, but when the first Zionist Congress was convened in Basle in 1897, he came up against Eastern European Jewry, by far the greatest majority of participants, who, although broadly emancipated and enlightened, would not accept any homeland other than the land of Zion. Not only had some of them already settled in Palestine, there were strong remnants of the religious/sentimental notion of a pilgrimage and possibly burial in the Holy Land. The last toast in the Passover ceremony is "Next year in Jerusalem"; although this was a religious rather than a national aspiration, it was common amongst the Orthodox communities to purchase a handful of soil purporting to come from the Holy Land to be placed under the deceased's head. (Orthodox Jews at that time completely rejected any Jewish political movement and did not attend the congress.)
Herzl was quick to realise that unless he accepted the "Land of Zion", i.e. Palestinian option, he would have hardly any adherents. Thus the Zionist movement started with a small section of Jewish society who saw the solution to anti-Semitism in a return to its "roots" and in a renewal of a Jewish people in the land of their ancestors. In his famous book "Der Judenstaat" (The State of the Jews) Herzl wrote that the Jews and their state will constitute "a rampart of Europe against Asia, of civilisation against barbarism," and again regarding the local population, "We shall endeavour to encourage the poverty-stricken population to cross the border by securing work for it in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried out prudently and discreetly--Let (the landowners) sell us their land at exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them."
Max Nordau, an early Zionist, visited Palestine and was so horrified that the country was already populated that he burst out in front of Herzl: "But we are committing a grave injustice!" Some years later, in 1913, a prominent Zionist thinker and writer, Ahad Ha'am (one of the people), wrote: "What are our brothers doing? They were slaves in the land of their exile. Suddenly they found themselves faced with boundless freedom ... and they behave in a hostile and cruel manner towards the Arabs, trampling on their rights without the least justification ... even bragging about this behaviour." But the dismay of Nordau and others at the injustices to, and total lack of recognition of, the indigenous population was silenced and indeed edited out of Jewish history and other books, as was some of Herzl's writing. The Zionist slogan of "a land without people for a people without land" prevailed and within a matter of a few years the immigrants became "sons of the land" (Bnei Ha'aretz), whereas the inhabitants became the aliens and foreigners.
Following renewed efforts and lobbying after Herzl's death, the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which granted Zionists a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, set the official seal of approval on their aspirations. Protests and representations by local Arab leaders were brushed aside. Lord Balfour wrote in 1919: "In Palestine, we do not even propose to consult the inhabitants of the country. (Zionism's) immediate needs and hopes for the future are much more important than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who presently inhabit Palestine."
Settlements grew slowly for a long time, but the systematic buying up of land, frequently from absentee landlords, which left tenant farmers homeless, contributed to the first Palestinian uprising in 1921-22 and other outbursts of hostilities. The worst was a massacre of some 65 Jews in Hebron in 1929, after orthodox Jews from Eastern Europe had founded a "Yeshiva" (a religious study centre) in the town and had aroused the suspicions and hostility of the indigenous population, who prior to this had lived in peace and harmony for hundreds of years with their non-European Jewish neighbours. Another contributing factor to growing Arab hostility was the Zionists' policy of not employing Arabs or buying their produce.
For many years Zionism remained a minority movement of mainly Eastern European Jews, excluding the whole religious establishment, most central and western European Jews and, last but not least, all non-European Jews who, unbeknown to Herzl and his co-founders, form the majority of us. These communities were ignored by early Zionists, who had little interest in their aspirations until the establishment of the state of Israel after the "independence" war of 1948-9. After this the new state unleashed a massive propaganda campaign to induce the Sephardi and Oriental Jews to "ascend" to the land of their ancestors, mainly for demographic reasons--in 1948 only about one third of the population and about 6% of the land were Jews or in Jewish hands--but also as cannon fodder. This also happened in the 1980's with the Jews of Ethiopia. However, upon arrival these non-European newcomers were treated very much as inferior second-class citizens. This European dominance is still prevalent in modern Israel where, for example, the national anthem speaks about Jewish longing for the East towards Zion, whereas for many of the non-European communities Palestine lies to the West. Sadly, this has led to some groups of Sephardi (non-European) or Oriental Jews becoming extreme right-wing chauvinists, so as to "prove" their credentials.
Immigration ("Aliyah"--ascent in Zionist parlance) took off in seriously large numbers with the rise of Hitler, who initially declared himself quite sympathetic to Zionism, as had other right-wing anti-Semites before him. New Jewish settlements mushroomed, leading to a bitter and prolonged Palestinian uprising from 1936 till 1939, when it was crushed by the British mandatory powers. But it was not until the end of the 2nd World War and the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 that Zionism started to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Jewish society. Since that time we have witnessed an increasing and deliberate confluence of Judaism and Zionism, to the extent that today it is widely regarded as treason and self-hate for a Jew to criticise the state, let alone Zionism.
In my view, this development was almost inevitable given the preconception of an exclusive Jewish state. Could we realistically conceive of a France purely for the French? England only for the English? (Unless, of course we belong to the National Front or similar groups.) In a post-colonial world the notion is completely unacceptable and ridiculous. How then, can Israel and the majority of its citizens justify their claim and yet remain convinced that theirs is a modern, democratic society? The last resort, when all logical justifications fail, is that God has promised the land to his people, namely us. (This rather begs the question of where this leaves a non-believing Jew.) I have found over the years, and particularly in the last 30 or so years, that the numbers of young people wearing the skullcap and generally observing at least some of the religious laws has increased dramatically, and I believe this is no coincidence.
The religious establishment has gone along with the general flow and has, indeed, profited from it. Since the late 50's there has also been a notable and frightening change in the Orthodox community, which led to the establishment in 1974 of the "Gush Emunim" (the block of the faithful), initiated by Rabbi Tsvi Yehuda Kook the younger. This is the fundamentalist movement which believes in accepting the state of Israel and striving to make it entirely and exclusively Jewish. Prior to this time Orthodox Jewry played no important role in politics except in pressuring successive governments to introduce more Jewish religious regulations into state law. The ultra-orthodox group "Neturei Karta" (the landless) has never recognised the state of Israel, and its members are exempt from army service.
Although Gush Emunim is small in numbers, it wields disproportionate influence since successive Israeli governments covertly (and sometimes almost overtly) have endorsed its aspirations. Gush Emunim's followers have been allocated to special army units so as to enable them to observe Jewish religious laws and rituals in every detail (although even in the regular army only Kosher food is served and the Sabbath is observed as far as possible). These units have a reputation as dedicated, crack troops. What is less well known but silently condoned is their refusal to give medical aid or even drive wounded persons to the hospital on the Sabbath unless they are Jews.
In my view this is an extremely short-sighted and dangerous road, leading in the end to a fundamentalist theocracy much like that of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fundamentalists' belief is that the Messianic age is already upon us and that any obstacles to a total elimination of any non-Jews in the promised land, i.e. the whole of what was Palestine including the Holy Mount, is God's punishment for sinful Jews, namely all those who are westernised and secular. This fully exonerates, and indeed sanctifies, a man like Baruch Goldstein who murdered 29 Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi mosque, as well as the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Like the Hamas movement, which was initially encouraged by Israel's secret services, this is another genie which, having been let out of the bottle, can no longer be controlled.
It seems a bitter irony that a movement that initially saw itself as progressive, liberal and secular should find itself in an alliance with, and held to ransom by, the most illiberal reactionary forces. In my view this was inevitable from its inception although the founders, and most of us (including even people like myself, growing up in Palestine in the thirties), did not foresee this and certainly would not have wished it.
Nowadays the deliberate blurring of the distinction between Zionism and Judaism, which includes a rewriting of ancient as well as modern history, is exploited to stifle any criticism of Israel's policies and actions, however extreme and inhuman they may be. This, incidentally, also plays directly into anti-Semitic prejudices by equating Israeli arrogance, brutality and complete denial of basic human rights to non-Jews with general Jewish characteristics.
Zionism has now assumed the all-embracing mantle of righteousness. It claims to represent and to speak for all Jews and has adopted the slogan of "my country right or wrong." The West tolerates Israel's continuous breaches of human rights--violations that it would not tolerate if perpetrated by any other country. Few Western states and not many Jews dare take a stand against Israel, particularly as many of the former still feel a sense of unease and guilt about the holocaust which Zionist Jews inside and outside Israel have exploited in what to me seems an almost obscene manner. In the USA, the Jewish Zionist lobby is still strong enough to keep successive governments on board. Moreover, the USA regards Israel as an important strategic ally in its fight against Middle Eastern "rogue" states which have supplanted the Soviet Union as the great satanic enemy of the free world.
I fear that unless and until Israel is judged by the same criteria as other modern states, this is unlikely to change. It is the duty of all Jews with a sense of justice and a conscience to speak out against the falsifications of history by the Zionist lobby, and the dangerous misconceptions it has led the West to accept.
Hanna Braun, London, September 2001
Hanna Braun is a retired lecturer, living in London. She is a former Israeli, having emigrated to Palestine as a child in 1937 to escape Nazi Germany -- her grandmother later died in the Terezin ghetto. She was in the Haganah in 1948 but left Israel in 1958 for Britain, after having become disillusioned with the Israeli government. She is a signatory of The RETURN Statement Against the Israeli Law of Return - For the Palestinian Right to Return .
Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion
Israel Shahak, Fundamental Judaism in Israel
Ilan Halevi, A History of the Jews, Ancient and Modern
Michael Prior (ed.), Western Scholarship and the History of Palestine
|Please read our Comment Policy before posting - We ask readers to play a proactive role and click the "Report link [at the base of each comment] when in your opinion, comments cross the line and become purely offensive, racist or disrespectful to others.|
Note that the author was an Israeli terrorist (from 1948 to 1958) till the blood got too much for her.
"So, what did the Muslims do for the Jews?''
By David J Wasserstein, May 24, 2012
''Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth. The argument for it is double. First, in 570 CE, when the Prophet Mohammad was born, the Jews and Judaism were on the way to oblivion. And second, the coming of Islam saved them, providing a new context in which they not only survived, but flourished, laying foundations for subsequent Jewish cultural prosperity - also in Christendom - through the medieval period into the modern world.''
See Shlomo's recent interviews -- from the 14 minute mark --
The torah and talmud are the core of a religion which teaches intolerance, racism, hatred of all others and supremacy. It is a religion which fosters division. It should be banned world wide.
The old testament is a collection of fiction, falacy, forgery and outright lie. Archaeology doe NOT support the claims of the bible. In a word it NEVER HAPPENED. The exodus, the wandering, the parting the red sea....all just fables and lies.
Yet the world continues in their blind submission to this falacy. And the current inhabitants of the land formerly known as Palestine have no historical connection with that land whatsoever. They practice genocide of the native population on a daily basis - exactly what the europeans did to the Native Americans of North and South America. Supplant is the word. Israel has supplanted PALESTINE illegally and bases its existence on a book of lies.
1. the rulers' morality and minds appear to be marked by greater mental and moral schizophrenia than the morality and mentality of the members of the ruled population.
2. The ruling ,groups contain a larger proportion of the extreme mental types of the gifted and the mentally sick than the rank and file of the ruled populations...the ruling groups are more talented intellectually and more deranged mentally than the ruled population... the ruling strata have a larger proportion of dominating, aggressive, highly selfish, bold and adventurous persons, men harsh and insensitive to other human beings, hypocrites and liars, and cynical manipulators of human relationships, than the strata of the ruled populations.
3. The moral behaviour of ruling groups tends to be more criminal and sub-moral than that of the ruled strata of the same society.
4. The greater, more absolute, and coercive the power of rulers, political leaders, and big executives of business, labour and other organizations, and the less freely this power is approved by the ruled population, the more corrupt and criminal such ruling groups and executives tend to be.
MORAL DUALISM OF RULING ACTIVITIES
1. A considerable part of the criminalizing functions of rulers is represented by their violent, destructive and murderous activities - activities which characterize much of the total' behaviour of governments. War activity can serve as an example of this kind of occupational function; the planning, preparing for, and carrying on of war has always been practically the main preoccupation of rulers. Stripped of its propaganda, war activity is the most terrible form of organized mass-murder supplemented with other acts of human bestiality, lust, and sadistic-masochistic destructiveness. No war activity can be carried on without throwing to the wind, at least temporarily, all the moral imperatives. No man preoccupied with war activities for years and years, can escape the demoralizing and criminalizing effects of this murderous business.
Other murderous activities of rulers deaden their moral sensitivity, and harden their souls and hearts towards the lives and values of human beings. Directly and retroactively these activities contribute to demoralization and criminalization of rulers.
The Washington Institute: Improving the Quality of U.S. Middle East Policy
On November 2, 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, a classified statement of support for establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Britain was an unlikely sponsor of the Zionist initiative, considering that it was the first European country to expel its Jewish population in 1290, and that it did not grant full political emancipation to Jews until 1871. At the beginning of the twentieth century, however, British evangelicals began supporting the idea of a Jewish homeland because the "second coming" could occur only after the Jews had returned to the Holy Land. The idea came under serious government consideration during World War I because of exaggerated ideas about Jewish influence in Western societies (including the United States) and the availability of captured Ottoman territory (the British seizure of Jerusalem on December 9, 1917, greatly bolstered this support).
Winston Churchill's policies with regard to the Balfour Declaration provide a good starting point from which to understand British policy in the Middle East. Before World War I, he was drawn to the romantic notion of a Jewish restoration to the Holy Land. As the war came to an end, however, he opposed partitioning the Ottoman Empire into European mandates, viewing it as a means of countering the rising power of Soviet Russia even in defeat. And in 1921, using his authority as secretary of state for the colonies, he designated three-fourths of Palestine as a kingdom for Abdullah, the Hashemite prince who had fought alongside T. E. Lawrence -- who Churchill greatly admired.
When Churchill traveled to Cairo that year to formalize an agreement, however, he changed his favorable opinion of the Arabs and came to regard the Jewish people as collaborators in the mission to civilize the world. At that time, he became an avid Zionist and remained one for the rest of his life.
For much of the 1930s, subsequent British administrations discouraged Jewish emigration to Palestine, and Churchill himself was preoccupied with the Nazis, Italy's political alignment, and the deterioration of the British Empire. Nevertheless, he supported Zionism and equated appeasing the Arabs in Palestine with the appeasement of Hitler. In 1940, as prime minister, he encouraged Jewish emigration to Palestine and armed Jewish groups to defend themselves against Arab fighters. He worked diligently on a postwar settlement that would create a Jewish state by force, if necessary, but failed because of the opposition of the Saudi king and President Franklin Roosevelt. Once Churchill left office in 1945, the British government reverted to a strongly anti-Zionist, pro-Arab stance, despite its shared socialist orientation with Zionism.
After Israel's war of independence, Churchill announced that the country's creation was a great event in world history. Upon reassuming power in 1951, he tried to bring British foreign policy more in line with supporting the interests of the new Jewish state.
According to a 2005 poll conducted by the Daily Telegraph, British citizens view Israel as one of the countries most threatening to world peace, one of the least desirable places to visit or live, and -- in what is a truly remarkable evaluation -- one of the world's least democratic states. Even Britain's largest university teachers' union recently voted to boycott relations with Israeli universities. Given these trends, one has to wonder why both the intellectual elite and the broader English population have such deeply entrenched anti-Israeli views.
