The ongoing conflict, that for practical purposes I will arbitrarily state started in earnest on November 2, 1917 has been labeled in most media as either “The Israeli-Arab Conflict” or the “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” or some variant on those two. Quite often, one will find in newspapers and journals in the Arab world and elsewhere, that this conflict is referred to rather as “The Jewish-Arab Conflict” or the “Jewish-Palestinian Conflict”.
Aside from some articles, often cited by pro-Zionists, that occur from time to time in the Arab press, which do resemble the classic anti-semitic articles of 19th century European and American papers, such as Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, which was the first journal in N. America to unabashedly publish the infamous forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; quite often, “Jew” is substituted for “Israeli” when discussing this “Hundred Years War”.
Zionists will point to both the former and the latter as being irrefutable proof that “the Arabs” are “anti-semitic”. Of course one then gets into the silly debate, often initiated by Arabs, and most famously once by Yassir Arafat, of “how can I be anti-semitic when I am a semite?” This of course is either entirely disingenous, or is an honest misunderstanding of the word, anti-semite, which in fact was coined by a 19th century German, who was in fact a Jew hater, and was meant as a “polite society” term for someone who did in fact hate Jews, for whatever reason that individual might entertain. Of course those in “polite society” in that century, often thought that the word “Jew” itself was a pejorative, and so spoke of Jews as “people of the Hebrew persuasion”. The absurdity of this phrase is obvious, although it has carried over into the 21st century. The official arm of the Reform Judaism movement in N. America is The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the UAHC. It’s archaic sound to modern ears prompted a petition at one of the UAHC semi-annual conventions, to have the name upgraded to something more modern sounding. I proposed “Jews R Us” but it fell on either deaf or humorously compromised ears. The question that is begged is, if when one hears an Arab youth, as I did at a rally in Times Square, shout “Death to the Jews” is that person referring to Jews as Jews (i.e, as members of the Judaic religion) or is that person hurling that epithet from the context of the conflict in the Middle East in which his reference point for what constitutes a Jew, is a person who has been the cause of his subjugation in the area formerly known as Palestine?
This question is a serious one, and not strictly a matter of semantics, because since the beginning of Political Zionism formally begun at the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland in August of 1897, there has been the very real attempt by Zionists themselves to equate Zionism with Judaism, and in fact have them be one and the same.
This notion reached its zenith after the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 3379 on 10 November 1975. The hue and cry that went out defensively after that document was passed was that “ZIONISM EQUALS JUDAISM!!!”, and thus, Resolution 3379 was “anti-Semitic”. Parenthetically, one should also note that the attempt at equating Zionism and Judaism was also made in a book of the period entitled “The New Anti-Semitism” in which the authors stated rather frankly that when one spoke of Zionists in a derogatory manner, one was in fact speaking of Jews, and thus to be anti-Zionist was a “hidden” form of anti-Semitism. This proposition was successful for quite some time, for anyone speaking out or “daring to speak out” against the policies of Israel towards its non-Jewish inhabitants, based on very real injustices, was often cowered or silenced by the charge of being anti-Semitic.
This notion, of course is absurd on its face. Criticism of any sovereign state, based on its actions vis a vis its citizens and/or resident aliens is certainly a legitimate endeavor. Iran, the self-described “Islamic Republic” is roundly criticized, and rightly so, for its many human abuses under its ruling clerics. When one hears some fundamentalist Christian such as Pat Robertson speak of the United States as “a Christian Nation”, a hue and cry go forth, and rightly so, based on the wall of separation of church and state in the U.S. as codified in the U.S. constitution, and defined by Thomas Jefferson. Thus, it should not be surprising, that if Israel, by law, defines itself as “The Jewish State”, that some who are critical of its policies attack “The Jews” for being the cause of their suppression. But of course, this is not polite.
It is important to note that UNGA 3379, never once has the word “Jew” contained within it. Moreover, as is commonly misstated, it does not state that Zionism equals Racism, but rather that Zionism is a form of Racism. And yet the cry that went out after the passage of this resolution in “the organized Jewish community” and repeated as a mantra, was that Zionism equaled Judaism.
I quote portions of the text of UNGA 3379 because it bears examination:
” The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 1904(XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that “any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable (and) socially unjust and dangerous” and its expression of alarm at “the manifestation of racial discrimination still in evience in some areas of the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative and other measures,” [ emph. mine]
Recalling also that in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned inter alia the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,
Taking note of the declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women…held at Mexico City from 19 June 1975 to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that “international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism, and neocolonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, APARTHEID, and racial discrimination in all its forms as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination,”
Taking note also of the Political Declaration….adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held…from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology,
1. Determines that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.
There is not one mention of Judaism in this document, as one of the worlds great religious doctrines, or to Jews who are defined as those individuals who follow the religion of Judaism. And yet over the course of the years, Zionism has in fact co-opted rather successfully, the practice of Judaism and in the minds of many individuals, such as World Jewish Congress chairman, and head of the Seaman’s Corp., Edgar Bronfman; Zionism or Israel worship has replaced Judaism as their means of self-identification as Jews. Bronfman himself, a very powerful individual within not only “the organized Jewish community” but within the hierarchy of the World Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency, legally an arm of the Government of Israel; has frankly admitted that he rarely if ever steps foot inside a synagogue to observe the Judaic faith
Now I need to be clear here, that I am not criticizing an individual for choosing to not observe a particular faith into which they were born. That is clearly a valid choice. It is the fact that one has substituted what has in practice become a racist ideology, for that religion, and then proudly declare oneself a Jew AND a Zionist which gives me great pause
I again quote from the article by Rabbi Michael Lerner with regard to the Zionist project:
“Yet Judaism has been one of the causalities of this project. To the extent that Judaism has lost its ability to critique the distortions of the Jewish people, to the extent that it has become a cheerleader for a particular state, its army, its fundraisers, and its ideological support structure, Judaism has lost its connection to God and Torah. Instead of reclaiming its role as the voice of possibility, it has allowed itself to be subsumed as a prop to a deeply flawed existing reality.” [emph.mine] ( TIKKUN vol.13, no.2 Mar/Apr 1998 p. 35)
The spontaneous resurgence among Jews at a grassroots level, against Zionism, similar to that which occurred among prominent Jews early in the 20th century, typified by such various new groupings as Not In My Name, Jews For Racial and Economic Justice, The Struggle, and others arising in response to what is seen as a total perversion of Jewish belief as personified by Israeli government policies, and their supporters overseas is the palpable result of very real observations. Again, citing Lerner;
” Many young Jews (who) visit Israel…are appalled by the lack of moral sensitivity, the racism, and the absence of any larger spiritual vision….
Worse still, the transformation of American Judaism in the past fifty years into a cheerleading chorus for whatever direction the Israeli government has taken has caused major disaffection among the generation of Jews who grew up after the Holocaust. Growing up in a Jewish community dominated by fundraisers and the rich, told that any questions about Israel reflect a self-hating mentality, many younger Jews have been forced to look elsewhere for a moral and spiritual alternative to the ethos of…some institutions of the organized Jewish community.
Israel and its cheerleaders have in fact become impediments to Jewish continuity” (ibid.)
It is no secret that except in Orthodox Jewish communities, “organized Judaism” in the form of synagogue or temple affiliation, or affiliation with secular Jewish organizations has suffered from a loss of membership, that in some cases has been precipitous. Many congregations, even in large Jewish communities such as those in the NY Metro area have merged out of a need to pool overhead expenses. The reason of course, for this is the lack of ability to attract congregants. Now, some of this is the obvious result of a change in demography, the retirement of some Jews to other states such as Florida or other areas of the sunbelt. Yet many young Jews who might want to affiliate don’t see the point, since many Synagogues are more engaged in fealty to Zionism through fundraising events such as The United Jewish Communities Pledge Drives or attendance at investment interests such as Israel Bonds, rather than in an attendance to their “spiritual” needs, however one cares to define that last term.
Moreover the unspoken rule of “omerta”, not to criticize the state of Israel in public, “lest the gentiles notice”, has left many young thoughtful Jews in a quandary. If one chooses to speak out, one is denigrated by epithets, therefore vote on this with your feet by disaffiliating. Many of the laws of the Zionist state of Israel, and many of the common practices are entirely antinomial to any Jew raised in the ideals of Western Democracy. Many find the current recidivism in such denominations as Reform, which have entered a separatist phase; as enumerated in the 1999 Declaration of Principles of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR); abhorrent to their own core beliefs as to what Judaism ought to be about. That these laws have been directly responsible for repression of a native people is, at least to this writer, the most abhorrent thing of all, because it goes against the most fundamental premise of Judaism which is, “Choose life”, the lesson of the founding myth, The Akida, the “Binding of Isaac”.
The current generation of Jews is seeing made manifest, what their great-grandparents predicted,
” The oppression of the Palestinians has persisted, and the anger of the world’s peoples at the Jewish people’s insensitivity is growing (when we wake up to this in the 21st century, will we then revert to explanations that talk about the ‘inherent anti-Semitism of the non-Jew,’ or will we be willing to recognize that Israel, speaking in the name of THE JEWISH PEOPLE, has been pursuing policies that would rightly anger the morally sensitive throughout the world?)” (ibid.)
Twenty-three years ago, this writer was pointedly told by Rabbi Elmer Berger, the long time executive director of The American Council for Judaism – the oldest and still existing anti-Zionist secular Jewish organization – “now that you know the truth, keep it to yourself or you will be ostracized”. He told this to me because I was a young man starting out in my profession and he did not wish to see me ruined. He had seen this done to others who dared to speak out. I had asked him why he was able to do so, even though he was persona non grata to the “organized Jewish community”, and he remarked that he was fortunately, independently wealthy.
For many years, I kept my own council, and then as more and more of the violations of human rights, and outright atrocities perpetrated by the state of Israel, in the name of Jews, became more publicized and more manifest, I found other Jews finally coming out, as did prior, more clear eyed generations of Jews did , against this perversion of not only Jewish morals, but universal morals.
The most trenchant of these criticisms, which strikes at the heart of every Jew who remembers the Nazi genocide; and everyone should remember the Nazi genocide; is contained in an essay in the book Walking The Red Line- Israelis in Search of Justice For Palestine, publ. New Society Publishers 1992. The title of the essay is “Living Comfortably with Taboos” by Gabi Nitzan-Ginsberg. I feel compelled to discuss this article at length for two reasons; (a) it happens to be very truthful with regard to what the philosophy of Zionism has done with regard to how Israel functions under its engine, and (b) people now throw the word “fascism” around rather freely, since the election of the war criminal, Ariel Sharon as the new Prime Minister.
Gabi Nitzan-Ginsburg was born in Israel in 1964 of Argentinean parents. His grandparents had moved to South America, after the Nazi holocaust against the Jews of Europe, being one of the few survivors of their extended family. He describes his family as very Zionist, his father having worked for the Jewish Federation. Mr. Ginsburg was drafted into the IDF in 1982 during the Lebanon War. In 1989 he founded an organization called Red Light whose purpose was to stop police brutality against Palestinian workers in Israel.
” The volunteer hotline answered calls every night, from young Palestinians who were beaten, tortured or abused. Red Light went with them to police stations (to complain against policement) and to hospitals, to give legal advice. Red Light’s sudden exposure of so much brutality created a public lobby against police violence. For the first time, the police found themselves prosecuted in court for beating up Palestinians.” (Walking The Red Line, p.38)
The heart of his essay is a sentence which Gabi writes in the memory of his relatives lost in the Nazi genocide, and with the hope that his children will not have a reason to “write such a thing”. The statement is:
“There is a similarity between Nazi Germany and Israel”.
The essay, “Living Comfortably with Taboos” discusses the tabla blanca used by the State of Israel, and indeed by Jewish organizations raising funds for the Zionist cause; as a pretext for the justification of the suppression of the Palestinians;
” We, the Jewish nation living in Israel, have a taboo under whose protection we are able to ignore widely accepted moral codes….The Shoah (Holocaust).”
He states that this taboo prevents (or has up to now prevented) Jews from an inward criticism of the obvious loss of a moral anchor. The social axiom in operation is that “the Germans…were loathsome monsters, and the Jews were –and still are, by nature–innocent…and harmless sheep..the ultimate, eternal Victim.”
He does not bother delving into this notion as the raison d’etre for every Holocaust Museum built in the world, especially Yad Vashem, The Holocaust Museum on the Mall in Washington D.C., or the “Museum of Living Jewish History” in lower Manhattan. For a complete discussion of this phenomenon, I would recommend the reader refer to two well written books:
(1) The Holocaust in American Life by Peter Novick, publ. Houghton Miflin and co. 1999
(2) The Holocaust Industry-Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering by Norman Finkelstein, publ. Verso 2000
Admittedly, Ginsburg wrote the seminal sentence above for shock value, since;
“Even when the Ultimate Victims violently conquer, blindly exile, kill women and children, loot, burn, oppress, and destroy, they still remain The Victim…they have suffered so much for so long that they have unlimited credit. The world owes us infinite reparations…”
In fact, Ginsburg does not really believe Israelis are Nazis, he believes that there are lines of similarity among all oppressive nations of the world. He holds the Nazis up as the standard bearer in this regard; but lists among the oppressors, the French in Algeria, the Afrikaaners, the whites in native America, the British in India, the Russians in Afghanistan, and even the ancient Greeks and Romans.
This writer quite often hears, upon being critical of the state of Israel, the retort, “but look what you Americans did to the Indians, you have no right to criticize us.” My reply to that is that yes, what was done to the Native Americans was one of the great horrors in history, but that does not justify any silence because another injustice is being committed in full view in this century. More so, that this injustice is being committed in my name, as someone who self identifies as a Jew. For Israel does not call itself “The Zionist State”. Israel calls itself “The Jewish State”, and by virtue of its laws, as previously discussed, it is.
“The lines of similarity between us and those listed oppressors are worrying. More so when it comes to Nazi Germany after we have seen there is no absolute human red line, no finite moral border, no preset boiling point, no proven critical mass.” , writes Ginsburg.
He lists the ingredients of similarity as follows:
(2) Population unrest
(3) Territorial expansionism (known in Nazi Germany as “lebensraum”, literally “breathing room”)
(4) The presence of a weak alienated group
(6) Dehumanization of the victim (although written a decade before the murder of Muhammad al-Durrah, the picture of whose death in the arms of his father made front page world headlines, it should be noted that the IDF tried to spin the occurrence as having been the victim’s own fault! One has also read currently the obscene notion that Palestinian parents deliberately place their pre-teens on the “front lines” so as to “martyr” them.)
(7) A majority of an indifferent population (only 59% of all eligible voters in Israel recently voted in the election for PM between the war criminal, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak. Ariel Sharons, “overwhelming landslide” as spun in the corporate media around the world was actually the receipt of 62.8% of that 59% who bothered to vote. Doing the math, one notes that only 37% of all eligible voters in Israel voted for Sharon.)
(8) A stirring of paranoia parallel to demonization of the victim. (Recent reports: Israel plans to “take back” the West Bank. The unasked question of course is when had it been “given up”?)
(9) A tolerant attitude towards racist/nationalistic violence.
(10) A fictitious judicial system with regard to the captive population.
(11) Suppression of free speech.
The problem is not that “Israel has lost its way”, as some writers have been seen to bemoan, but that under the philosophy of political Zionism, which now has lethally taken on religious overtones (which had been done through symbolism since the beginning; with the adoption of the Zionist flag of the Zionist Organization, which is now the Israeli flag, deliberately resembling in color and design the traditional prayer shawl, with the religious symbol of the Mogen David in its center.) with so-called, “religious Zionists” such as the fanatics seen in illegal settlements exemplified by Kiryat Arba. At the turn of the century, Theodor Herzl wrote, “we shall spirit the penniless population across the border”. This was in his diaries which were not to be published until twenty years after his death. Unfortunately he did not expect to die, prematurely, at the age of forty, and so his private racist notions, which he denied to the world, were made manifest in the Twenties. But a spokesman for the Gush Emunim (Block of the Faithful) who inhabit Kiryat Arba settlement just outside Hebron is not so reticent. Meir Indor has stated:
” The Arabs must know that there is a master here, the Jewish people. It rules over Eretz Israel. The Arabs are temporary dwellers who happen to live in the country. There are commandments in the Bible concerning such temporary dwellers and we should act accordingly.” (al-Hamishmar 8 Feb.1980, cited on p. 870 Vol.II, Encylopedia of the Palestine Problem, Issa Nakhleh)
One can easily point to specific incidents with regard to the above ingredients delineated by Ginsburg, and some things do occur to a higher degree than others. However, what is remarkable is that all of what has come to pass, was predicted, by Jews fighting against the intrusion of Political Zionism into the Jewish world, as early as 1916; and most famously by Lord Edwin Montagu, Viceroy to India and the only Jewish member of the British cabinet at that time. The records of the British Cabinet, from 1915-1920; the period encompassing the Balfour Declaration and the beginnings of the Paris Peace Talks in which that document was included as part of the British Mandate for Palestine under the League of Nations, were made public in 1970.
Montagu had circulated a memorandum dated 23 August 1917 to other members of the cabinet with regard to the impending release of the document which has come to be known as The Balfour Declaration. He titled this inter alia memorandum, remarkably, “The Anti-Semitism of the Present Government”, and it was marked “Secret”. [ The Zionist Connection, by Alfred M. Lilienthal, publ. Dodd-Mead 1978 p. 737 ff.].
In his letter, Montagu accused the cabinet members (and thus His Majesty’s Government) of using political goals to achieve victory, as well as divest Britain of its Jews all in one swoop.
“This nation will presumably be formed of Jewish Russians, Jewish Englishmen, Jewish Roumanians, Jewish Bulgarians, and Jewish citizens of all nations – survivors of relations of those who have fought or laid down their lives for different countries which I have mentioned, at a time when the three years that they lived through [ fighting for their respective countries in “The Great War”, WWI].
Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed….I have always understood that those who indulged in this creed were largely animated by the restrictions upon and refusal of liberty to Jews in Russia. But at the very time when these Jews have been acknowledged as Jewish Russians and given all liberties [ under the new Soviet government – well they were given about the same liberties as everyone else in the Soviet Union – Z ], it seems to be inconceivable that Zionism should be officially recognized by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorized to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the “national home of the Jewish people.” I do not know what this involves, but assume that it means that Mohammedans and Christians are to make waqy for the Jews, and that Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mohammedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners….”
Decrying exclusivism, Montagu continued,
” I deny that Palestine is today associated with the Jews. It is quite true that Palestine plays a large part in Jewish history, but so it does in modern Mohammedan history, and, after the time of the Jews, surely it plays a larger part than any other country in Christian history. The Temple may have been in Palestine, but so was the Sermon on the Mount and the Crucifixion. I would not deny to Jews in Palestine, equal rights to colonization with those who profess other religions, but a religious test of citizenship seems to me to be only admitted by those who take a bigoted and narrow view of one particular epoch of the history of Palestine, and claim for the Jews a position to which they are not entitled.”,
caustically, and cleverly,
” I am not the least surprised that the non-Jews of England may welcome this policy.” [ ibid. all quotes from Lilienthal]
Other vehement Jewish opposition to Zionism was manifest in the United States. In March of 1919 Rep. Julius Kahn (R.-Ca.), the first Jewish member of the United States House of Representatives, presented to President Woodrow Wilson, at the Paris Peace Conference in Versailles, a petition opposing Zionism. This document was signed by two hundred and ninety-nine prominent American Jews from all over the U.S. The committee directly responsible for the document consisted of thirty one prominent Jews of the period. Notable for the time was that there were no women signatories. The full text of the Memorandum was published in the New York Times on 5 March 1919.
(1) Congressman Julius Kahn, San Francisco Ca., ranking Republican on the Military Affairs Committee
(2) Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey
(3) Simon Rosendale, Attorney General, State of NY, founder of the Jewish Publication Society
(4) Simon Wolf, former U.S. Consul in Egypt, and representative of B’nai B’rith (oldest Jewish fraternal organization in the U.S. – Literally, “Sons of the Covenant”) in D.C. who ” opposed governmental attempts to identify Jews as a group and was vociferous in denying Zionist aspirations, a matter in which he claimed assurances from President Wilson.”
(5) Max Senior, 1st Pres. of the National Conf. of Jewish Charities
(6) Lee M. Friedman, Attorney, Boston – Pres. Amer. Jewish Historical Soc.
(7) Judge Seligman J. Strauss, Court of Common Pleas, Wilkes Barre, Pa.
(8) Morris Jastrow, Jr. Professor of Semitic Languages, U. of Pa, University Librarian, Author of over 200 books and articles on Semitic languages, religions, and literature, and on contemporary political questions.
(9) Rabbi Henry Berkowitz – 1st Sec. of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR – Reform Movement)
(10) Rabbi David Philipson – founder and past Pres. CCAR
(11) Edward Max Baker – Pres. Cleveland Stock Exchange
(12) L. H. Kempner – Mayor, Galveston, Texas
(13) Jesse Isidor Straus – President, MACY’S Dept.Store, U.S. Ambassador to France
(14) Edwin R.A. Seligman – Prof. Political Economy and Finance, Columbia U.
(15) Jacob H. Hollander– Prof. Political Economics, Johns Hopkins U.
(16) Adolph S. Ochs – Publisher of The New York Times
(17) Lessing Rosenthal– Attny, Pres.Civil Service Reform Assn. of Chicago, Trustee-The Brookings Inst., Trustee, Johns Hopkins U.
(18) Abraham Kochland-Boston
(19) Jacob R. Morse– Attny., Boston
(20) Daniel Peixotto Hays– Head of the NYC Municipal Civil Service Commission. Exec Comm. Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC – Reform), Trustee and Sec. Jewish Publication Soc., Pres. YMHA
(21) Louis Stern – Pres. Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds
(22) Rabbi William Rosenau – President of the CCAR, member of the board of Governors, Hebrew Union College
(23) Rabbi William Landsberg – Rochester, NY
(24) Judge M.C. Shloss – San Francisco
(25) Julius Rosenstein, M.D. – Surgeon, Mt.Zion Hsptl. San Francisco
(26) Isais Wolf Hellman– founder, Union Trust Co. L.A. One of three contributors of land for the U. of Southern Cal. Member of the board of regents U. of Cal. for 37 years.
(27) Judge Josiah Cohen– Court of Common Pleas, Pittsburgh; life trustee of the Carnegie Inst.; founder of the UAHC, director of the Federation of Jewish Charities
(28) Justice Horace Stern – Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Pa.; trustee U. of P.; V.P. Jewish Publication Society of America.
(29) Julius W. Freiberg – Cincinatti Charter Commission, past president UAHC.
(30) Rabbi Abraham Simon – organizer of the Washington, D.C. chap of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, past pres. of the CCAR and founder of the Synagogue Council of America
(31) Isaac Wolfe Bernheim -distiller and philanthropist. Louisville Ky.
[ Encylopedia of the Palestine Problem p. 1025-6 Vol.II – a full listing of all signatories appears on pages 1026-1029 as was printed in The Jewish Review and Observer, Cleveland Ohio, March 14, 1919. For the full text of the statement see Nakleh, Encylopedia of the Palestine Problem, Chapter 41, Vol II ppgs.1023-1025]
All of those people, who had the foresight to see what problems Political Zionism would create, were responding as Jews. They were responding to what they saw as the creation of a perversion of what it meant to be a Jew, and the subsequent redefinition of a Jew. Unfortunately because of a lack of an aggressive organization opposed to the Zionists, the virtual complete co-optation of Judaism by Political Zionism became completed at the Biltmore Conference held in NYC in 1941, which was attended by leading pro-Zionist rabbis, Stephen M. Wise and Abba Hillel Silver; as well as WZO head Chaim Weizmann and leader of the Yishuv (the Jewish Community in Palestine), David Ben-Gurion.
Zionism has never lost its way or its bearings. It has proceeded with its program, apace, to take over all of what was once Arab Palestine. The late Rabbi Meyer Kahane, almost universally denounced, and rightly so, as a racist; was not an original thinker. If one examines his two books, one notes how remarkably similar his words are to Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, and direct mentor of Menachem Begin, Avram Stern (the founder of LEHI, better known as The Stern Gang), and YItzhak Shamir; and spiritual mentor to Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ariel Sharon.
It is a telling and interesting piece of trivia to note that there are more places in Israel named after Jabotinsky than there are after David Ben-Gurion or any other Zionist leader.
It was Jabotinsky who was the first to be brutally honest about the Zionist project:
” Of course the Arabs would not welcome a Jewish colonization of the Holy Land, he said. Why should they? He recognised as much as any Arab the illogic of the Balfour Declaration’s claim that the homeland should be established without prejudicing the civil or religious rights of the existing inhabitants. That could not be. The Arabs themselves must recognize this. And, since they were not likely to hand over their land without a firght, they must be fought for it. Even after the Balfour Declaration, not only did the Zionists still hesitate publicly to advocate a Jewish majority in Palestine. To Jabotinsky this too was nonsense. The vision of Zion could only be realised with a Jewish majority, as soon as possible. AND HE RECOGNIZED THAT THIS MEANT THE USE OF FORCE.” ( The Controversy of Zion-Jewish Nationalism, the Jewish State, and the Unresolved Jewish Dilemma by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, publ. Addison Wesley 1996 p. 174)
It has become apparent to many Jews in the current generation that this state created as a result of 19th Century Utopianism, Western Imperialism and Colonialism, two international bodies which created laws to justify this takeover of Palestine ; is antinomial to their very being in what they consider to be an appropriate “Jewish” way to act towards ones fellow human. In recognizing this, these Jews have sought the guidance of their great grandparents, their antecedents; having freed themselves from the fog of knowledge obscured by the Nazi holocaust against the Jews of Europe. The highest Jewish doctrines are these;
“Choose Life” (Chai) and “Do not do unto others, that which is hateful to yourself, that is the entire Torah, all the rest is commentary.” Under these conditions, Zionism and its creation, The state of Israel, is decidedly un-Jewish.