Miko Peled - The General's Son

(thanks to F. for drawing my attention to this video. VS)

"Democracy" - Israeli style

Max Blumenthal interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democray Now (MUST SEE!)

Max Blumenthal describes to Amy Goodman the nationalistic, xenophobic and even overtly racist fervor which is taking over the general public in Israel



PS: special note to any the Jew-hater out there who might come across my blog:

Uri Avnery, an 86 year old Israeli Jew and peace activist is beaten up by Israeli thugs, Max Blumenthal, an American Jew, is probably risking his life by his reporting about the Israeli mobs, Amy Goodman, an American Jew, is reporting this news which nobody else in the media reports, and Emily Henochowicz, a dual US-Israeli citizen, lost her left eye after being shot during a protest in the West Bank last week. What kind of self-sacrifice and suffering on the part of anti-Zionist Jews would it take to open the eyes of all the Jew-haters out there that this is not about ethnicity, that the hatred of Jews as a group is both morally wrong and fundamentally ignorant and stupid?! Oh and by the way - how much have any and all the wannabe Neo-Nazis out there done to help the Palestinians? Nothing, of course.

As I will never cease to repeat: there is no such thing as in intelligent racist.

The Saker

Zionist Pioneer Renounces Zionism

By Helena Cobban From World View News Service

I've never met Dov Yermiya, a Jewish Israeli peace activist who is now 94 years old. But I read of course the book he published in 1983 in which he wrote with anguish about the torture and other gross mistreatment of civilians he witnessed directly during Israel's invasion of Lebanon the year before.

I have it in my hand now.

I just learned, in this open letter published today by Uri Avnery, that Yermiya, recently renounced the ideology and practice of Zionism with these stirring words:

I, a 95 year old Sabra (native born Israeli Jew), who has plowed its fields, planted trees, built a house and fathered sons, grandsons and great-grandsons, and also shed his blood in the battle for the founding of the State of Israel,

Declare herewith that I renounce my belief in the Zionism which has failed, that I shall not be loyal to the Jewish fascist state and its mad visions, that I shall not sing anymore its nationalist anthem, that I shall stand at attention only on the days of mourning for those fallen on both sides in the wars, and that I look with a broken heart at an Israel that is committing suicide and at the three generations of offspring that I have bred and raised in it.

... for 42 years, Israel turned what should have been Palestine into a giant detention camp, and is holding a whole people captive under an oppressive and cruel regime, with the sole aim of taking away their country, come what may!!!

The IDF eagerly suppresses their efforts at rebellion, with the active assistance of the settlement thugs, by the brutal means of a sophisticated Apartheid and a choking blockade, inhuman harassment of the sick and of women in labor, the destruction of their economy and the theft of their best land and water.

Over all this there is waving the black flag of the frightening contempt for the life and blood of the Palestinians. Israel will never be forgiven for the terrible toll of blood spilt, and especially the blood of children, in hair-raising quantities...

Avnery's response is fascinating. He, too, is a veteran peace activist, and of about the same generation as Yermiya. But in the letter he is, I think, pleading with Yermiya not to renounce Zionism completely, but rather to reconnect with the "idealistic" Zionism that they both experienced during their youth.

He writes -

When I think of our youth, yours and mine, one scene is never far from my mind: the 1947 Dalia festival.

Tens of thousands of young men and women were sitting on the slope of a hill in the natural amphitheater near Kibbutz Dalia on Mount Carmel. Ostensibly it was a festival of folk dancing, but in reality it was much more - a great celebration of the new Hebrew culture which we were then creating in the country, in which folk dancing played an important role. The dancing groups came mainly from the kibbutzim and the youth movements, and the dances were original Hebrew creations, interwoven with Russian, Polish, Yemenite and Hassidic ones. A group of Arabs danced the Debka in ecstasy, dancing and dancing and dancing on.

In the middle of the event, the loudspeakers announced that members of the UN Commission of Inquiry, which had been sent by the international organization to decide upon the future of the country, were joining us. When we saw them entering the amphitheater, the tens of thousands spontaneously rose to their feet and started to sing the "Hatikva", the national anthem, with a holy fervor that reverberated from the surrounding mountains.

We did not know then that within half a year the great Hebrew-Arab war would break out - our War of Independence and their Naqba. I believe that most of the 6000 young people who fell in the war on our side, as well as the thousands that were wounded - like you and me - were present at that moment in Dalia, seeing each other and singing together.

What state did we think of then? What state did we set out to create?

What has happened to the Hebrew society, the Hebrew culture, the Hebrew morality that we were so proud of then?

Then, he pleads this:

You, Dov, have invested in this state much too much to turn your back on it in a gesture of anger and despair. The most hackneyed and worn-out slogan in Israel is also true: "We don't have another state!"

Other states in the world have sunk to the depths of depravity and committed unspeakable crimes, far beyond our worst sins, and still brought themselves back to the family of nations and redeemed their souls.

We and all the members of our generation, who were among those who created this state, bear a heavy responsibility for it. A responsibility to our offspring, to those oppressed by this state, to the entire world. From this responsibility we cannot escape.

Even at your respectable age, and precisely because of it and because of what you represent, you must be a compass for the young and tell them: This state belongs to you, you can change it, don't allow the nationalist wreckers to steal it from you!

True, 61 years ago we had another state in mind. Now, after our state has tumbled to where it is today, we must remember that other state, and remind everybody, every day, what the state should have been like, what it can be like, and not allow our vision to disappear like a dream. Let's lend our shoulders to every effort to repair and heal!

These are very weighty issues that these two longtime Zionists are debating.

I remember the evening I had back in early March with longtime Jewish-Israeli nonviolence activist Amos Gvirtz. Gvirtz is "only" in his late 60s or early 70s. But like Avnery and Yermiya he grew up in Israel.

He told me in March,

I became an anti-Zionist after Oslo, when the government expelled the Arabs of Jahhaleenn to make room for the big new settlement area if Maale Adummim... Like the Zionists, I believe we Jews need a state of our own. But unlike the Zionists I don't think this should be built on the ruins of someone else's home. So our state need not necessarily be right here.

Gvirtz, too, like Avnery, identified a strong link between the events of 1947-48 and the situation today-- though the nature of the link Gvirtz identified was very different from Avnery's: "The Nakba wasn't really a single event that happened in 1948, so much as a long-drawn-out process, that continues to this day." In other words, he was quite unwilling to neatly divide Israeli history, as Avnery still does, between the idealized, pre-lapsarian days of the 1947 Dalia festival and the post-lapsarian era that was inaugurated-- in Avnery's view-- only by Israel's conquest of the West Bank.

Obviously, this is a very weighty issue for Zionists and their supporters to grapple with. Did 1967 mark a notable break between a laudable past and a troublesome present? Or were there indeed, as Gvirtz and many other current non- and anti-Zionists have argued, many elements of continuity from the 1947 period right through to the present?

Anyway, I'd love to see the whole text of the latest Yermiya letter from which Avnery is quoting, if anyone can provide a link to it, preferably in English. The only recent English text that I could find by him online was this letter, published in the Communist weekly Zo Haderekh in June 2008.

In it, Yermiya was returning to Defense Minister Barak the invitation he had been sent to attend a ceremony to honor all veterans of Israel's 1948 "War of Independence".

He wrote,

As a veteran of the 1948 war, who was already wounded in face to face combat two weeks before the Declaration of the State, I feel obliged herewith to return the invitation to you, as Minister of Defence. I do so regretfully but see this as my duty.

I consider you, Ehud Barak, as one of the top military commanders and prominent political leaders who were responsible for converting the army from "the Israeli Defence Force" to an army of occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people and defender of the criminal settlements in their country.

40 years of occupation have utterly corrupted the Israeli army and all strata of Israeli society.They are both characterized by the nationalist 'east wind' [the east wind brings the chamsin and locusts - C.A.] which blows and kindles conflagrations of endless wars, which threaten our people and land with the third and final destruction. Your share in the responsibility for all this is enormous, and therefore I return your invitation to you, without thanks...

Fighting Within - Gilad Atzmon Interviews Sid Shniad (IJV Canada)

From Palestine Think Tank

Recently I have been corresponding with Sid Shniad (1), a founding member of Canadian Independent Jewish Voice (Canadian IJV) (2). Those who are familiar with my writing are well aware of the fact that I am highly critical of any form of Jewish political activism, for I consider it to be a racially orientated discourse.

Yet, as much as I am interested in elaboration on the issue, a true dialogue with Jewish political activists is pretty much impossible. Jewish political ethnic campaigners and political activists have much to lose. They are fully aware of the categorical contradiction between the aim for universal values and tribal activism. They have much incoherence and inconsistency to hide.

Sid, however, was different, though we do not agree on many things, we have managed to keep an open and fruitful dialogue. He was very helpful and addressed each issue in a very positive manner.

Gilad: Hello Sid, I will start with a very brief question. Assuming that you are a secular human being, what makes you into a Jew? And what does it mean to operate politically as a Jew?

Sid: I come from a long line of irreligious Jews. My great-grandfather was a rabbi in Poland, but since that time there has been very little religion in my family. My father was not bar mitzvahed, but he strongly identified as a Jew.

Part of his identity stemmed from his experience of anti-Semitism. As a young man, he was an excellent student at the City College of New York. He desperately wanted to be a doctor, but was kept from medical school by the existence of stringent quotas on the number of Jews who were admitted.

In addition to that, however, he (and my mother, who was also from an irreligious family) became Communists during the Great Depression. They saw this as a logical step to take in response to what they saw as a fundamentally unjust society. I always felt that they became Communists for the right reason — to work for universal social justice — and that they quit being Communists for the right reason, when they learned Khruschev's denunciations of Stalin's crimes.

For me, being raised during the McCarthy era in the United States, being Jewish and being active in the pursuit of social justice were one and the same thing.

Gilad: I am still in the dark regarding your Jewish political identity. I am now more familiar with your family background, with your father being persecuted for being a Jew and with your parents’ decision to become Communists. This is a very familiar story which I can easily empathise with, however, I would expect that the transformation into Communism and ‘universal social justice’, should have led your parents to drop their tribal affiliation. Am I on a wrong track here? I’ll rephrase the initial question:

what makes you into a Jew? And what does it mean for you to operate politically as a Jew?

Sid: There were many Jewish Communists who continued to see themselves as Jews, Gilad. I gather from your question that you see this as an inconsistency.

Gilad: You are actually correct. I may as well remind you that Lenin elaborated on the issue when he criticized the Bund in 1903. The inconsistency is obvious, as the gap between the tribal and the universal is unbridgeable.

Sid: You are not alone in this view. Both Jews and non-Jews tend to see religiosity as central to Jewishness.

Gilad: Not at all, I am fully aware of Jewishness being a coherent identity yet it is a racially orientated one. Hence, I do not grasp the pretence of claim for ‘Jewish progressive activism’ and ‘humanism’. The question to follow is how do you bridge the gap between the Tribal, secular, racially-orientated identity (i.e. Jewishness) and the universal (e.g. Communism and Humanism)?

Sid: As a young man I read Isaac Deutscher's book, The Non-Jewish Jew, in which he argued that there is a longstanding tradition of Jewish heretics who belong to a particular Jewish tradition. In their ranks Deutscher included Spinoza, Heine, Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, and Freud. All of them clearly went beyond the limits of conventional religiosity. (My father was a big fan of Deutscher.)

Gilad: This is obviously correct, you can add to the list Otto Weininger, Simon Weil and Christ and yet, the fact that some Jews were great Humanists doesn’t resolve the issue. As you probably know, Spinoza, Marx, Rosa Luxemburg and Trotsky did not operate politically as Jews. They were Humanists who happen to be of Jewish descent. Yet you are different, you operate politically as a Jew. In other words, you leave me no other option but to ask you the same question again:

What makes you, Sid, into a Jew? And what does it mean for you, Sid, to operate politically as a Jew?

Sid: You point out that Jewish Humanists have not tended to operate politically as Jews but you are curious about my experience, because you say that I do operate politically as a Jew.

Gilad: Let’s us try and be accurate. I made a note that the Humanists that you mentioned did not operate politically as Jews. However, I am interested in your case because you operate politically as a Jew. I want to learn how you bridge the gap between the chosen and the ordinary.

Sid: For most of my adult life, I have been active in non-Jewish Palestinian solidarity organisations, antiwar work, and left politics and resisted becoming involved in organisations that were identified as Jewish. But I have come to the conclusion that Jews with good politics on the issue of Israel and Palestine have a uniquely important role to play in combating the influence of the reactionary Zionist organisations that tend to dominate the Jewish community and providing telling criticism of the Israeli government.

Gilad: Now I am very happy because for the first time you really start to address my question. You also admit that, “Zionist organizations dominate the Jewish community”.

Sid: This realisation has led me to become active in creating Independent Jewish Voices in Canada in the last two years, where we have found that the organized presence of Jews who militantly oppose Zionist organisations and the Israeli government provides breathing space and a degree of comfort for both Jews and non-Jews who are uncomfortable with what Israel and its allies are doing, but who have been reluctant to come out of the closet on these issues.

Gilad: I fully respect your answer and I appreciate the honesty. Moreover, I understand the need of Jews to stand up and say, ‘we are different’, ‘we do not accept the Zionist Hegemony within the Jewish world’.

However, I must share with you some of my concerns and would I like to learn from you how you address these issues.

Chaim Weizmann said once: ‘there are no American Jews or French Jews but rather Jews who live in America and Jews who live in France’. In other words, the early Zionist leader suggested that Jewishness is a primary political quality. Wouldn’t you agree that acting politically as a Jew affirms Weizmann’s suggestion? How can you counter Weizmann’s argument while being a member of a primarily Jewish political group?

Sid: I would not interpret Weizmann's statement to mean that Jewishness is a primarily political quality. Rather, I interpret this to mean that Jewishness is not akin to nationality.

Gilad: You may be right to say it when referring to the pre 20th century Jewish reality, however, Zionism was very successful in transforming Jewishness into a national identity, and as you already admitted, a very successful one. As painful and devastating as it may be, Zionism is the dominant voice within the contemporary Jewish discourse.

Sid: Frankly, I am surprised that Weizmann made this statement, since mainstream Zionism took it upon itself to create a Jewish nation-state. But I don't feel the need to rebut it.

Gilad: I respect your decision not to rebut it. However, I wonder why it takes you by surprise. In fact, to a certain extent, once operating politically as a Jew within the Canadian IJV, you yourself act as a Jew who lives in Canada rather than a Canadian who happens to be a Jew. I hope you can see it. Anyway, let’s move on.

More than once I came across people who told me, ‘Gilad you can say it because you are a Jew’. My reaction has been rather radical. I dropped any form of Jewish entitlement. Consequently, I categorically refuse to operate as a Jew. I insist that everyone should be able to say what he or she feels regardless of his or her ethnic origin. One should be able to criticise the Holocaust industry or the official Zionist Holocaust narrative despite one’s mother not being a ‘holocaust survivor’. Similarly, one must be entitled to criticise Jewish power despite one not being physically or mentally circumcised. I am obviously concerned with the fact that Jewish progressive political activism actually suppresses the discourse. It elevates the chosen and silences the ordinary. I would like to learn from you what you think about it.

Sid: I heartily agree with you. That is the reason that for my entire life, until the last couple of years, my social-political activism has taken place outside of organisations that are identified as Jewish.

Gilad: I am very happy to hear it coming from you, as you may know my bitterest enemies here in the UK are actually two to four self-proclaimed ‘progressive Jews’. As far as I am aware, they must be cross with me because I have managed to pull the rug from under their feet exposing the severe incoherence in any Jewish progressive political activism.

Sid: Yet, we better acknowledge the unfortunate fact that powerful Zionist forces have capitalised on their Jewishness and used it as a club to neutralise and punish both Jews and non-Jews who are offside the Zionist project or who criticise Israeli crimes.

Gilad: We do agree here as well, and yet the question is how to confront the Zionist beast. And the place to start is, maybe, to ask where exactly Zionism ends and Jewishness starts. I believe that since Zionism and Jewishness are both dynamic notions, Zionism and Jewishness create a versatile amalgam that shifts rapidly and moulds into very many things. For that matter, I believe that there is no real demarcation between Zionism and Jewishness. However, this is my take, but what is yours?

Sid: I have come to the conclusion that there is an important role — not an exclusivist one — for Jews to play in combating Zionist organisations and criticising the behavior of Israel. At the same time, however, I continue to be active in non-Jewish organizations dedicated to Palestinian solidarity and antiwar work.

Gilad: It is very interesting and genuine the way you express it and I understand pretty well where you come from. In fact I wish you luck.

In the past I published some harsh criticism of the ‘not in my name’ political argument. I argued that those who shout ‘not in my name’ actually throw the blame on everyone else. Considering Jewish Independent Voice being a miniature body, you actually affirm the strength of Zionism by a approving its total dominance within the Jewish community. I wonder how would you counter this argument?

Sid: First, I don't understand how saying "not in my name" blames everyone else. The logic of that escapes me.

Gilad: It is actually pretty simple, once you stand up and shout “Not in my name” you imply that everyone else who failed to join your choir his implicated with guilt. For instance, the two million Brits who marched in London shouting ‘not in my name’ a week before violence broke out in Iraq, affirmed that the 60 million who stayed at home approved Blair’s criminal policy. They actually foolishly admitted that a crime was about to be committed in the name of the vast majority of the British people. This is actually a very foolish tactic because in fact the majority of British people didn’t support the war. Following a similar logic, once Moishe, Chaim, Yatzek and another dozen Jews shout ‘not in my name’ as Jews, they basically affirm the devastating fact that Zionist crimes are committed in the name of the totality of the Jewish people who fail to shout.

Sid, you may note here that I do not blame the Jewish people as people for two main reasons:

a. I do not know all Jewish people;
b. I know enough Jews who do not care at all about Israel and Zionism.

Yet, I am exposing some fundamental fault in the ‘not in my name’ call. The Jazz legend Charlie Haden has managed to come up with a very clever solution. He decided to call his anti war jazz project ‘Not in OUR name’. This obviously made a lot of sense within the discourse of the British and American anti war movement. The Majority of Brits and Americans indeed oppose the neocon wars. However, it makes no sense within the context of Jewish political activism because the fact that 55-500 Jews around the world shout not in ‘our’ names while other millions participate actively in the Zionist murderous scheme makes the progressive Jewish project looks pathetic. It affirms the Zionist call.

Sid: Somehow, I don't think that ‘affirm’ is the right term here. Instead, I would say that the strength of Zionism within the Jewish community (and beyond) cannot be denied.

Gilad: I am very happy to hear that you admit it, because as it seems the so-called Jewish progressive ethnic campaigners and activists on this side of the pool refuse to admit it yet.

Sid: So an organisation that is predominantly Jewish (we have non-Jewish allies involved in IJV) has a distinct role to play in the struggle against Zionism.

Gilad: Again, I can see where you come from, yet I hope that you can see also that the ‘not in my name’ is not necessarily the right tactic. All those lists of several hundreds of Jewish names look a bit sad in comparison to the many millions of Jews who are affiliated with Zionist activism in one way or another.

In short, the fact that two hundred Jews protest against the institutional Zionist crime is not going to vindicate the Jewish tribal collective.

Sid: Can you elaborate?

Gilad: Golda Meir said in the 1970s that mixed marriage is the greatest threat to Jewish existence. She was actually expressing a genuine fear of true assimilation. I would follow her line of thought and argue that the biggest threat to Zionist institutional crime is a true political assimilation of Jewish Humanists.

Rather than having Jews operating as a fifth column and gatekeepers within the solidarity movement, what we really need are Jewish Humanists like yourself and others to join the struggle for Humanism as equals amongst equals.

Sid, I hope that you wouldn’t mind me asking just one more question before we conclude this interview.

Is there such a thing as Jewish secular values or Jewish secular ethics? Zionism insisted upon portraying an image of a Jewish secular value system. It failed, but is there any other Jewish secular alternative?

Sid: My entire acquaintance with Jewishness has been secular. Some religious and Zionist Jews insist, therefore, that I'm not Jewish.

I find this view to be both ridiculous and a testimony to the degree to which secular political and social engagement, which was dominant in Jewish society in the modern world as recently as forty years ago, has been supplanted as a defining characteristic of the community by a revival of religiosity and the ascent of tribalism.

I would like to think that my activism — in Jewish as well as non-Jewish organisations — is the embodiment of a great Jewish tradition that is worthy of emulation.

Gilad: Sid, sorry to raise the question again, what is this ‘Jewish tradition’? As far as I can see the greatest humanists of Jewish origin actually stood against the so-called ‘Jewish tradition’ whether it was Christ, Marx or Spinoza. So please enlighten me briefly, what exactly is the ‘Jewish secular value system’? Can I read about it in any textbook? I ask you because I really tried to look into it, I indeed found many Humanists who happened to be Jews but none of them were referring to their universal ethics as the outcome of any ‘Jewish tradition’ or at least not a secular one. (3)

Sid: As I mentioned before, Isaac Deutscher wrote a book about this, called The Non-Jewish Jew, in which he described people like Spinoza and Marx and situated them in a tradition of Jewish opposition to the dominant mindsets of the Jewish community. In addition, I think that it's essential to appreciate the disproportionate numbers of Jews who were involved in labour, civil rights, Socialist and Communist movements from the late 19th century through the late 1960s.

Gilad: Again we come back to the same point: some Jews had been great Humanists. But surely you can see that both Marx and Spinoza fought the Jewish tradition rather than continued it. They were aiming at universalism rather than tribalism.

Sid: Given my personal background, I always saw this involvement as the essence of Jewishness. It has been a rude awakening for me to see what has happened over the past 40 years, a period when Jewish paranoia, self-centredness and tribalism has come to dominate the Jewish community, thanks largely to the influence of Israel and Zionism.

Gilad: You know Sid, I have a slight problem with your last comment. If Humanist ‘involvement’ is indeed the ‘essence of Jewishness’, how come Zionism rather than Humanism is the dominant voice within the contemporary Jewish discourse? Unlike you, I do not think that Jewishness has anything to do with humanism. In fact I regard Jewishness, or at least its modern embodiment. i.e. Zionism, as categorically and institutionally inhuman. Like you though, I agree that some Jews are Humanists and even great Humanists. My interpretation of this wonderful phenomenon is very simple. Their greatness is the outcome of their protest and reaction against their own tribal upbringing.

Sid: This is exactly where Jewish activism comes into practice. I would like to see the Jewish community shake off this influence and re-join the ranks of those who side with the oppressed everywhere. Hopefully the efforts of organizations like IJV will contribute to that happening.

Gilad: Sid, I wish you luck again, Inshallah you’ll get there soon. Thanks for your time and effort. It was an enlightening experience talking to you. Since it was me who launched this interview, I would like to welcome you to say the final word.

Sid: I think I've said it!
Cheers!

---

(1) Sid Shniad (Pronounced “Shnide”)

Sid is an American expatriate who lives in Vancouver, British Columbia. He is active in the labour, antiwar and social solidarity movements, including StopWar.ca, the Vancouver-based antiwar coalition, the Canada-Palestine Support Network (CanPalNet), and a new national organisation, Independent Jewish Voices (Canada).

He was raised in Los Angeles during the McCarthy era. During the late 1960s, Sid attended the University of California at Santa Cruz, where he studied politics and political philosophy. To stay out of the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War, he taught school in the inner city of Los Angeles for five years.

Sid has lived and worked in Vancouver since 1974, where he has been employed as the Research Director at the Vancouver-based Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU) since 1980.

Sid’s activist inspiration comes from members of his family, who were trade unionists, socialists and communists active in the labour, civil rights and social justice movements.

(2) Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) represents Canadian Jews from diverse backgrounds, occupations and affiliations who have in common a commitment to social justice and universal human rights. IJV promotes the expression of alternative Jewish voices, particularly in respect of the grave situation in the Middle East, which threatens the future of Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the stability of the whole region.

We believe that human rights are universal and indivisible and should be upheld without exception, including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Canadian IJV sustains that there is no justification for any form of racism, be it anti-Semitism, anti-Arab racism or Islamophobia, under any circumstance.

The IJV insists also that the battle against anti-Semitism is vitally important and that it is threatened by the reflexive practice of branding opposition to Israeli government policies as anti-Semitic. We are attempting to reclaim the Jewish tradition support for universal freedoms, human rights and social justice.

(3) Emmanuel Levinas who tried to preach Jewish ethics to the world insisting that the birth of ethics was in Jerusalem was actually referring to the Talmud rather than any Jewish secular school.

The Saker interviews Roger Tucker, author of the One Democratic State blog

After a lengthy break from making interviews, I am finally returning to this aspect of my work with what I consider one of the most interesting interviews I ever made. One of my readers (thanks RC!) pointed me to the website and work of Robert Tucker, truly an immensely interesting and courageous person whom I consider to be the living proof of the fact that no amount of propaganda and indoctrination can overcome the human desire for truth, freedom and justice. Robert, who was born as a American Jew (usually the most indoctrinated Jews anywhere on the planet, at least in my experience) simply says that "we are defined by our choices" yet these six simple words contain within themselves the assumption that we are *not* just defined by our environment or genetic makeup, a basic truth which both nationalists and racists have totally forgotten. I believe that being defined by our choices is a core element of our common humanity, that this freedom to choose is likewise a core element of our essence as human beings and that what I would call the "brotherhood of choices" is far more important in our lives than our ethnic origins (just recall the Parable of the Good Samaritan).

It is always a joy for me when any person breaks free from the ideological shackles he/she was born into and bursts into a life of true freedom of the spirit. This is a painful process which can only be completed through a great deal of suffering and anguish, but one which eventually leads to peace. I hope that Roger's example will inspire many others.

The Saker

-------

What happened to Hillel's teaching that the essence of Judaism, from which all else springs, is, "That which is hateful unto you do not do to your fellow human being"?
- When Abraham wept

The Saker: Please introduce yourself, tell us about the various organizations or websites you are associated with and what considerations brought you to get active in "Internet-based politics" (for lack of a better word)?

Roger Tucker: I think that I am a fairly typical product of my time, place and antecedents. I was born and brought up in Newton, one of the largely Jewish suburbs of Boston, populated then as now with a lot of professional and business types, particularly faculty of the major schools, like Harvard and MIT, doctors, lawyers, accountants et al. I rebelled against the whole shtick, heavily influenced by my mother, I think, who was a woman way ahead of her time but made the mistake of entering into a conventional marriage, one which suffocated her. Well, we are defined by our choices and inexorably reap the consequences.

I am part of two worlds that I have chosen. The first, following an evolution starting in my early teens, is the rather vast arena of Buddhism. At first it was Zen, and then in the early 70's I became a student of Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche, a Tibetan meditation master. The associated organization is Shambhala International, which acts as a container and transmitter of the teachings of this particular lineage. The second, which dates back only about five years, is the world of political activism. This is in stark contrast to my attitude and activities when I was a student in San Francisco in the 60's. I was very much a part of the local counter culture, which was involved in that remarkable spiritual revolution that was prologue to so much of what we take for granted these days, in spite of the fact that the counter-revolution was so emphatically successful. However, across the Bay in Berkeley, there was a political revolution of sorts going on, the Free Speech Movement, robust antiwar activity, heavy support for the Civil Rights movement, People's Park, and so forth. Well, identifying much more with the flower children, I dismissed most of that as the realm of the "politicals," as we called them, and went about my business.

About five years ago I found myself suddenly aware that I had been, like most people, in something like a state of hypnosis regarding the State of Israel and the profoundly malevolent influence its existence and activities were having on both international affairs as well as domestic realities back here in River City. So I kind of woke up, snapped out of it, and almost immediately concluded that there was one, and only one way out of the mess - and that is what is known as the One State Solution. Having come to this conclusion, one thing just followed another and I found myself setting up a website as a source of information, education and advocacy. That led (I won't go into the technical reasons why) to my current website.

What were the circumstances which brought you, a Jew, to turn to Buddhism? What about Christianity, Islam or Hinduism, have you ever considered these?

First of all, even as a youngster I never felt the slightest inclination to believe in God any more than I bought into the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. To me they were all childish productions of the mind that were best categorized by Freud as "infantile wish-fulfillment fantasies." But, atheism, of course, is not very satisfying spiritually - it is merely a negation of theism. So I set about actively searching for answers to the age old elemental questions that can best be summed up as "who am I - and what is That?" I felt sure that there must be, or must have been someone, somewhere, who had at least the slightest idea of what was actually what, but for a long time didn't feel that I could even be sure of that. I read The Way, by Lao-Tze, the Bhagavad Gita (and gave a talk on it to other young people), looked into Sufism and even joined a Quaker Meeting, and while a student at the Army Language School took a course in the history of Islam, but it wasn't until after I returned from a three year stint in the Army that I settled on Buddhism. This was precipitated by a lecture at Brandeis by D.T. Suzuki of Tokyo University. I came out of that talk with two distinct feelings. One was that I hadn't really understood a word that he had said. The other was that for the first time I had listened to someone who was privy to the truth about the nature of existence. Such is Zen. I remember the sense as I was walking out of the auditorium that I was two feet off the ground. I had the feeling that I was, finally, not alone. I have since come to the conclusion that there are religions and there are wisdom traditions, and the former are by-products of the latter, sort of like ossified husks that preserve the form but have discarded the essence. Among the wisdom traditions I happen to find Buddhism to be the clearest and most useful.

I don’t want to give the impression that I consider all religion to be detrimental to human understanding and development – that would be inaccurate and far too simplistic. On the contrary, all religions, as I said, contain the original, genuine spiritual inspiration and wisdom within them. Otherwise they would just dry up and blow away, offering nothing to sustain them. One could say that religious beliefs and practices could be graphed as a spectrum that ranges from hopelessly ignorant, dogmatic fundamentalism (the products of the back country madrassas in Afghanistan and Pakistan or those of the Saudi Wahhabists, the piney woods Assemblies of God and Bible Colleges in the southern U.S., the Hindu fanatics in the rank-and-file of the BJP of India, and the fetid Orthodox precincts of Brooklyn that send forth the genocidal settler-colonists in the West Bank).

At the other end of the spectrum are the saints and mystics, and ordinary people possessed of transcendental common sense, who may or may not identify as believers in one of the traditional theistic traditions, but who can’t really be distinguished from the practitioners of the wisdom traditions in their basic understanding. It would turn out to be a bell curve, no doubt, with the majority in the muddled middle, basically confused and kind of inwardly agnostic but going along to get along. People will express their natural yearning for spiritual understanding one way or another, and the gulf between belief in God and reliance on science and reason is not as wide as is popularly thought.

To a large extent the difference lies in the confusion between absolute and relative truth. Language itself evolved as a way of expressing relative truth, in order to distinguish between this and that, good to eat or not good to eat, threatening as opposed to harmless and so forth. In order to express absolute truth, that which goes beyond polarities and concepts and points directly to things as they are, art is born and language becomes metaphor, poetry, song and the voice of the spirit.

I am going to repeat an old question here: what/who is a Jew? Do you still consider yourself as a Jew and, if yes, what meaning do you give to your "Jewishness".

The first part has a simple answer, though it's not the only answer. Like being human, or male or female, one is born that way. I was brought up to understand that one is a Jew if one's mother was a Jew, and my parents and their parents were Ashkenazim. The Nazis elaborated on that to include any forebears going back even three generations. The Israelis, likewise, due to their "demographic problem," have loosened the definition considerably, so that nowadays - if you're of the "right" nationality or ethnicity, you merely have to make some vague claim to being Jewish. You're a shoo-in if you're a white European, which accounts for the hefty number of recent Russian immigrants. The same thing happened in South Africa, under the Afrikaner regime, and for the same reasons.

When one looks at Jewish history, though, the whole picture becomes quite muddled. It appears that, contrary to popular belief (even among Jews), Judaism was for many hundreds of years a very actively proselytizing religion, and a very successful one at that. It has been known for some years that we Ashkenazim (the Yiddish speaking people) are the descendants not of the Hebrews but of the citizens of the Khazarian Empire, which was converted to Judaism back in the 8th Century AD. And due to the efforts of an Israeli historian by the name of Shlomo Sand we discover that many of the Sephardim (from Spain and Portugal) and most of the Mizrahim (Middle Eastern and Asian Jews, mostly North African) are descended from Berber people who were converted by a warrior Queen. His book is currently being translated from Hebrew into English and it will no doubt cause quite a stir, no matter how assiduously the Zionists try to repress and distort it. The ironic upshot of all this is that it turns out that there is no such thing as "the Jewish People," anymore than there was such a thing as Hitler's beloved "Aryan Race." Fascism is always built on some such mytho-history. The "misplaced concreteness," or reification, of such squirrelly collective terms as "the Jews," "White People," "Black People," “the Working Class” or “Capitalists” is such a cause of unnecessary suffering. I follow Ghandi’s example when he said when he was asked if he was a Hindu “Yes I am, I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew.” We are all just people, human beings, with the same inalienable right to live in peace and dignity as anyone else, and the same moral responsibility to let others do likewise.

Why are you, a Buddhist Jew, active in the Palestinian question? Why is this topic important to you?

We are all faced with a question from early on, and one that never goes away. How is one to live one's life? I'm going to give a Buddhist answer and a Jewish one. The dharma talks about "the eightfold noble path," which has some similarity to the Ten Commandments, but much more nuanced and spiritually sophisticated. One of these is "right action." This is not defined - that is left to commentary - but it means to act lawfully, where the term dharma, best translated as "the teachings," or "things as they are," is understood to be the basis of proper behavior, what determines how you act in relation to others. This is further elaborated in the Mahayana tradition in the form of the Bodhisattva Path. In order to enter this path, one takes a vow to put others before oneself, indeed, to save all sentient beings. This may sound like a bit of overreaching, but one eventually comes to understand that, given the seamless inseparability of all that exists, there's really no choice. This becomes, at the very least, one's aspiration. But, as in all things Buddhist, how you go about it is left entirely up to you, and depends on the depth of your understanding and your commitment to the vow that you have taken. That's the Buddhist part. (It might strike some that there's an obvious similarity here to what Jesus taught, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. There's a great Zen anecdote about that, but no space for it here.)

So let's imagine a Buddhist who also happens to be a Jew, somebody like me. Let me note here that no one who meets me gets the slightest hint that I am "Jewish." I don't fit any stereotype, whether it's physically, linguistically or culturally. When I was bumming around Europe, the Middle East and Africa, people I met were often surprised when I told them that I was an American - I had to convince people. I wasn't ashamed of it particularly, although in certain circumstances I, as is still the custom among backpacker types, opted for passing as a Canadian to avoid unnecessary complications. When I found myself in Israel the first time, I wound up becoming a volunteer on a kibbutz, as much a matter of practical necessity as leftover Jewish romanticism. I soon discovered that the "volunteers" were considered a necessary evil by the kibbutzniks - free labor is free labor, a bargain at any price. They avoided any contact with the volunteers except as necessary to get the work done - so much for the original ideal of a communitarian agrarian socialism - it was all business. Whenever possible, I would get away and wander around the country, soon discovering that I was drawn to the Arab inhabitants, the Palestinians, who seemed altogether so much more attractive as people, so much more at home in the land. But I found that conversation would eventually get around to politics, and they would begin to get tense and the anger and frustration were palpable. I wasn't close at this point to putting two and two together, so I would begin to feel alienated and restive and would soon move on. This pattern of moving back and forth between the two peoples persisted during both of my sojourns in Israel in the early 70's. But I digress, which is fun, but perhaps confusing to the reader.

Going back to the meaning that I give my "Jewishness," I should relate that I was sent to Hebrew School to prepare for my Bar Mitzvah, which, in the Conservative Jewish tradition, as in the Orthodox, requires one to chant from the Haftorah in Hebrew. This comprised my Jewish education though I remember very little of it - I was not there willingly; my father insisted, more for social and family reasons than anything else, which was a common attitude among second generation Jews at the time. For those who don't know, the Conservative school was something of a compromise between the Orthodox (rare at the time except among those born in the old country - I think many of us felt that it was sure to die out completely in America; little did we realize how resilient such cultural artifacts are), and an American invention, Reform Judaism, a precursor to the type of Christianity that became dominant within the National Council of Churches starting in the 60's, a kind of catch-all that mimicked multi-activity secular institutions while paying lip service to whichever branch of the religion whose name it carried - a sort of social service oriented pastiche whose function was more that of providing some sense of community and social purpose than any semblance of pursuing a religious path. This has somewhat gone out of fashion in recent years, largely replaced by a more robust form that relies on magic and blind faith, signaling a return to traditional American revivalism with the tents replaced by TV and Monster Churches.

The institution I attended was Temple Emeth - 'emeth' meaning 'truth' in Hebrew. In recent years I have found this increasingly ironic as I have become aware of the almost totally mythical nature of the stories that Jews have told about themselves over the centuries, much of which is contained in the collection of folklore called the Jewish Bible. And with the advent of political Zionism, we have a full blown fascist mytho-history that is almost entirely fabricated. But somehow I absorbed something of the wisdom tradition that must have provided the seed for the whole thing, as can be found in every theistic religion if one looks hard enough. Certain words resonate in my mind, like “truth,” “justice” and "righteousness," which somehow encapsulates the notion of what in Buddhism we call "right action." It was all quite legalistic, stemming from the famous Ten Commandments and immersed in the injunction to "fear God," for he is a "jealous God." I never had the slightest inclination to believe any of the theistic claptrap, but something about how one should live one's life properly did make sense. The wisdom essence seems to be contained in the Golden Rule. I just looked up a variation that was handy, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you,” which was attributed to Rabbi Hillel. A Google search then came up with other sources for those exact words, Confucius and Jesus of Nazareth (according to the Gospel of Matthew). One could also say that this formula sums up Mahayana Buddhism, as well as the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. It’s all of a piece.

All of this is leading to an answer to the question of why I am concerned with the Palestinians, of why it's important to me. I am not particularly attached to Palestinians as such. They are neither better nor worse than anyone else. Everyone is, as it is put in Shambhala Buddhism, "basically good." But perhaps because I am Jewish, I feel that I have a special responsibility to the millions of people who are suffering at the hands of some of my fellow Jews, and I particularly object to this being done in my name. But really it's a moral imperative. What's basically wrong with political Zionism (the Jabotinskian variation that gained the upper hand in Israel in the 1930's and has had a tight grip on power ever since) is that it directly and flagrantly violates the bottom line of all genuine spiritual traditions. That is to say, it is intrinsically evil, and must be opposed by anyone who has even the most rudimentary understanding of the difference between right and wrong, be they of whatever religious, ideological, ethnic or national persuasion.

What was the reaction of your Jewish relatives and friends to your conversion to Buddhism?

This question I can dispense with quickly, but it does bring up an interesting point. As for relatives, I am close only to my brother, who very generously keeps me from starving and, to a much lesser extent, my father, who kept me from starving while I was growing up. They are aware of my Buddhist connection, but are not particularly curious about it. I put this down to the fact that they are secular - my brother is agnostic and my father's Jewishness is a matter of identification with the tribe - his pro forma relationship with the religion is, as with most Jews of his generation, more a matter of sentimentality and attachment to some sense of tradition and community than anything else.

I have many Jewish friends, but pretty much all of them are also Buddhists. It might help to point out that just as English is the world's second language, Buddhism, if my take on this is correct, is the world's "second religion." I don't know how many people (a lot) have told me that if they weren't a This or a That, or if they were to identify with any spiritual path, they would be Buddhists. I don’t mean to imply that one path is “better” than another. For example, my brother is one of the kindest and wisest people I have ever known, yet the only spiritual discipline (if one could call it that) that one could ascribe to him has been so-called secular humanism. He is a self-taught student of the Western Enlightenment, whose sages were the likes of John Locke, David Hume, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

I should add that "conversion" is not an accurate term in this context. One converts to a religion, and there is a distinction between religions and spiritual (or wisdom) traditions. Religions, as I’ve said, are institutions that grow out of wisdom traditions, a process akin to ossification, or the production of a husk around a seed. The wisdom which is experienced and transmitted by elders, shamans, mystics, practitioners of spiritual yogas, sages, etc., becomes solidified into a masquerade, usually with elaborate trappings and political responsibilities in support of the state. Religions, almost always theistic, are founded on blind faith, dogma. One can no more "convert" to a genuine spiritual discipline than one can convert to physics or gardening.

The Internet is buzzing with discussions about the Neocons and the "Jewish/Israel/Zionist Lobby". What is your taken on these concepts? Is it correct to conflate them and use them interchangeably as is often done? Norman Finkelstein often repeats that it is wrong to speak of a "Zionist Lobby" because the leaders of the "Lobby" are not at all Zionist in their outlook; according to him, all they are interested is their power. Noam Chomsky says that it is wrong to speak about an "Israel Lobby" because, according to him, the USA is using Israel and not the other way around.

First off, I like the term "Zionist Lobby" because it is the most concise and accurate. "Israel Lobby," which is the common usage, comes close, but Israel is entirely the creation of Zionism, and therefore not quite as descriptive. Why Finkelstein disagrees I have no idea, but one must bear in mind that he is what we call a "soft" or "closet" Zionist. He, like other soft Zionists such as Jimmy Carter or Uri Avnery, who immediately come to mind, are still supporting the chimerical notion of the "two state solution." It is for this reason that I consider them to be more a part of the problem than the solution, in spite of their otherwise useful contributions to the general debate, particularly their insistence on viewing Palestinians as fellow human beings rather than cartoon characters with suicide belts strapped to their waists.

But can one really speak of a "Neocon Lobby" when referring to AIPAC, the ADL, or the CPMJO?! Aren't all these organizations Israel-centric? And if they are, does this not justify speaking about a "Zionist Lobby" or "Israel Lobby"? Furthermore, the fast majority of Neocons, but not all, are Jews and pretty much all members of AIPAC/ADL/CPMJO/etc are Jews also. Should one then speak of a "Jewish Lobby"? Please give us your nomenclature, your choice of words in regards to this issue: in your opinion who is representing whom,..

As for the neocons, that term refers to a very specific group of people composed primarily of Jews who started out on the Left and then, under the influence of Leo Strauss, philosopher, and the other wing of the Chicago School associated with Milton Friedman, economist (both of whom were Jewish), migrated to the Right. Strauss is considered to be the father of neo-conservatism, and is a perfect candidate for the role of the real Dr. Strangelove. As pro-Israel sentiments have historically been more prevalent among the Democrats than the Republicans, Neocon Lobby is a non-starter (as would Neolib Lobby, for the same reason). I have a certain fondness for a term coined by James Petras, Zionist Power Configuration, because it not only references the various formal organizations that are considered to comprise the Israel Lobby, but includes all of the various individuals, corporations, associations as well as the vast army of collaborators, fellow travelers and sympathizers that have made support of Israel a fundamental plank, if not THE fundamental plank of both of the two major political parties (who, by the way, I collectively refer to as the Republicrats).

Most of the confusion about terminology stems from the conflation of three distinct terms, "Jews," "Israelis," and "Zionists." Jews are the people who self-identify as Jews and are considered Jews by others. The basic idea is that of a tribe or a people descended from Abraham of Chaldea (in what is now Iraq) and his progeny. Although that is probably 99% mythology and 1% history, it's the general view. Many people are under the impression that it refers to people who practice the Jewish religion - that was actually true, by and large, for perhaps a thousand years or so, when Judaism was an energetic proselytizing religion, but hasn't been for at least the last 200 years. Israelis are the people who are considered to legitimately reside in Israel (they don’t have such a thing as citizenship, as it would hinder their peculiar policy towards their Palestinian population. And Zionists are those who buy into that particular ideology, which is, in essence, the belief that the Jews deserve a nation state of their own and that they had the right to establish a state in Palestine, and to maintain it there no matter what.

Jewish Lobby is a total non-starter. For one thing, most American Jews feel a great deal of ambiguity towards Israel and Zionism. There is the subliminal tribal attraction counterbalanced by a natural repugnance, on the part of people who are otherwise secular, tolerant, progressive children of the Western Enlightenment and so forth, to an ethnocentric, fascist and violent ideology. Then there is the fact that the influence of Jewish Zionism is wholeheartedly buttressed by the far more populous Christian Zionists, who are very much a part of my preferred term, Zionist Power Configuration. And if that term sounds too clumsy, Zionist Lobby will do fine. But I usually say Israel Lobby because it is the most popular term and it isn't entirely inaccurate.

..who is the dog and who is the tail"?

I consider the relationship between the U.S. and Israel to be basically symbiotic, but "who is the dog and who is the tail" depends on the specific time and context. The term USrael comes in handy in this respect. Both regimes are under the impression that they are using the other, but I think the Israelis are winning that one hands down. Israel couldn't survive for a month without the all out support of the U.S., and most of official Washington appears to still buy into the notion that Israel is a useful proxy in advancing the interests of American hegemony in the Middle East (principally control of their petroleum resources). That the truth is actually just the opposite is a notion that doesn't seem to have penetrated at all inside the Beltway (perhaps we could start referring to the Beltway as the Separation Highway and DC as the Domestic Green Zone. How about the U.S. Permeable Membrane that allows money in but filters out any genuine concern for human beings and the planet).

Tell us about the Jewish opposition to the Neocons and the Lobby: who is it composed of, what does it stand for and what exactly does it oppose - the Neocons? Zionism? The State of Israel? What are the main expressions of this anti-Neocon Jewish movement, the progressive readers of Tikkun or Orthodox Jews like the members of Neturei Karta International?

This question is directly addressed in "A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism", by Yakov M. Rabkin. It is listed on the Books Page of my website .

'This book sheds light on religious anti-Zionism, which, demographically and ideologically, represents the most serious threat to Israel as a State and as a collective identity. In fact, it is a more grievous and dangerous challenge than Arab and Palestinian hostility. The State, by increasing its achievements, leads the country straight into an abyss. To paraphrase Marx, one could say that Israel, by virtue of its spectacular development, is digging its own tomb.' (from Noam Chomsky’s review)

In the West most Jewish opposition comes from secular Jews who see the Occupation as the main problem, as well as people like myself who view Zionism as an inherently fascist ideology, and its product, the State of Israel, as a criminal enterprise that has no more legitimacy as a modern nation state than La Cosa Nostra has as a normal corporation. Tikkun, the creation of Rabbi Michael Lerner, a close friend and advisor to the Clintons, represents a group of (mostly secular) progressive Jews who are somewhat New Agey and conventionally postmodern, similar to the Jewish Renewal movement (more spiritual), whose most prominent teacher is Rabbi Zalman-Schechter. In spite of their disgust at Israel's behavior and compassion for the Palestinians, these people are all soft Zionists insofar as they support Israel's "right to exist."

More broadly, what role does religion vs secularism play in the issue of Israel, the Lobby and the Neocons? Is religious piety a reliable indicator of the political leanings of a Jew?

It plays a divisive and negative part in Israeli politics, as the religious parties have an influence far exceeding their numbers, but is a non-issue with regard to the Lobby and the Neocons, who are overwhelmingly secular. As for religious piety, I don’t think it’s any different from its role in any of the theistic religions – its basic function is to maintain a bulwark against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, known in Buddhism as samsara (the wheel of birth and death, the world of confusion and suffering, the natural result of continuing to make the same mistakes over and over again and expecting a different result). As this bulwark is an artificial construction, all available spiritual energy is diverted from actually dealing with things as they are into shoring up what is essentially a house of cards. I suppose one could say that the Neturei Karta are the exception that proves the rule, at least in terms of their attitude towards the “Jewish State,” which they consider to be an oxymoron. Joe Lieberman is an example of an Orthodox Jew who appears to be schizophrenic when it comes to separating his general views, which tend to be relatively sane and humane, from his fanatical devotion to Israel. This is not all that uncommon among Zionists in general. One would think that the cognitive dissonance would be deafening, but it has been said that our ability to hold two contradictory thoughts simultaneously is a big part of what makes us human.

How are people like you who support Palestinian rights and who live in the USA seen in Israel?

That’s difficult for me to say – one can only guess. There is an enormous diversity of opinion about just about everything in Israel, but a recent survey that found more than 80% of (Jewish) Israelis have a strong anti-Palestinian bias demonstrates that government fostering of paranoia and hatred has been largely successful. On the other hand, another survey found that upwards of 40% would emigrate if they could, including a majority of Holocaust survivors, who are allocated less than enough to live on in spite of the huge amounts of money Israel has managed to extort from Europe and North America (especially Germany). The organized pursuit of this blood money is based on the exploitation of guilt about the Holocaust. This extortion racket and its associated spinoffs, such as the Holocaust Museums, has been termed “the Holocaust Industry.”

Do you hear the "if you lived here you would see differently" line very often?

Yes, something like that, but much more common are screams of sarcasm and hatred from Zionist true believers, though my guess is that those mostly come from Brooklyn, the center of Jewish religious fanaticism and the source of the bulk of the settler-colonists in the West Bank.

What is your position on the "Two State" vs. "One State" issue? In your opinion, is it possible for Israel to be a democracy and a "Jewish State"? Have you read Jonathan Cook's book Blood and Religion: the Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State and, if yes, what do you think about it?

Advocating One State is the project that I’m engaged in. I wrote to Jonathan at one point – we have had a long standing correspondence – and asked if he specifically advocated One State in Blood and Religion (because I hadn’t read it). His answer was “..the book doesn't specifically advocate one state (although i do) because that wasn't the goal i set myself with this book. instead the book demolishes the idea both that israel can be a jewish state and democratic and that a jewish state has any interest in peace with the palestinians -- with of course the very clear implication that the only solution would therefore be one, secular and democratic state…" I took this as a “yes,” and included it in my listing of books advocating One State, which had been the reason I had asked.

It should be mentioned that although the recent American and Israeli agreement on the need for a Palestinian state appear to be in concert, a closer look reveals that the Israelis are still just playing a delaying game that conveniently masks the consistent view of political Zionism that all the land from the Euphrates and the Nile constitutes “Greater Israel.” At the same time the Israeli people, like any other people, have a genuine desire for peace and security, which must be pandered to. However, there are cracks in this wall of deception, as Olmert’s recent pronouncement indicates. The establishment American view is purely pragmatic. It continues to see Israel as its advance guard in the Middle East, and there is some impatience to finally see borders clearly drawn and some sort of stability arrived at so that the project of fully establishing U.S. hegemony in the region can be realized without all the distracting fuss.

While Jimmy Carter speaks of an Apartheid-like regime in the Occupied Territories he is very careful to stress that he doe not refer to Israel proper. Jonathan Cook's book focuses on the Israeli Arabs and their legal status and he makes the claim that their status inside the Israeli society is also very much Apartheid-like. Do you agree?

Very much so. Carter is an interesting case of a moderately intelligent person who tries very hard to do the right thing. As such, he is that rare case of a religious person who is genuinely compassionate and I have a lot of respect for him, in spite of the numerous shortcomings of his book on Israeli Apartheid, which includes the fact that he writes atrociously. That such a person, so deeply steeped in both American and Israeli mytho-history, was able to let his conscience dictate such a departure from the conventional wisdom as to actually label Israeli policy as apartheid (a commonplace in the Israeli internal discourse) bespeaks considerable moral courage. At the same time he’s unable to perceive that the Israeli Arabs, so-called, are very much the victims of apartheid as well. A mere glance at the numerous restrictions they live under; their second-class status when it comes to social services, allocations for education, medical services, infrastructure, and so on; the fact that Israeli identity cards are based on religion; that land ownership of 90% of Israel is administered by the Jewish Land Trust and is available only to Jews…well, you get the idea. They don’t have drinking fountains labeled “Jews Only,” but that’s about the only difference between the situation in Israel and that of the Jim Crow South or of South Africa under the Nationalists.

What is your view of modern anti-Semitism? Do you agree with Norman Finkelstein when he says that this is largely an invention of the ADL or with Michael Neumann when he says that the very concept of anti-Semitism has been so overused as to become meaningless?

There’s some truth to both of those assertions, but a comprehensive view of anti-Semitism would involve a much more detailed and nuanced exposition. Finkelstein is referring to the ADL version as the official, mytho-history of innocent Jewish victimhood. It conveniently omits any serious discussion of the causes of the almost universal hostility that Jews engendered in numerous countries over the millennia. I should amend that – this hostility occurred almost exclusively in European countries, in contrast to the Islamic world for example. This is because the only Jews with this history are the Ashkenazim, the descendents of the Khazars, a turko-finnic people who themselves were leftovers from the hordes of Attila the Hun. There is as yet, as far as I know, surprisingly little good historical material on the Khazarian Empire and its subsequent manifestation among the Ashkenazim. It would be a terrific subject for some aspiring PhD student of History.

As for Neumann’s assertion, it’s true as far as it goes, but one must ask how and why that happened. The problem could be said to be encapsulated in the fact that the only real “semites” with whom I am familiar speak Arabic as their native language. And it becomes even more of a muddle as one looks closer. Suffice it to say that “anti-semitism” has become little but a propaganda device used as part of the whole Zionist disinformation project. Anyone who criticizes Israel or its raison d’etre Zionism is automatically labeled an “anti-semite,” and if they happen to be Jewish like me, they are by definition “self-hating Jews.” Anyone who can’t see through this shallow, knee-jerk logic wouldn’t be reading this.

It gets really interesting when one looks at the heavily Zionist influenced intellectual fads that swept American universities in the ‘70s. From multiculturalism to identity politics, from victimology to the criminalization of hate crimes, everything conveniently fit the Zionist playbook. Political correctness was probably the most insidious of the lot, as it was a bid for Orwellian mind control. Fortunately, young people turned out to be resilient and the thought police are having a rougher go of it these days, not that they aren’t still working at it. Perhaps the most dangerous result of this effort has been the criminalization of speech in a dozen or so European countries, with the Germans, not surprisingly, being the worst offenders. The result has been legislation against questioning any details of the official version of the Holocaust, as determined by the priesthood of the new Inquisition. This is a subject outside the scope of your question, but it deserves much more discussion than it gets outside of the insular world of the Historical Revisionists (the officially sanctioned Holocult term is “Holocaust Deniers.”)

I should also point out that both Finkelstein and Neumann are what I have called "soft Zionists" – they too continue to advocate the fantasy of the two state solution. I think that the only way to overcome this lingering problem is by offering free courses in intensive map reading. And if any of your readers find that idea intriguing, the best maps I know of are in Jeff Halper’s book Obstacles to Peace: A Reframing of the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict.

Do you think that most of the vocal critics of Israel, the Lobby or Zionism are harboring a maybe well-concealed but deeply felt hostility towards Jews?

In some cases it’s not well-concealed at all. There are numerous white supremacist and/or “Christian” sites that publish anti-Zionist material. I avoid linking to them for obvious reasons. Then there is the curious case of David Duke, whose Klan past has the effect of devaluing his writings on the subject, but he’s actually quite good on the subject these days, though I assume that most people don’t read his stuff when they see his name on it. Then there are Ziopedia and Israel Shamir. One can find relevant material on their sites that is hard to find elsewhere, but the general odor of Judeophobia permeates the environment around them so it’s kind of touchy. Most One Staters strenuously dissociate themselves from both, but I am inclined to be more inclusive, and I occasionally link to material I find on their sites. Then there’s Joachim Martillo’s blog, Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel, which is well worth a look. It’s difficult to classify, starting with the curious fact that he is neither Ashkenazi or Jewish. But he is quite erudite, and produces a considerable amount of material that is original and is based on an extensive knowledge of Jewish history and religion. This is the after effect of a youthful enthusiasm to convert to Judaism and an associated commitment to learning everything he could about it.

Overall I would say that the best informed, most intelligent, articulate and compelling “critics of Israel, the Lobby or Zionism” are just that, and are no more judeophobic or “anti-semitic” than I am, and you will find all of them on my website(s), as long as their work is written in or translated into English. There’s a contributor’s page on my old site that is now a couple of years out of date, but has some detail about all the writers who wrote at least three pieces that I referenced.

What is the purpose of your website? What kind of people is it addressed to and what makes it different from other websites trying to provide good information about the Middle-East?

It is meant to inform and educate, and hopefully help as many people as possible to come to the conclusion that there is only one viable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and that is the establishment of one democratic state in the land currently comprised of Israel, the Occupied West Bank, and the besieged ghetto of Gaza. Those people of whom I speak are not those whose minds are adamantly made up, but of that relatively small but potent group of people whose minds are still open. Most of all I want to reach ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, for they are the ones who will have to do the hard work of realizing this seemingly impossible but absolutely necessary goal. This is not to say that we don’t need the support of people everywhere, particularly in North American and Europe, whose governments are ignoring their own best interests by going along with the U.S. in propping up what has been accurately termed “the Zionist Entity.” (It’s not a nation state like other nation states, for reasons we don’t have the space to go into here, so what else should one call it?). One could look at One State advocacy as a public health project. I have elsewhere compared Israel to a malignant tumor embedded in the body politic. I leave it to the reader’s imagination to contemplate what happens when such a growth is not only suffered to survive, but is widely nourished and sustained. And bear in mind that the body I refer to is not just Palestine and the Middle East, but the entire world.

If one visits my links page, you will find six websites (one of which is my old one) listed at the top that specifically advocate One State. They all agree on the reasons why this would be a wise, just and workable solution, but they differ in the same way that works of art in the same genre that deal with the same subject matter differ – their creators are individuals with their own unique styles and points of view. So you will find that Ali Abunimah’s Electronic Intifada clearly reflects the outlook of a Palestinian American, while Mazin Qumsiyeh’s Human Rights Web is a product of his background as a Palestinian Christian from Bethlehem. Haidar Eid’s One Democratic State Group (Gaza) is unmistakably a view from that tragic enclave. The Committee for the Open Discussion of Zionism grew out of the Zionist hounding of Joel Kovel for publishing his book, Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine. Joel, John Siglar (the creator of An Online One State Bibliography in English), and I are all American Jews, but each with our own perspectives and background.

My particular approach is characterized by a quote I have attached to an image on the site’s home page that combines the Israeli and Palestinian flags – “Only connect…” It can be found in E.M. Forster’s Room With A View, but he liked it so much he inserted it as a sort of aphorism at the beginning of “Passage to India.” It says a lot in only two words, and it is my approach to the website, which carries the banner Your One Stop Source For Real (not Faux) Reporting on Israel/Palestine, Zionism, the Middle East, Pax Americana, and Related Matters. It is indeed all connected, and one can’t really put the whole puzzle together, and fully comprehend it, without all or at least most of the pieces.

How can somebody best help you in your work?

Well, I’m so glad you asked! I stopped maintaining one-state.net because the web design front end I was using became no longer compatible with the new operating systems and I’m not a code warrior. The current Google site is OK, but lacks much of the functionality that I would like. So the first answer is technical help. For that and numerous other reasons, I could make good use of some financial assistance, including solving the first problem. There’s a Donations page on the old website that still works, or people could email me if they have something to offer, even if it’s just helpful suggestions.

Thank you very much for your time and for your important work!
-------
Roger Tucker is author of the One Democractic State website and a student and practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism who grew up as a Jew in the Boston suburbs. He has traveled widely, including two stints in Israel, and now lives quietly in North Carolina. Aside from watching the birds and the deer in his backyard, he collects and disseminates articles on his website "Your One Stop Source For Real (not Faux) Reporting on Israel/Palestine, Zionism, the Middle East, Pax Americana, and More." He also writes some pieces himself, - By the Editor - most of them advocating the One State Solution. He can be reached at rtucker41@earthlink.net.

Gilad Atzmon - The Right to Self-Determination - A Fake Exercise in Universalism

Originally published on the (excellent) blog PeacePalestine, reprinted with the kind permission of thecutter

In the picture, a visual explanation of Jewish Self-Determination

The right to self-determination is a luxurious approach at conservation of power reserved for the rich, strong and privileged. Since Zionists hold the reigns on international political power through their influence in important positions as well as the military might to maintain their ‘right to self-determination’, any current political debate on the legitimacy of this concept would lead inevitably to a dismissal of what we have come to accept as the Palestinian right of self-determination. Yet, instead of demanding this right, which is currently impractical, we should fight for the Palestinian and Arab right to rebel against the Jewish State and against global Zionist imperialism. Instead of wasting our time on rhetorical fantasies, we better expose Jewish tribal politics and praxis for what it is. To support Palestine is to be courageous enough to say what we think and to admit what we see.

A Citizen of the World, A Cosmopolitan and an Atheist

Last year in a little community church in Aspen, Colorado, at the question time following my talk, a middle-aged person at the back of the room stood up, presenting himself as follows:

“I am a citizen of the world, I am a cosmopolitan and an atheist. I would like to ask you something Mr Atzmon…”

“Hang on,” I stopped him, “please do not be offended by me asking, but are you by any chance a Jew?”

The person froze for a second, he couldn’t stop his face from blushing, everyone in the room turned around. Maybe they were curious enough to want to see what a 21st century self-loving cosmopolitan looks like. I, on my part, felt a bit guilty about it all, I didn’t have any intention to embarrass the man. However, it took him a few good seconds before he could get his act together.

“Yes Gilad, I am a Jew, but how did you know?”

“I obviously didn’t know,” I said, “I was actually guessing. You see, whenever I come across people who call themselves ‘cosmopolitans’, ‘atheists’ and a ‘citizens of the world’, they somehow always happen to be ‘Jews’ of the so-called ‘progressive’ assimilated type. I can only assume that ‘non-Jews’ tend to live in peace with whoever they happen to be. If they are born Catholic and decide to move on at a certain stage, they just dump the church behind. If they do not love their country as much as others do, they probably pack a few things and pick another country to live in. Somehow ‘non-Jews’, and this is far from being a scientific law, do not need to hide behind some vague universal banners and some artificial righteous value system. However, what was your question?”

No question followed. The ‘cosmopolitan, atheist and citizen of the world’, couldn’t remember what his question was. I assume that following the tradition of post-emancipated Jews he was there to celebrate his right to ‘self-determination’ in public. The man was using question time to tell his Aspen neighbours and friends what a great human being he was. Unlike them, local patriotic believers and proud Americans, he was an advanced humanist, a man beyond nationhood, a godless non-patriotic subject. He was the ultimate ‘self determined’ rational product of enlightenment. He was the son of Voltaire and the French revolution.

Self-determination is a modern Jewish political and social epidemic. The disappearance of the Ghetto and its maternal qualities led towards an identity crisis within the largely assimilated Jewish society. Seemingly, all post-emancipated Jewish political, spiritual and social schools of thought, left, right and centre were inherently concerned with issues to do with the ‘right to self-determination’. The Zionists would demand the right to national self-determination in the land of Zion. The Bund would demand national and cultural self-determination within the East European proletarian discourse. Matzpen and the ultra Israeli leftists would demand the right to self-determination for the ‘Israeli Jewish nation’ in the ‘liberated Arab East’, Anti Zionist Jews would insist upon the right to engage in an esoteric Jewish discourse within the Palestinian solidarity movement. But what does that very right to self-determination stand for? Why is it that every modern Jewish political thought is grounded on that right? Why is it that some ‘progressive’ assimilated Jews feel the need to become citizens of the world rather than just ordinary citizens of Britain or France or Russia?

The Pretence of Authenticity

It should be said that though identity search and self-determination are there to convey the pretence of a final march towards an authentic redemption, the direct result of Identity politics and self-determinative affairs is the complete opposite. Those who have to self-determine who they are, are those who are far removed from any authentic realisation to start with. Those who are determined to be seen as ‘cosmopolitans’ and ‘secular humanists’ are those who fail to see that human brotherhood needs neither an introduction nor a declaration. All it really takes is a genuine love for one another. Those who initiate and sign humanist manifestos are those who insist upon being seen as humanists while at the same time spreading some Zionist tribal evil around. Clearly, real genuine cosmopolitans do not have the need to declare their abstract commitment to humanism. Real citizens of the world, similarly, just live in an open world with no boundaries and borders.

I am surrounded, for instance, by jazz musicians of all colours and ethnic origins. People who live on the road, people who sleep every night in a different continent, people who make a living out of their love of beauty. Yet, I have never seen a Jazz artist who calls himself or herself either a citizen of the world or a cosmopolitan or even a beauty merchant. I have never met a Jazz artist who adopts an air of egalitarian importance. I have never met a Jazz musician who celebrates his or her right to self-determination. The reason is simple, authentic beings do not need to self determine who they are, they just let themselves and others be.

The right to self-determination

The right to self-determination is often cited as the acknowledgment that "all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” This very principle is often seen as a moral and legal right. It is also well embedded in the philosophy of the United Nations. The term self-determination was used in the UN Charter and has been defined in various declarations and covenants.

Though we all tend to believe that every human is entitled to celebrate his or her symptoms, the right to self-determination is in fact significantly meaningful only within the Western liberal discourse which accepts such a right and premises it on the notion of enlightened individualism. Moreover, the right to self-determination can be celebrated only by the privileged who can mobilize enough political power or military might to make this right into a practical reality.
However, it must be mentioned that even within the Western liberal discourse, it is only Jews who premise their political power on the ‘right to be like others’. The reason is simple, though liberated Jews insist upon being ‘like others’, it is rather clear that others prefer actually to be ‘like themselves’. This obviously means that the Jewish demand to be like others is futile and doomed to failure.

It must be mentioned also that within oppressed societies, the right to self-determination is often replaced with the right to rebel. For a Palestinian in the occupied territories, the right for self-determination means very little. He doesn’t need to self-determine himself as a Palestinian for the obvious reason that he knows who he is. And just in case he happens to forget, an Israeli soldier in the next roadblock would remind him. For the Palestinian, self-determination is a product of negation. It is actually the daily confrontation with the Zionist denial of the Palestinian right of self-determination. For the Palestinian, it is the right to fight against oppression, against those who starve him and expel him from his land in the name of the Jewish rather-too-concrete demand to be ‘people like other people’.

As much, as the right to self-determination presents itself as a universal liberating political value, in many cases it is utilised as a divisive mechanism that leads towards direct abuse of others. As we happen to learn, modern Jewish demand for the right to self-determination is rather too often celebrated at the expense of others whether these are Palestinians, Arab leaders, Russian proletariats or British and American soldiers who fight the last pocket of Israeli enemies in the Middle East. As much as the right to self-determination is occasionally presented has a ‘universal value’, scrutinising the pragmatic sinister utilization of the very right within the Jewish political discourse reveals that in practical terms, it is there to serve the Jewish tribal interests while denying and even dismissing other people’s elementary rights.

The Bund and Lenin’s Criticism

It would be right to say that the Bund and the Zionists were the first to eloquently insist upon the Jewish right to self-determination. The Bund was the General Jewish Workers' Union of East Europe. Like the Zionist movement, it was formally founded in 1897. It maintained that Jews in Russia deserved the right to cultural and national self-determination within the Soviet future revolution.

Probably, the first to elaborate on the absurdity in Jewish demand for self-determination was Lenin in his famous attack on the Bund at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903). “March with us” was Lenin’s reply to the Bund, rejecting their demand for a special autonomous ethnic status amongst the Russian workers. Lenin obviously spotted the tribally divisive agenda within the Bund philosophy. “We reject,” said Lenin, “all obligatory partitions that serve to divide us”. As much as Lenin supported “the right of nations to self-determination”, he was clearly dismissive of such a Jewish right which he correctly identified as divisive and reactionary. Lenin supported the right of oppressed nations to build their national entities, however he resisted any bigoted, narrow nationalist spirit.

Lenin raised three main reasons against the Bund and its demand of cultural self-determination:

First. Raising the slogan of cultural-national autonomy leads to splitting the nations apart, and therefore destroying the unity of the proletariat within them.

Second. Lenin saw that the intermingling of nations and their amalgamation was a progressive step, while turning away from that is a step backwards. He criticized those who "cry out to heaven against assimilation."

Third. Lenin did not regard the ‘non-territorial cultural independence’ advocated by the Bund and the other Jewish parties as advantageous, practical, or practicable.

Lenin’s approach to the Bund is rather significant and should be reflected upon. Using his sharp political common sense, Lenin doubted the ethical and political grounds of the right of Jews to self-determination, as much as the Bund demanded that Jews should be treated as a national identity like all other nationals. Lenin’s answer was strictly simple: “Sorry guys, but you aren’t. You are not a national minority just for the reason that you are not attached to a piece of geography.”

Matzpen and Wolfowitz

“The solution of the national and social problems of this region can come about only through a socialist revolution in this region, which will overthrow all its existing regimes and will replace them by a political union of the region, ruled by the toilers. In this united and liberated Arab East, recognition will be granted to the right of self-determination (including the right to a separate state) of each of the non-Arab nationalities living in the region, including the Israeli-Jewish nation” (Matzpen Principles http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?p=principles)

Seemingly, Lenin’s criticism has never been properly internalised by Jewish so-called ‘progressive’ ideologists. Abuse of others and dismissal of elementary rights has become inherent to Jewish ‘progressive’ political thinking. Reading the principle document of Matzpen, the legendary ultra leftist Israeli group may leave one perplexed.

Already in 1962 Jewish Matzpenists had a plan to ‘liberate’ the Arab world. According to Matzpen’s principles, all you have to do is “overthrow all (Arab) existing regimes” so “recognition will be granted to the right of self-determination of each of the non-Arab nationalities living in the region, including (of course) the Israeli-Jewish nation.”

It doesn’t take a genius to grasp that at least categorically, Matzpen’s principles are no different from Wolfowitz’s Neocon mantra. Matzpen had a plan to ‘overthrow’ all Arabs regimes in the name of ‘socialism’ so Jews can ‘self-determine’ who they are. Wolfowitz would do exactly the same in the name of ‘democracy’. If you take Matzpen’s Judeo-centric ‘progressive’ text and replace the word ‘Socialist’ with ‘Democratic’ you end up with a devastating Neocon text and it reads as follows:

“The solution of the national and social problems of this region, can come about only through a democratic revolution in this region, which will overthrow all its existing regimes and will replace them by a political union of the region …Recognition will be granted to the right of self-determination of each of the non-Arab nationalities living in the region, including the Israeli-Jewish nation.”

Seemingly, both the ‘legendary’ progressive Matzpen and the reactionary despised Neocons use a similar abstract concept with some pretence of universality to rationally justify the Jewish right to self-determination and the destruction of Arab-grown regional power. Seemingly, both Neocons and Matzpen know what liberation may mean for Arabs. For the Matzpenist, to liberate Arabs is to turn them into Bolsheviks. The Neocon is actually slightly more modest, all he wants is for Arabs to drink Coca Cola in a westernised democratic society. Both Judeo-centric philosophies are doomed to failure because the notion of self-determination is overwhelmingly Euro-centric. Both philosophies are premised on an enlightened notion of rationality. Both philosophies have very little to offer to the oppressed, instead they are there to rationalise and provide the colonialist with some fake ‘universal’ legitimacy.

Clearly, Matzpen has never had any political power, it never had any political significance since it has never been in any proximity to Arab people, not to say Arab masses. Consequently, Matzpen could never affect Arab people’s lives nor could it destroy their regimes. However, Matzpen is seen by Jewish Leftists around the world as a significant chapter in the Israeli left. It is seen as a singular moment of Israeli ethical awakening. Thus, it is actually embarrassing or even devastating to find out that the most enlightening and refined moment of Israeli-left moral awakening produced a political insight that is no different categorically to George Bush’s infamous attempt at Liberating the Iraqi people. It should be clear beyond doubt that Jewish ultra leftists (a la Matzpen) and Zionised Anglo-American interventionism (a la Neocons) are in fact two sides of the same coin or may I allow myself to say two sides of the very same Shekel. They are very close theoretically, ideologically and pragmatically. Both political thoughts are Judeo-centric to the bone yet, they both pretend to premise themselves on universalism and aim towards ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’. But at the end of the day they aim toward Jewish self-determination at the expense of others.

The Right to be Like Others -The Zionist Logic

The following is a collection of extracts taken from a document submitted to the United Nations COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS in 2005.

It was composed by the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations (CBJO) and B'nai B'rith. It helps to grasp how Jewish organisations implement political power around the claim for self-determination.

As a point of historical departure of its statement, the CBJO chooses the ‘end of the Holocaust’ and the creation of the UN. The link is rather clear and intentional. The role of the UN is set as one that will save the Jews from any further genocidal attempts.

“As the world marks the 60th anniversaries of the end of the Holocaust and the creation of the United Nations this year, we in the human rights community have the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the principles contained in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other foundation documents of the international human rights regime. One of the most fundamental of these rights is that of self-determination. This right guarantees other human rights, such as the right to life, liberty and security of person, preservation of honor, equality under the law.”

It can be seen that at this stage the right to self-determination is conveyed in universal terms. But do not let yourself be misled just yet. It won’t take long before the Zio-centric twist will reveal itself.

“The events revealed sixty years ago when Allied forces entered and liberated the Nazi concentration camps could have been prevented if only the Jewish people's right to self-determination had been protected and fostered…. As the history of the Jewish people in the 20th century demonstrates, without a State of their own – the fulfillment of the right to self-determination – the Jewish people were at risk of discrimination, isolation, and ultimately, extermination.”

Slowly but surely, we can now see the shift from the universal ethical approach to a Judeo-centric self-centred argumentation. However, it is crucial to mention that prior to the big war western and American Jews were emancipated and enjoyed rights to self-determination, yet not many Jews thought that such a right should be celebrated in Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian people. Moreover, thinking in retrospective terms makes it rather clear that the ‘Jewish right to self-determination’ has brought Holocaust on the Palestinian people. In other words, the Jewish right to self-determination has very limited positive impact on humanity and human reality. Something the UN Human Rights Commission better take into account.

“As we reflect on this history, we must note the resurgence of anti-Semitism, and its new manifestation – anti-Zionism. In various intellectual circles, on university campuses and in the media, the Jewish people’s basic human right to self-determination is being eroded on a daily basis through misrepresentations and false equations. These anti-Zionists portray the Jewish people’s self-determination as excluding Palestinian self-determination. Some wish to turn back the clock of history by advancing a "one-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a proposal that was rejected by the General Assembly in 1947 precisely because it would have denied the Jewish people their right of self-determination…. Anti-Zionism is a dangerous path, for it hinges on the destruction of the Jewish State. As such it runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights….”

Interestingly enough, the gifted people at the CBJO do realise that sooner or later someone is about to question the ethical validity of the ‘Jewish right to self-determination’. In fact this is exactly what I myself plan to do within a page or two. Zionists are clever enough to grasp the possibility that their ‘carte blanche’ to ruin millions of lives in the Middle East in the name of fake universal concept may expire one day.

However, the CBJO are aiming towards an optimistic resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This is at least what they want us to believe:

“Today, we see remarkable progress in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian people have elected a government – one that has pledged to reject terrorism as a political weapon in favor of democracy and peace. This path of promoting peaceful co-existence with the Jewish people marks an important turning point from the Palestinian policy of violence. …All resolutions passed by this body under this agenda item should seek to affirm the right to self-determination for the Jewish people alongside that of other peoples…. Only then will the Commission on Human Rights be true to its founding principles. Only then will the CHR be part of the solution, instead of exacerbating the problem. Only then will this body demonstrate that it has retained the lessons that should have been learned 60 years ago, upholding and defending the basic right of the Jewish people to self-determination alongside a democratic Palestinian State.”

As we can see, the CBJO is there to tell the Palestinians who they are and what they should be. i.e., democratic and secular. Wrongly enough, the right-wing CBJO is no different to the legendary ‘progressive’ Matzpen and the implications must be clear from now on. There is no left and right within modern secular Jewish politics but rather self-centric tribal orientation which produces fake images of political diversity for obvious reasons.

One State, Two States or Just a State Of All Its Citizens

Not many Palestinians and Arab intellectuals take part in the One State/Two State debate. The reason is pretty obvious, Palestinians and Arabs do realise very well that issues to do with the future of the region are not to be determined by academic institutes or Palestinian solidarity conferences but rather on the ground. The impact of a single Qassam rocket hitting in the Western Negev is far greater than any form of intellectual conclusive discussion to do with ‘conflict resolution’. As it seems, the demand for ‘one State’, be it secular, democratic or Islamic is theoretical and rhetorical and has no implication whatsoever on the Israelis who still possess the political power and military might to maintain the Jews-only State.

As much as the notion of self-determination has zero significance on Palestinian people, the same is so for the verbal demand for one State. At a time of starvation in Gaza and genocidal plans announced by the Israeli Government, debates regarding the future of the region seem to be a luxurious endeavour explored by the privileged.

If anything, the debate over the one State solution is there to maintain the Israeli and Jewish hegemony within the Palestinian solidarity discourse. The reason is pretty simple, every discussion that aims at political resolution naturally takes into account the ‘Jewish right to self-determination’. This would be the case forever unless we allow ourselves to introduce a radical political and intellectual shift into the discourse. Like Lenin in 1903, we must call into question the true validity of the notion of the right to self-determination. Following Lenin, we should allow ourselves to admit the possibility that the Jewish right to self-determination is actually divisive or may even be a false call. It is there to be celebrated by the rich and colonial and the privileged at the expense of the weak and the oppressed.

We should stand up and ask openly why exactly Jews or anyone else deserves a right to self-determination. Isn’t it true that the right to self-determination always comes at the expense of someone else? We should stand up and ask, what moral right entitles a Brooklyn Jew to self-determine oneself as a Zionist and a future occupier of Palestine? We should openly ask what exactly entitles an Israeli born Jew the right to dwell on Palestinian land at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian? Am I entitled to demand the right to self-determine myself as a NASA Astronaut, or alternatively as a heart surgeon? Would you let me fix your heart based on my false self-inflicted recognition as a heart surgeon?

These questions are far from being easy to answer. Yet, we shouldn’t stop ourselves from raising them. Like Lenin, I tend to dismiss the Jewish legitimacy of the right to self-determination as a false divisive call. Instead, I would suggest an alternative ethical approach, which I borrowed from Ex MK Azmi Bishara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azmi Bishara), the Palestinian intellectual who had to run for his life from Israel in spite of being a Parliament member. Bishara moved beyond the one State/ two State debate or the Judeo-centric right to self-determination. He coined a brilliant political notion, namely ‘a State of all its Citizens’. Rather than a State of the Jews, Bishara suggested to make it into a State of the people who dwell in it.

Azmi Bishara is a vigorous intellectual and a well-known critic of the Israeli State. In numerous writings and public appearances, he has maintained that the Israeli State's self-definition as ‘Jewish and democratic’ is discriminatory. Bishara calls for an Israel that would be a ‘State of all its citizens.’ Bishara has openly pointed to a direct conflict between the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority over the definition of nationality in Israel. He articulates a trend among the Arab-Palestinian minority that poses a demand for socio-economic and political equality not only in formal law, but in civic citizenship and nationality. It would be right to say that Bishara’s approach is a political exercise in the Palestinian right to self-determination. Consequently, however, it didn’t take long before Bishara had to run for his life and search for a shelter out of Israel.

As we have seen, the right to self-determination is a luxurious approach at conservation of power. It is not going to be celebrated by any group but those who are already rich, strong and privileged. Zionists can boast all these qualities, as well as possessing the necessary power and military might to maintain their ‘right to self-determination’. However, given the reality on the ground, instead of demanding some rhetorical rights, we should fight for the Palestinian and Arab right to rebel against the Jewish State and against global Zionist imperialism. Instead of wasting our time on rhetorical fantasies and academic exchange, we better expose Jewish tribal politics and praxis. To support Palestine is to be courageous enough to say what we think and to admit what we see.