One reason could be the ninety-year decline of modern British Christianity, a religious strand sympathetic to Zionism. Another possible reason is the slant of British media. The BBC, which plays an extraordinary role in shaping British elite and popular opinion, is profoundly anti-Zionist. At times, BBC coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes the network appear to be an apologist for Palestinian suicide bombers. Sympathy for Israel certainly declined after 1967, when the image of persecuted Jews gave way to the image of persecuting Israelis. The conflicts in 1973 and 1982 further affected British public opinion, but the Lebanon war in 2006 did more than any previous development to tilt British opinion in favor of the Palestinians and against Israel.
Despite increasingly vehement anti-Zionist sentiment at home, British policy in the Middle East has not changed to reflect public opinion. At the political level, despite clear changes in the increasingly anti-Zionist Labour government, Britain remains undeniably pro-Jewish. Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and now Gordon Brown have been steadfastly supportive of Israel. But in any democratic government, policy will almost always be aligned with public opinion in the long run. Paradoxically enough, the British public -- which has tended to support the Palestinians following past suicide attacks against Israelis -- has become less hostile toward Israel amid the recent decrease in such attacks.
Gordon Brown is personally pro-Jewish, religious, and committed to working with the United States and Israel. Despite a strong first three months in office, however, his recent apparent weakness -- revealed when he retracted his decision to hold early elections when it appeared his party would not prevail -- has cost him public support. Brown is now prey to the media and public opinion, while Blair's continued presence as a public figure limits his options.
In the 1960s, many English students traveled to Israel to volunteer at kibbutzim. Today, their counterparts are more likely to volunteer for Palestinian causes. Indeed, there has been a clear shift away from the Britain that backed the Balfour Declaration to a Britain that is wary of Zionism.
Prime Minister Brown is considered a leader who acts on opinion polls, not convictions.
Nevertheless, he has publicly declared that Israel will always be Britain's ally, and he expressed revulsion at the academic boycott of Israeli universities. At the same time, the website of the British Foreign Office contains no significant mention of the Balfour Declaration, and very little mention of Arthur James Balfour himself. The prime minister's website, however, has a whole page on Balfour.
Zionism has become a dirty word in Britain. No member of the British royal family has ever officially visited Israel. British relations with Israel have never been good, and now are uncomfortable. And there is a widespread perception among Britons that it is possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic. Clearly, the relationship between Britain and Zionism remains, at best, ambiguous.
The Real Nuclear Threat in the Middle EastTo get a sense of how badly the regime in Iran wants sanctions relief for the Iranian people, you have to do more than contemplate the major concessions it has made in negotiations with the United States and the rest of the P5+1. Not only is Iran willing to dismantle a major part of its peaceful civilian nuclear program, to submit to the most intrusive inspects, to redesign a reactor, to eliminate two-thirds of its centrifuges, to get rid of much of its enriched uranium, and to limit nuclear research — it must do all this while being harangued by the nuclear monopolist of the Middle East — Israel — which remains, unlike Iran, a nonsigner of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and faces no inspections or limits on its production of nuclear weapons.
This is something out of Alice in Wonderland. The Islamic Republic of Iran, born in 1979, has not attacked another country. (With U.S. help, Iraq attacked Iran in 1980.) In contrast, Israel has attacked its Arab neighbors several times its founding, including two devastating invasions and a long occupation of Lebanon, not to mention repeated onslaughts in the Gaza Strip and the military occupation of the West Bank. Israel has also repeatedly threatened war against Iran and engaged in covert and proxy warfare, including the assassination of scientists. Even with Iran progressing toward a nuclear agreement, Israel (like the United States) continues to threaten Iran.
Yet Iran is universally cast as the villain (with scant evidence) and Israel the vulnerable victim.
You’d never know that Iran favors turning the Middle East into a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone (a nuclear-weapons-free zone was first proposed by the U.S.-allied shah of Iran and Egypt in 1974), and beyond that, Iran over a decade ago offered a “grand bargain” that contained provisions to reassure the world about its nuclear program and an offer to recognize Israel, specifically, acceptance of the Arab League’s 2002 peace initiative. The George W. Bush administration rebuffed Iran.
At the last NPT review conference in 2010, Iran renewed its support for the zone, the BBC reported at the time: “Tehran supports the ‘immediate and unconditional’ implementation of the 1995 resolution [to create the zone], declares the [then] president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
The United States and Israel claim in principle to support having the Middle East free of nuclear weapons — but not just yet. The Israeli government said in 2010 that implementation of the principle could occur “only after peace agreements with all the countries in the region.” ABC News quoted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as saying that Israel might sign the NPT “if the Middle East one day advances to a messianic age where the lion lies down with the lambs.”
That is classic Netanyahu demagoguery. As noted, the Arab League in 2002 — and again in 2007 — offered to recognize Israel if it accepted a Palestinian state in the occupied territories and arrived at a “just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.” At that point the Arab countries would “consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region”; i.e., they would “establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.”
Thus Netanyahu’s position is a sham. He could have peace treaties in short order if he wanted to. But, as he said before the recent elections, he will never allow the Palestinians to have their own country.
For its part, the United States “broadly agrees with Israel that conditions for a nuclear-weapons-free-zone do not yet exist in the Middle East,” the BBC reported. In other words, the Obama administration slavishly takes the Israel-AIPAC line.
While politicians and pundits lose sleep over an Iranian nuclear-weapons program that does not exist — are they having nightmares of the United States being deterred by Iran? — they support Israel, the nuclear power that brutalizes a captive population, attacks its neighbors, threatens war against Iran, and refuses to talk peace with willing partners.
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog “Free Association” and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society.
Shlomo Sand Books: The Invention of the Jewish People
The Invention of the Land of Israel
How I stopped being a Jew
There is still a great deal more that has to be filled in in this story of disaster in Palestine and the middle east, but the end needs to be about the subject matter of the heading: Jake Lynch, Nick Riemer, University of Sydney, Zionism.
Not that long ago there were conspiracy theorists who, combined with their anti-semitism, declared the Jews had taken over the world or were busy taking over the world, and discussions along those lines.
What has happened with zionists around the world?
Universities - once those great seats of learning and open thought processes - now sack academics who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and do their best to provide information to the world at large as to what apartheid zionist Israel is doing to cause the genocide of the Palestinians. Campaigns are launched to silence the voices of dissent and anybody who breaks ranks is anti-semitic and worse - such as self-hating Jews and other choice epithets. "Universities" in countries all over the world include zionist controls in France, Spain, UK, USA, Australia, South Africa and many others. Insidious zionist propaganda suggests that supporters of a free Palestine are anti-semitic and placing Jews around the world at risk of verbal and physical abuse and worse. This pernicious campaign is waged from Israel with the idea that all Jews around the world will be intimidated and leave theeir country of domicile and move to Israel!!
All of this is part of the zionist activities around the world supported by so many of our governments whose ultimate goals themselves re to get rid of the Jews and pack them off to Israel, whether they want to or not.
World powers, large and small, have pinned their colours to the mast of zionism and Israel and to say otherwise is being the traitor and must be dealt with accordingly.
Enter Jake Lynch and Nick Riemer - some of the Australians caught in the maelstrom of zionist politics.
What has been happening with them - and others of their persuasions and beliefs - shows the forces at play by zionists - Jewish, Christian and other denominations - who believe that Israel - the "only democracy in the middle east" - must exist as a homeland for all Jews throughout the world. Anti-semitism - propagated and assisted and spouted by Israeli governments - will assist Jews to move to Israel permanently as life becomes untenable in their homelands.
The main problem with this is that half the world's very small Jewish population of about 13 million stays where it is in countries scattered around the globe and do NOT want to move to Israel! My belief continues to be that the British christians who started in all in the mid-19th century saw it as a way to solve the Jewish question by getting them out of Britain and Europe permanently and into Palestine which really did not belong to any of them to dispose of as they wished - but no matter, they did it anyway!
Jake Lynch and Nick Riemer, amongst many hundreds of others, have got in the way - free Palestine and human rights for all in middle eastern and other countries - not to be considered under any circumstances - it is all anti-semitism writ large!