FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Racism and the Movement to End the Israeli Occupation

by PAUL LARUDEE

On August 6, 2013, State House spokeswoman Jen Psaki made history by telling AP reporter Matt Lee that the U.S. had “determined that we do not need to make a determination” whether the military coup in Egypt was in fact a coup d’état, which would have triggered a suspension of roughly $1.5 billion annually in mostly military aid to Egypt.  This head-in-the-sand approach to policymaking and implementation apparently has other applications, as groups dedicated to “ending the Israeli occupation” of Palestinian land are discovering.

The question came up as one of those groups, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, sought to formulate a statement and policy against racism within its ranks.  The draft statement expressed the opposition of USCEIO to  “…all forms of racism, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism or any other expressions of bigotry…”  In the discussion, one of the participants (me) proposed the addition of Zionism to the expressed forms of racism.

Zionism is obviously a key cause of injustice to Palestinians and therefore an important consideration in the mission of the USCEIO.  However, is Zionism racism?

There are several definitions of Zionism, but it is widely understood as the movement to create and preserve a Jewish state in Palestine.  If you advocate a Jewish state, you are a Zionist (although some people claim to defend a Jewish state because Zionists want one and not because they are themselves Zionist).

In order to create Israel, which defines itself as a Jewish state, it was necessary to expel most of the existing non-Jewish population, which outnumbered the Jewish population two-to-one at the time.  The determination of whom to expel was simple: Jews stay; non-Jews leave.  Racist? You decide.

Then there’s the matter of immigration.  Who gets to become Israeli?  Jews, of course, and occasionally their non-Jewish immediate family (who will hopefully convert).  Non-Jews, including those who were expelled from their homes are out of luck.  Racist?

The third and final illustration is the matter of housing in Israel for Israeli citizens.  More than 93% of Israeli land is off limits to its non-Jewish citizens.

There is much, much more, but the point is that all of this is done in the name of Zionism.  Granted, not all Zionists agree with all of these policies.  In fact some of them – often called “anti-occupation” Zionists – advocate the return of Palestinian lands seized by Israel in the 1967 war, and they oppose any further land seizures within Israel.  However, they do not advocate returning the much larger seizures of Palestinian land prior to 1967 and allowing Palestinians to return to their homes in those areas.

Why?  Because they want those lands for their Jewish state.  Palestinians must be excluded from returning to their homes in those areas because they are not Jews.  Is that racist?  You decide.

Strategically, there may be reasons to cooperate with anti-occupation Zionists even if they are racist.  They are critical of Israel and some of their objectives are the same as those of non-racists.  This is in fact what the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign has done.  It surreptitiously modified its original mission statement in order to accommodate a subgroup of these Zionists (those who support BDS), which has now come to dominate the movement, with some significant results to its credit.

The USCEIO would also like to pursue the agenda of anti-occupation, pro-BDS Zionists.  Unfortunately, this is incompatible with an anti-racism statement.  A model of such a statement was signed by more than 100 prominent Palestinians and published on the Electronic Intifada (EI), but it seems unlikely to win approval by USCEIO because it includes Zionism, along with Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, as forms of racism.  The preferable course, therefore, appears to be to “determine that it does not need to determine” that Zionism is racism.

What are the consequences of this choice?  Since there are few if any Palestinian groups that participate in USCEIO, the inescapable conclusion is that USCEIO prefers to be inclusive of some Zionists rather than most Palestinians, who are unlikely to join unless USCEIO takes a strong stand against Zionism and a consistent stand on racism, like the EI declaration.

Is it possible to include both?  Perhaps, but in order to move in that direction, USCEIO would need to become an anti-Zionist organization that accommodates anti-occupation Zionists that have some common strategic interests, not an anti-occupation Zionist organization that accommodates anti-Zionists willing to bend to Zionist ends, which is what it is now.  Only then can a consistent statement against racism be crafted.

Paul Larudee is a writer and human rights advocate, and one of the co-founders of the movement to break the siege of Gaza by sea.

Also: Read US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation’s official response to Paul Larudee.

Paul Larudee is on the steering committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
Pete Dolack
Killing Ourselves With Technology
David Krieger
The 10 Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age
Lamont Lilly
Movement for Black Lives Yields New Targets of the State
Martha Rosenberg
A Hated Industry Fights Back
Robert Fantina
Hillary, Gloria and Jill: a Brief Look at Alternatives
Chris Doyle
No Fireworks: Bicentennial Summer and the Decline of American Ideals
Michael Doliner
Beyond Dangerous: the Politics of Climate
Colin Todhunter
Modi, Monsanto, Bayer and Cargill: Doing Business or Corporate Imperialism?
Steve Church
Brexit: a Rush for the Exits!
Matthew Koehler
Mega Corporation Gobbles Up Slightly Less-Mega Corporation; Chops Jobs to Increase Profits; Blames Enviros. Film at 11.
David Green
Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective
Ed Kemmick
Truckin’: Pro Driver Dispenses Wisdom, Rules of the Road
Alessandro Bianchi
“China Will React if Provoked Again: You Risk the War”: Interview with Andre Vltchek
Christy Rodgers
Biophilia as Extreme Sport
Missy Comley Beattie
At Liberty
Ron Jacobs
Is Everything Permitted?
Cesar Chelala
The Sad Truth About Messi
Charles R. Larson
A Review of Mary Roach’s “Grunt”
David Yearsley
Stuck in Houston on the Cusp of the Apocalypse
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail