by John-Paul Leonard

(Mr. John-Paul 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 Diaspora.

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 sides.

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.

Mr. John-Paul Leonard is a free-lance writer and a regular contributor to Media Monitors Network (MMN)

by the same author: