If you want to see a granfalloon, just peel the skin from a toy balloon.
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
The claim is often made that Zionism is based on racist assumptions.
The matter is rarely discussed in any detail, since those bringing different
viewpoints to the question tend to be so defensive that neither listens to the
other side. Given that the only prospect for peace in the Mideast depends on
resolving the conflict, it is imperative that defenders of Israel and its
critics learn to engage in reasoned debate on fundamental questions such as
this. Whether one's sympathies lie primarily with Israelis or with
Palestinians, it is hard to argue that the continuing violence benefits either.
The problem is not only that the two sides are starting with different
interpretations of facts. It is that one or both are ignoring essential truths
for understanding the conflict. These universal truths are often hidden beneath
layers of unconscious beliefs that are so ingrained that they are hard to recognize.
Since few people want to think of themselves as racist, they are even harder to
acknowledge. Any discussion that might lead to the conclusion that one side is
racist therefore breaks down before it gets to the root of the problem.
A person who feels genuine compassion for Palestinians may blame all Jews for
their plight, while those worried about the survival of Israel and perhaps the
Jewish people themselves may demonize all Arabs as hostile and dangerous. Both
are making the mistake of assuming that all members of one or the other group
are essentially all good or all bad. Most people do not fall into the trap of
accepting these racist beliefs, of course. The great majority of well-meaning
people who disagree on the nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict want an
outcome that is fair to both. The problem is that in order to visualize such an
outcome, we have to come to an agreement on what is "fair." This is where
unconscious biases lead to impasse.
The only way to a solution is to recognize and overcome the tribal mentality
underlying the "us" versus "them" assumption at the root of all racist beliefs,
conscious or unconscious. A common argument of defenders of Israel is that any
criticism of its right to exist constitutes "anti-Semitism," a charge that
infuriates those who hold that Zionism is inherently racist. Ignoring the fact
that the term anti-Semitism is a misnomer because the original inhabitants of
the area were all Semitic, there is some merit to both arguments. There are
among those on one side people who hate all Jews and on the other, people who
hate all Arabs. It is easy to point at such examples to make the case that
either group is racist, but in either case the argument itself is racist.
People are individuals. Claiming that attitudes and behaviors are universal
among any group ignores the reality that we are all more alike than different, that it is our commonalities that make us human. Regarding an entire group of
people as so evil that they deserve to be attacked because of who they are dehumanizes
both the victim and the aggressor.
This is not to say that a group might not be more violent because of cultural influences.
It is only an acknowledgement of the fact that such differences are culturally
determined, not inherent in one group. Identifying with one group or
the other to the exclusion of recognizing the common humanity of both, is
the essence of the tribal mentality that is at the root of all racism. Thus,
both groups claim that racism is endemic in the other group while denying it in
theirs. The question of this essay is whether such attitudes are inherent in
those who support Zionism.
A recent book by American reporter Max Blumenthal extensively documents that
racism is rampant in Israel today . Goliath:
Life and Loathing in Greater Israel traces the origins of this racism
and describes how it manifests in Israeli public opinion. Blumenthal, like most
prominent Jewish critics of Israel, is often called a "self-hating Jew," a label intended to mark him as an extremist who does not accept his
Jewishness. The fact that he does not place his ethnic background over his
humanity is thus assumed to represent some sort of psychopathology. This in
itself reflects the racist beliefs of rabid defenders of Israel, but is it
inherent in Zionist beliefs? Clearly, not all Zionists are racists. Many are
clearly humanitarians when it comes to injustice in other situations. The truth
is that decent people sometimes hold some racist beliefs. It is only when they
consciously acknowledge and cling to them that they deserve to be called
racists.
To rationally discuss the Israel-Palestine problem, we have to admit that a
Jewish state is by definition exclusionist. If Israel is "Jewish," as it wants
Hamas and the world to acknowledge, then what are its non-Jewish citizens? In a
democracy, all citizens are equal. The increasing number of discriminatory laws
in Israel and the Occupied Territories refutes this claim. Blumenthal makes the
case that these laws, racist attitudes and anti-Arab violence are the natural
result of accepting the idea that a nation based on an ethnic identify can be a
democracy. Unfortunately, those who cannot see that a "Jewish democracy" is a
contradiction in terms cannot see the evidence of it.
The claim that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is the slickest lie of all.
A growing number of Jews, including many thousands of Israelis, no longer
believe the one-sided narrative of the Israeli government concerning Gaza and
the Occupation. To claim that the government of Israel represents all Jews is
not just inaccurate, it is racist on its face. As former AIPAC member Rich
Forer describes in Breakthrough: Transforming Fear
into Compassion, A New Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict,
the ongoing pattern of violence cannot be understood until you confront the
tendency to view your tribal identity as somehow distinct from your universal
human identify.
The crimes of the past cannot be erased, but continuing to allow them will not
lead to a solution. Trying to justify any aggression against civilian
populations based on the idea that use of terror by one side is acceptable because
the other uses it will make neither Israel nor Palestine safer. It is wrong
when Hamas does it and wrong when Israel responds with overwhelming force. However, the overwhelming superiority of the
Israeli military over Hamas should lead any objective observer to ask whether
Israel has any moral justification for repeatedly slaughtering thousands of
civilians in the name of "defense." If you look at the facts you find that it
is Israel who has almost always broken any truce that has lasted any length of
time.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
