by John-Paul Leonard
Leonard wrote the following article in response to the
2nd letter from Dr. Andrew E.
Mathis to the Editor)
I am not sure why Dr. Mathis has troubled himself to
reply again, for our differences are more matters of tone than of
substance. He agrees with us that "the evictions process and
Zionist aggression in the Galilee both were unfair and wrong". I
can't see how he figures that we equate him with the Stern Gang.
Unfortunately, the question of how many hundred years the ancient
Hebrew kingdom lasted has been irrelevant for millenia. Concerning the
meaning of Semite, and political blindness, the blind spot is, as I
pointed out, in this TV-drugged Western World that knows only about
the "Judeo-Christian" tradition and almost entirely ignores
our Islamic-Arabic tradition.
Since we are engaged in a war of words, let us go over
the words again. The word anti-Semite may have meant just that to the
old school German who invented it, perhaps imagining that he was an
Aryan as a peg for his feelings of superiority to the sons of Shem.
Ever since it was taken to mean anti-Jewish only, probably for most of
its history, it has been a misnomer. This misnomer is very irritating
to anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian people and a crass insult to Arabs in
general. Since it has been established that anti-Semitism is a bad
thing, the word has become a kind of weapon or talisman - most often
used now against the Semites - but Dr. Mathis is for letting the Jews
retain the monopoly on this usage. Arguably the Jews paid most for it
in the past, but the tables turned after 1945.
We need to let the word "anti-Semite" mean
what it says, which is ambivalent enough in today's conditions, so
that it should become largely obsolete. To replace it we need at least
three precise terms: anti-Arab, anti-Jewish (or Arabophobe and
Judeophobe), and anti-Zionist.
Keeping misnomers around leads to confusion, which
serves only as a cloak to cover the ongoing crimes of Zionism.
Semite means Semite, anti-Semite that which is opposed
to it. This is a TRUISM. Fortunately, to be true a statement needs
only to be true, that is another truism. Truth does not derive from
51% of public opinion at a given point in time or the thickest book
around to prop it up, no matter what experts and tyrants believe.
These people are mired in their Judeo-Christian limitations and have
simply forgotten that the Arabs are the major Semitic group, probably
always have been, especially since their Hebrew cousins were
assimilated into a partly mixed ethnic/religious group in the
I certainly agree that the position of Jews of
conscience, our very dear allies in opposing Zionism, is a difficult
one. But it is improving of late, the tide is with us. Glasnost -
transparency - is coming our way.
In closing Dr. Mathis puts the whole onus of Zionism
on the Holocaust. Unfortunately, that is a gross oversimplification.
There is even a body of thought that WWII and the Holocaust were
provoked by Zionism. There were Arab uprisings against Zionist
incursions in Palestine already in the 1920's. I already covered this
- that the inner contradiction of Zionism was in coveting majority
rule in a state that already belonged to other people. That was the
recipe for genocide.
How to solve the contradiction now? The Jews of Israel
should accept - in fact, they should enthusiastically welcome - an
Israeli-Palestinian federation with a bicameral constitution granting
them physical security and electoral majorities in their cantons. This
will be the best and most constructive way to right wrongs on both
Time is on the side of justice and reason. Stalling for time can
only raise the cost of the reckoning for reparations. The days of
racialist-fascistic apartheid are numbered, no matter how much the
establishment in Washington and Tel Aviv think they can go it alone
against God and mankind.
Leonard is a free-lance writer and a regular contributor to Media Monitors
by the same author: