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:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

March 23, 2017
Chip Gibbons
Crusader-in-Chief: the Strange Rehabilitation of George W. Bush
Michael J. Sainato
Cybersecurity Firm That Attributed DNC Hacks to Russia May Have Fabricated Russia Hacking in Ukraine
Chuck Collins
Underwater Nation: As the Rich Thrive, the Rest of Us Sink
CJ Hopkins
The United States of Cognitive Dissonance
Howard Lisnoff
BDS, Women’s Rights, Human Rights and the Failings of Security States
Mike Whitney
Will Washington Risk WW3 to Block an Emerging EU-Russia Superstate
John Wight
Martin McGuinness: Man of War who Fought for Peace in Ireland
Linn Washington Jr.
Ryancare Wreckage
Eileen Appelbaum
What We Learned From Just Two Pages of Trump’s Tax Returns
Mark Weisbrot
Ecuador’s Elections: Why National Sovereignty Matters
Thomas Knapp
It’s Time to End America’s Longest War
Chris Zinda
Aggregate Journalism at Salon
David Welsh
Bay Area Rallies Against Trump’s Muslim Ban II
March 22, 2017
Paul Street
Russiagate and the Democratic Party are for Chumps
Russell Mokhiber
Single-Payer, the Progressive Caucus and the Cuban Revolution
Gavin Lewis
McCarthyite Anti-Semitism Smears and Racism at the Guardian/Observer
Kathy Kelly
Reality and the U.S.-Made Famine in Yemen
Kim C. Domenico
Ending Our Secret Alliance with Victimhood: Toward an Adult Politics
L. Ali Khan
Profiling Islamophobes
Calvin Priest
May Day: Seattle Educators Moving Closer to Strike
David Swanson
Jimmy Breslin on How to Impeach Trump
Dave Lindorff
There Won’t Be Another Jimmy Breslin
Jonathan Latham
The Meaning of Life
Robert Fisk
Martin McGuinness: From “Super-Terrorist” to Super Statesman
Steve Horn
Architect of Federal Fracking Loophole May Head Trump Environmental Council
Binoy Kampmark
Grief, Loss and Losing a Father
Jim Tull
Will the Poor Always Be With Us?
Jesse Jackson
Trump’s “March Massacre” Budget
Joe Emersberger
Rafael Correa and the Future of Ecuador: a Response to James McEnteer
March 21, 2017
Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt
On Being the “Right Kind of Brown”
Kenneth Surin
God, Guns, Gays, Gummint: the Career of Rep. Bad Bob Goodlatte
David Rosen
Popular Insurgencies: Reshaping the Political Landscape
Ryan LaMothe
The Totalitarian Strain in American Democracy
Eric Sommer
The House Intelligence Committee: Evidence Not Required
Mike Hastie
My Lai Massacre, 49 Years Later
James McEnteer
An Era Ends in Ecuador: Forward or Back?
Evan Jones
Beyond the Pale
Stansfield Smith
First Two Months in Power: Hitler vs. Trump
Dulce Morales
A Movement for ‘Sanctuary Campuses’ Takes Shape
Pepe Escobar
Could Great Wall of Iron become New Silk Roadblock?
Olivia Alperstein
Trump Could Start a Nuclear War, Right Now
David Macaray
Norwegians Are the Happiest People on Earth
March 20, 2017
Michael Schwalbe
Tears of Solidarity
Patrick Cockburn
Brexit, Nationalism and the Damage Done
Peter Stone Brown
Chuck Berry: the First Poet of Rock and Roll
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail