Share

Zionism vs. Zionism

by: Ira Chernus, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Smoke rises over Gaza on the second day of Israel's airstrikes last December. (Photo: Amir Farshad Ebrahimi / Flickr)

    It was a telling coincidence that two reports were issued on the very same day. The Geneva Initiative, a group of Israeli and Palestinian diplomats and technical experts, released its updated 400-page plan, spelling out the practical details of a reasonable two-state settlement. But Israeli newspapers barely noticed. They were too busy headlining the other report: a UN fact-finding mission's 575 pages of detail on war crimes committed by both Israeli and Palestinian forces during last winter's war in Gaza.

    The UN report's lead author, Richard Goldstone, says he's a Zionist and "loves Israel." The Israeli authors of the Geneva Initiative are Zionists who love Israel, too. So are the Israeli government leaders who ignored the new Geneva document while they lashed out at Goldstone and the whole UN fact-finding operation.

    So, the coincidence of both documents appearing on the same day cast a bright spotlight on the contest between two different styles of Zionism, a contest that may soon come down to the wire. And the outcome will matter to all of us. So, it's worth paying attention.

    There is one thing all Zionists generally agree on: The Jews should be a "normal" nation, like all other nations. "Normalization" was the mantra of the founders of Zionism over a century ago. It has continued to be a guiding principle for the Jewish state and its supporters.

    That's one reason Israeli leaders and many commentators were so outraged by the Goldstone report, just as they've been outraged by criticisms of Israeli actions before. Going to war, and killing civilians in the process, is what normal nations do, they say.

    Look at Afghanistan, said Ha'aretz analyst Amir Oren. "Dozens of civilians were killed this month in an air strike carried out by American warplanes" at Kunduz. "Goldstone is now free to go to Kunduz, but American might means there is no chance that he will. In the end, it is not about the law, but about power, military and political." Normal nations mobilize their power to get away with as much as they can.

    Oren expects the US response to prove that morality doesn't count for much in the world of normal nations: "When the smoke of Goldstone's report clears, the IDF and the government can emerge from the bunker to find that little damage has been done. Israel's cooperation is needed in the diplomatic arena.... President Barack Obama will probably curb the propagandistic trend of slamming Israel for war crimes in order to extract tangible concessions from it as a peace partner."

    Another Israeli pundit, Aluf Benn, adds that Obama is unlikely to threaten the Israelis with criminal persecution, even as a whip to move them toward a two-state solution, because any legal action "would set a precedent against other militaries fighting terror in civilian areas, as is the US army in Iraq and Afghanistan." Oren and Benn may well prove to be right.

    This is what a logically consistent Zionist should say: See, we're no different than the British in Kenya, the French in Algeria or the Americans in Vietnam. (A fully consistent Zionist might even add "or the Germans in Poland," though that would be too incendiary to say out loud.) We're just doing what comes naturally for modern nation-states.

    If that were all Zionists were saying, there might be little to disagree with. It's tragic, but pretty much true.

    However that was not Amir Oren's main point. Rather, he was emphasizing what nearly every other Israeli voice, from the nation's president on down, was emphasizing: Israel is not a normal nation because it holds itself to a higher moral standard when it fights. The Israeli military, he claims, has been able to "fine-tune its system of operational planning, approvals and legal involvement to reduce to almost nil the possibility of purposeful harm to civilians."

    The Israeli government used its most dovish leader, President Shimon Peres, to make the same argument in detail: "Israel is the most threatened nation in the world and yet it makes the most effort to avoid harming innocent lives. Any comparison of Israel's fight on terror with recent conflicts in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. immediately shows that Israel holds itself to the highest ethical standard."

    The ardent Zionist Richard Goldstone has most of his 575-page report to say it ain't so. Though the Israeli claims of innocence are dubious, they are also perfectly predictable. Proclaiming moral innocence, while acting amorally, is another part of what normal nations do - again, the British, French, Americans (and, yes, even the Nazi Germans) all did the same. Hamas is now doing the same, too, predictably protesting the accusations leveled against it in Goldstone's report.

    If nations have the kind of power the US has, they even set up tribunals like the International Criminal Court to cast blame on those they label "bad guys," while making sure their own people are exempt from prosecution. Again, tragic but true.

    So, how is Israel different? Most nations accused of war crimes make their protests rather quietly. They don't draw the world's attention to the discrepancies others see between their moral claims and their immoral actions.

    The Israeli government, on the contrary, used it as yet another occasion to indulge in its favorite rhetorical activity: pointing its finger at new enemies to "prove" that Israel is not merely innocent but endlessly persecuted - and eager to fight back.

    "The Goldstone Report is a grave blow to the State of Israel on three significant international fronts: The diplomatic theater, the media front, and the military-legal arena," reported the widely-read pundit Ron Ben-Yishai. "The Israeli government and mostly the Foreign Ministry must engage in a difficult battle in order to minimize the report's damage."

    The military metaphor is not accidental. "Israel girds for diplomatic war over 'biased' UN Gaza report," was the headline in Israel's most prestigious newspaper, Ha'aretz. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon called on his nation to "mobilize and act with all force against the report in order to remove it."

    The Israeli government's main "defensive strategy" in this battle is to "convince the world's democracies the report handcuffs them in their fight against terrorism," the Jerusalem Post reported. More precisely, such a report might handcuff other nations if the same standards of international law were applied to them.

    Deep down, though, Israeli leaders doubt other nations will be affected. President Peres lodged the usual complaint: When Israel goes to war on this, or any, battlefield, it faces unfair odds, because it is not treated the way normal nations are treated: "The Hamas terror organization is the one who started the war." Israel was merely defending itself. Yet, "Israel is the only country in the world which is not allowed to defend itself against acts of terror."

    Although Peres claimed that Goldstone's report "makes a mockery of history," it is actually Peres' own comments that make a mockery of history. Last fall, Israel could have avoided the Hamas rocket attacks and the war. All it had to do was ease its economic stranglehold of Gaza, which was causing widespread poverty and even starvation. And Israelis could know it, if they simply read their own press.

    But most Israelis were blind to that reality. For them, and for the governments they elect, feeling like an embattled victim of persecution is an essential part of Zionism. Though all nations are prone to blaming others for their problems, few if any seek out that sense of embattled victimization as eagerly as Israel.

    Mainstream and right-wing Zionism has always been tangled up in this catch 22: wanting to be normal, yet at the same time wanting to be seen as totally unique, singled out, attacked more unfairly than any other nation and, thus, quite abnormal. The more Israelis have tried to become normal by naming and defeating their enemies, the deeper they've entrenched themselves in their myth of being the uniquely persecuted people.

    It's hard for many Israeli Jews to say what it would mean to be Israeli (or to be Jewish, most might add) if there were not oppressors to denounce and resist.

    Hence the natural response, for most, to something like the Goldstone report: Don't read it carefully. ("There was a very quick rejection of the report," in Israel, Goldstone commented "even before anyone read it.") Certainly, don't investigate its claims and reflect on why such war crimes could have happened.

    Instead, just denounce it as "a feat of cynical superficiality," because "the verdict was sealed before the probe had begun," as the Jerusalem Post editorialized. When you're already sure that everyone hates you, everything and anything becomes further proof that everyone hates you, and that your only option is to fight back.

    Fortunately, not all Zionists are entrenched in this cycle of victimization and counterattack. Richard Goldstone himself said, in measured words, that "it is grossly wrong to label a mission or to label a report critical of Israel as being anti-Israel." - or, he might have added, anti-Zionist.

    Goldstone's daughter told Israel Radio that her father thought "he was doing the best thing for everyone, including Israel.... If he thought what he did would not somehow be for the sake of peace for everyone in Israel or that it would have hindered such efforts, he would not have accepted the job."

    For the sake of peace, recognize that both parties to the conflict have done wrong, that both must change, that both can change, that compromise is possible and is the only way to security - that's been the message of the Geneva Initiative group ever since it began in 2002. It has brought Israelis and Palestinians - notable political leaders and technical experts - together to figure out the nuts and bolts of a viable two-state solution. Since the end of 2003, they've had it pretty well in hand.

    The details are important. They show that when the official Israeli and Palestinian delegations sit down together at the behest of President Obama (as they soon will), there is a reasonable settlement to be had, if they want it. It's already written out in the Initiative.

    On the Israeli side, the Geneva Initiative is just as important because it shows that another kind of Zionism is possible - one that pursues a truly normal national life, free of constant conflict, more like the way normal, reasonable individuals work out their problems with their neighbors.

    The success of the upcoming negotiations depends largely on what vision of Zionism and "normalization" the Israelis bring to the table. If they remain stuck on the dead-end path of trying to be normal by insisting that they're abnormal, they will use the talks only to "prove" that the whole world is still against them. They'll treat every call for reasonable compromise as evidence of a global conspiracy to destroy the Jewish state.

    But as religious Jews begin observing their High Holidays - "aseret y'mai t'shuva," "the ten days of turning around" - it's most appropriate to hope that more and more Jews will turn around and follow the Zionist path charted by Richard Goldstone and the Israeli authors of the Geneva Initiative. They've shown that Zionism can rise above the constant need for victimization, enmity and strife, that Zionism can be a way to a truly normal life for both Israel and its neighbors.

    The contest between these two modes of Zionism will go on for a long time. And every American has a stake in the outcome. As long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved, US relations with Muslim nations will be undermined, US foreign policy will be strained and the US Treasury will continue to provide massive taxpayer support for Israel's military machine.

    So, though ultimately Jews must determine the shape of their Zionism, every American has a right to get involved in the conversation and help steer it in the direction that seems best for us. That's what any normal nation would do. Fortunately, the direction that's best for us - the direction of peace and normal relations between Israel and its neighbors - is best for them too.

  

»


Ira Chernus is professor of religious studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Read more of his writing on Israel, Palestine and American Jews at his blog.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Excellent article!! Thanks

Excellent article!! Thanks for having the courage to say simple truths simply. American mainstream media prostitutes will not do so and neither will the government. Indeed, much of the chutzpah for the excessive violence shown in the recent Gaza massacres comes from the fact that the Zionists know they can count on unanimous support from the American media and government no matter what they do - much like the guilty American army and low-life mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we were really friends of Israel we would force them to the peace table and cut their military budget coming from American taxpayers by 100 percent.

The writer has forgotten in

The writer has forgotten in his literary process a recent amazing success story of defeating Terrorism, in Sri Lanka by a determined Government which used its rightful powers to defete the Tamil Tigers, an organization banned in many countries and well known for having invented the suicide bomb., and using fellow Tamils as human shields. And yet, Ambassador Blake, an american diplomat, who unrealistically called for 'negotiated settlements' between the Tigers and the government, is in the fore-front of a foolish and unsubstatiated attempt to slam an accusation of "war crimes" on the Sri Lankan commanders!

"Last fall, Israel could

"Last fall, Israel could have avoided the Hamas rocket attacks and the war. All it had to do was ease its economic stranglehold of Gaza, which was causing widespread poverty and even starvation. And Israelis could know it, if they simply read their own press." do you really think it's so simple? you can hate on a full stomach.

Ira Chernus had a FANTASTIC

Ira Chernus had a FANTASTIC half-hour interview this week on The Jeff Farias Show. You can pick up this FREE podcast interview audio from The Jeff Farias Show from: http://jefffarias.podbean.com/2009/09/17/the-jeff-farias-show-9-16-09/ He was on the show with: - Phyllis Bennis, - Andre Moncourt and J.Smith, - & Flux Rostrum - as well as, call-in audience members: (1800.385.1566) The Jeff Farias Show is LIVE between 6-9pm Eastern Standard Time, Mon-Fri. ENJOY!

" See, we're no different

" See, we're no different than the British in Kenya, the French in Algeria or the Americans in Vietnam. (A fully consistent Zionist might even add "or the Germans in Poland"..." Well, the obvious difference is that the Poles were not lobbing missiles into Germany, The Africans were not sending suicide bombers into London, and the Vietnamese were not calling for the destruction of the United States. While not condoning violence against civilians it must be recognized that an armed faction of the Palestinians were waging a guerilla war against the Israeli civilians, and mounting their attacks and hiding amongst their own civilians.

Ira Chernus asserts: "Last

Ira Chernus asserts: "Last fall, Israel could have avoided the Hamas rocket attacks and the war. All it had to do was ease its economic stranglehold of Gaza." It is wonderful that Mr. Chernus' crystal ball reveals with perfect certainty what Israel "could have" done to gain the forbearance of the famously tolerant and broadminded Hamas. I have no doubt that in 2005, his crystal ball predicted that a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would have equally benign results. The complete withdrawal was carried out, completed on September 12, 2005; 12 days later, 30 rockets were fired into Israel. This is the realm of what did happen, not what "could have" happened. Let us note one other event in the realm of what did happen. A few months after the recent Gaza War, Hamas DID announce that it was discontinuing rocket attacks. Mr. Chernus could perhaps gaze into his crystal ball to discover the reason for Hamas' decision.

I'm afraid I don't

I'm afraid I don't understand what is meant by a 'Hamas nation'. Hamas is not a nation, it is a political party that was elected democratically and thanks to Israeli and American support, was deprived of power. The article is interesting, however I fail to see the difference between the two Zionisms. Even if one is milder, they are both advocates of apartheid, which is the current state of affairs in Israel proper and the concentration camps it has created in the Occupied Territories.

This essay is pathetic. The

This essay is pathetic. The simple fact is that the people in the leadership of the Arab nations and movements like Hamas are very clear that they are against the existence of Israel. I doubt the author of this essay would ever take the time to read the Hamas Charter or the PLO Charter. These documents make it perfectly clear that they do not want peace with Israel. When will you essayists ever admit this? The PLO was founded three years before the 1967 war. Why? To destroy Israel proper. How, by the way, can peace be negotiated with a partythat is in the midst of its own Civil War? Yet this problem is not even mentioned!

The U.S. had nothing to do

The U.S. had nothing to do with setting up the ICC, in fact they were opponents of it from the beginning and still have not signed on, as the following Wiki reference suggests: Following years of negotiations, the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalising a treaty. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.[22]

I love the way the comments

I love the way the comments always confirm the article's thesis. I fear Israel will never be able to see how much it looks like Hitler's Germany. The price will continue to be enormous for all, as it was for the Germans.

Mr. Chernus, like most soft

Mr. Chernus, like most soft Zionists, appears on the surface to be offering a reasonable, even "progressive" argument in favor of the pursuit of the two-state solution. He even teasingly hints at the possibility that Nazi Germany was only acting in the manner that modern states do. He ignores the fact that the fundamental ideology of the state of Israel is the same as it was for Nazi Germany - tribal fascism. To whit, a European tribe gives itself the privilege of ethnically cleansing and massacring other people in the name of an ethnocentric mythology, stealing their land, murdering and torturing anyone who dares to oppose them, reducing them to the status of "non-humans," all the while claiming that they are the victims and are acting only out of self-defense. Mr. Chernus comes close to pointing this out, but then in predictable fashion he suggests that the monster can somehow be tamed and domesticated. Regarding the chummy relationship between the Nazis and the Zionists, who saw in each other their mirror image, I recommend a visit to http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/nazi-medal-commemorating-zionist.html. It includes visual confirmation of the statement that they are two sides of the same coin. Ultimately, the only way for the so-called civilized world to deal with Zionism and the Golem it created (aka Israel) is to effect its demise. There is only one way to do this that will avoid further genocide and horror, and that is to replace the current political configuration in Palestine with one democratic, secular State. Perhaps that is somehow too simple and obvious for people to comprehend. But it is the only real "solution" possible.

I seem to recall that after

I seem to recall that after WWII there were discussions to create a Jewish state in Brazil. Maybe that idea should be revivited.

To the person who thinks

To the person who thinks Israel's military budget should be cut -- how do you think Israel will defend itself then? Happen to hear the New Years greeting from the President of Iran? I am really tired of reading the word, "Zionist," on the internet, without any discussion as to what that word means, in all of the inferred meanings included, to the speaker. Anyone care to elaborate, for a change? Otherwise, it's like reading people who write about "commies." As far as my dictionary is concerned, why would anyone be so opposed to the following? I'm not. And I can understand why Jews would want a Jewish state. Zionism |ˈzΔ«Ι™ΛŒnizΙ™m| noun a movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

Interesting! The

Interesting! The political analysis I heard on PBS (USA) was that the release of this information on the same day destroyed any chance of a two state solution this or next year. The Israelis are rightfully disturbed by this. I for one will never invite someone in my home who has declared that they exist only to kill me. Ethnic cleansing takes place quickly. Not drug out over a year or two...not to mention 60 years. If someone keeps attacking them there will be violence in return. There is no Palestinian organization, group, government, or political party that even proposes a two state solution and never has been. Jews after WW ll said "Lets get out of here." They knew Jews were fighting the British in their ancestral home. The US turned away ships full of Jews as did many nations. They went to the Territories where they had at least a fighting chance. The Jews also knew that their was a Muslim SS Division who took over 600,000 Jews, Gypsies and the unfortunate to a death camp. This was all done with the help of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni who worked with Hitler to eradicate the Jews. The PLO was formed in the Palestinian homeland know as Trans- Jordan where they got thrown out for trying to overthrow the government. There will never be two states. There will be Israel and the people on the other side of the wall. No one on that other side wants a state. They want death to all Jews. No one told me this. I studied history from many views to come to what I know. Try it!

One other comparison might

One other comparison might be a bit closer to home and thats your own treatment of the native americans, okay so Gaza is not a swamp in Florida but Israel has turned it into a hell hole, and about the Polish comparison, I'm sure there was some jews then that threw stones over the wall, much like Hamas is doing now. Don't forget most Isaelis were born outside of what we now call Israel, originally it was the Zionists who were the terrorists in Palestine, demanding someone else's land.

elpix has it right: too many

elpix has it right: too many contributers are letting their prejudices get in the way of a clear view of things. And, as for the claim that the Sri Lanka model is the one to follow. Come on! The Tamils were trying to cede from the state. Most Palestinians simply want their state - and want to be left alone in that state. If you read widely enough you'll find that US, EU and others' representatives have been meeting with Hamas leaders in private - and Hamas are not so clearly anti an Israeli state as their public pronouncements make out. (It's normal for politicians to pretend to their public they're taking a hard line when, in reality, they're ready to compromise). Force yourself to have a look at the Geneva document.

TO has suddenly become very

TO has suddenly become very popular for rabid types who do not normally pollute the site - this is a testament to the quality and effectiveness of the articles about the miscreant racists attacking health reform or Zionist aggression and criminality. It would be good if this rather blind audience would stay and increase the angle of the lens with which they view life but they wont; they are too angry and manipulated. Moreover, they will rant against the information here in much the same way that a dog tries to bite the hand of the vet vaccinating him against rabies.

Goldstone's report is

Goldstone's report is rebutted at many places, notably by Samson at http://samsonblinded.org/blog/goldstone-report-the-rebuttal.htm The question is rather with the first report you have mentioned. Who can still believe in a two-state solution when Jewish and Arab villages are hopelessly intermingled? Besides, how is it a two-state when Palestinians already have a state in Jordan and Arabs have 21 states?

In the conflict between

In the conflict between Zionism and Zionism, the only anti-racist, anti-imperialist response is to work for the defeat of both sides. By the way, to apply the same "laws of war" to a poorly-armed, half-starved, people blockaded in a ghetto -- whether Warsaw or Gaza -- as one tries (without effect, generally) to apply to a heavily-armed military force that is doing the blockading, reminds me of that famous quote from Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Zionism, the racist,

Zionism, the racist, aggressive, ethnocentric ideology that provides the basic rationale for the establishment and continued existence of the State of Israel rests on the mythology of "the Jewish People." For those readers who have open minds on the subject, I heartily recommend that you pre-order a copy of the upcoming English translation of a book by an Israeli historian by the name of Schlomo Sand entitled "The Invention of the Jewish People." (available from Powell's or Amazon). It makes very clear that the notion that the descendants of the 8th Century Khazarians (an Empire made up of tribes allied to Attila the Hun, and speaking a Turko-Finnic language) who were converted (under orders from their Emperor) to Judaism, have any rights whatsoever to Palestine (a land already occupied by real Semites who are the actual descendants of the original inhabitants (going back 2,000-3,000 years) is preposterous, to say the very least. It's been on the best-seller list in Israel (in Hebrew of course) since it's publication about a year ago.

I highly recommend reading

I highly recommend reading "Overcoming Zionism" by Joel Kovel. I too, see little difference between the two zionisms, they're both advocates of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Maybe the so-called "soft" zionists say the past ethnic cleansing and mass murders used to accomplish it is fine but those in future aren't - except that the future keeps turning into the past and then today's ethnic cleansing and mass murders committed by zionists are post-fact approved. And they then point to themselves and say what wonderful moral people zionists are and how normal. Zionists had their nazi collaborators too.

To 15:19, Anonymous: How

To 15:19, Anonymous: How can anyone oppose a two-state solution? I support a state of Israel AND I support a single payer health care system for the United States. Israel, btw, is a nation with a very sane universal health care system. I am in no way rabid, though I wonder about the posters who have all this venom towards "Zionists" (and whatever that means to them ... "dirty Jews" perhaps?). ---- Patrick Crothers, well summarized. ---Arnie Melb, the American Indians did not want to exterminate European settlers when they arrived on the East Coast. They did not have all this hatred and animosity, along with ties to the equivalent of formerly powerful Nazi groups. Nor were the settlers coming to the New Land with anywhere near the kind of experiences that drove Jews into Palestine after the Second World War. So I don't buy this repeated comparison to the American Indian. A lot more rationality would go a long way towards solution.

I used to be more

I used to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians. But after reading so much "Zionist" name-calling and anti-Semitic slurs, I support the conventional position on Israel these days. So many of you set a good example of why the Israelis are frightened and need to protect themselves.

Many of the postings here in

Many of the postings here in the comments might be from people hired by Israel to swamp comment sections of online media. The ethnic cleansing paid for by US taxpayers continues unabated in Palestine. One Zionist here claimed that ethnic cleansing has to be fast to qualify for 'ethnic cleansing'. Israel's first spasm of this sort of 'fast' cleansing was in 1948. Since then, due to global condemnation of Jewish ethnic cleansing, the Zionists have had to resort to the slow strangulation style of ethnic cleansing. For example, they are slowly pushing all Christians and Muslims out of East Jerusalem. And the West Bank 'settlements' are another squeeze operation. The reproduction of the Warsaw Ghetto in Gaza is another example of this.

I hope Truthout isn't going

I hope Truthout isn't going to become another hang-out for the rabid anti-Semites like the crowd that always congregates at Common Dreams whenever they post articles about Israel. They have completely changed the meaning of "left" in this country. I would never walk next to any of them at a demonstration with their disgusting swastikas painted on Israeli flags.

Excellent article, but it

Excellent article, but it doesn't go far enough in pointing out the obvious which some pig headed Israeli Zionists seem to have trouble understanding. The Palestinian's have every right to fight for their land and freedom. The Israeli's are illegally occupying Palestinian land and brutally repressing them. The world is tired of hearing Israel's whining about being the poor, weak, persecuted Jews. If the "Jews" are "A People" and have a right to a State then surely the Palestinian do also, whose land Israel occupies.

I will add my comment to the

I will add my comment to the others who note that the author of this article is both revising history, and not clairvoyant, when he says Israel could have ensured peace back in 2008 by easing the blockade of Gaza.

It is not being anti-Israel

It is not being anti-Israel to advocate that it respect international law and Geneva conventions, which it pledged to do when it joined the UN. Israel is occupying land set aside for a Palestinian state and peaceful means and appeals to international bodies have not dislodged them (thanks in part to the partisan US veto in the UN security council). It should be noted that Israel has annexed the all important water resources of the occupied territories. Interested parties, including the supporters of Israel that have posted here with often limited perspective, should acquaint themselves with the history that established a Jewish state in Palestine, going back to the late nineteenth century. The problems escalated during the British mandate but even before 1918 Palestinian arabs were afraid of exactly what has happened to them, their marginalization and disenfranchisement in their own homeland.

In Judaism, there is no

In Judaism, there is no sin, only crimes and misdemeanors-- breaking the Torah-Talmud Law. And anti-Semitic is an important element of Judaic Law-- for Jews to live outside of Eretz Yisrael, is a Persecution; Gentile Law is a Persecution. As a nation within a nation, the Zionist destruction comes from the inside. As Netanyahu said, "Once we squeeze all we can out of the U.S., it can dry up and blow away." Don't Take The Vaccinations.

8:51: "Don't Take The

8:51: "Don't Take The Vaccinations." Please do take your own advice.