[Marxism] Re: Most Zionists are non-Jews
brian_shannon at verizon.net
Mon Aug 7 08:42:29 MDT 2006
On Aug 7, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Nestor Gorojovsky wrote:
> The kernel of Zionism is the idea that Jews the world over have a
> special right to live in, be defended by, get representation from,
> and support unquestioningly the State of Israel. Most people who
> believe this are non-Jewish.
> Thus, there are more non-Jewish Zionists than Jewish Zionists.
> This is not a moot point. Whether someone is affiliated with some
> Zionist organization or not (in this case, yes, it is usually Jews
> who are involved -but not always!) the actual Zionist Party
> overlaps with the large Imperialist Party the globe over. Most
> pointedly, with the US Imperialist Party in the US of A.
You are only partially correct in describing this as the "kernel of
Zionism". And your description is so broad as to be an inch deep and
a mile wide as it relates to non-Jews. And the devotion of "most
people who believe this are non-Jewish" to this idea has nothing in
common with Jewish Zionists who advocate Zionism as the religious/
secular solution to the "Jewish question."
"Special right" is vague and stretches and expands from the strict
tenets of Zionism (including encouraging Jews to move to Israel,
which I don't think would be included even under your concept of
"special right") to many threads including protection of Europeans,
racism against Arabs, and throwing up one's hands at the problem.
For some Jews, this became an important issue within the U.S. SWP
during the 1967 and 1973 wars. It did not present a problem for any
non-Jewish members. This is a small sample, of course, but it does
point up the emotional and moral distinction that divides the
thinking of Jews from non-Jews regarding the "depth" of this issue,
even among those who had a common secular outlook on the world.
I spent my two years obligatory military service at Ft. Lee, Virginia
from 1957 to 1959. I came across two books about the 1948 war and
post-war period in the post library. One was A Soldier With The Arabs
by J.B. Glubb. The other, whose title now escapes me, was by a U.N.
observer who was assigned to monitor the border of Israel. He came
there with a general outlook in favor of the Zionist immigrants, but
ended up sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
Although I favored the Israeli side when I started my reading, I was
sympathetic to the Palestinians at the end. My point is that
convincing non-Jews of the inherent justice of the Palestinian cause
is not that difficult. (Twenty years later, I learned that my mother
was born a Hungarian Jew; but that's another story.)
Most of the Zionist non-Jews defend Israel because they don't know
what other solution is possible, not because of any religious belief
in a "special right." Yes, the religious right in the United States
has picked up on this as part of Christianity's final solution known
as Armageddon. So perhaps it is two inches deep instead of one inch,
but most of their argument is entirely intellectual and repeated by
rote. It is not a deep feeling even among the Christian Right. It is
just another excrescence of their craziness.
The more important "special right" that you describe is the right of
citizens (white) of imperialist countries to do what they want to do
and live where they want to live.
This has become more intense because of the Holocaust. So there is a
great deal of sympathy for this "solution" to Europeans own prejudice
against Jews. Non-Jewish Europeans had the guilt of what happened on
their souls and Americans have had the same sentiment drummed into
them by the U.S. government and the Zionist lobbies, most of which
became Zionized during WWII and in the immediate postwar period.
So I think that when we refer to Zionism, it is better to restrict it
to its historic origin and WWII and post-war expansion among the
Jewish immigrants to Israel. It we let it become all those who
protect the "special right," the word becomes too vague as to be usable.
It is also important not to put too many people into the enemy camp.
For example, white Americans are racists from little to a hell of a
lot. Yet we do not want to call everyone a racist who accepts or
overlooks some racist aspects in their psychological or political
makeup. A person who follows a racist policy, whether through
ignorance or opportunism, is not necessarily a "racist." Even face-to-
face with a racist, we would point out that their policy was racist,
not that they were. The "R" word can be saved for those who openly
acknowledge their own prejudice.
Likewise, the Z word. There are Zionists, Zionist policies, defenders
of the Zionist state, defenders of our "democratic" ally Israel,
defenders of Israel, defenders of Israelis (against Muslims), etc, etc.
More information about the Marxism