Politically, we see that US Zionist politicians (the most important of which have not been Jewish at all, but who have made support of "Israel" one of their specialties) have very much occupied a bipartisan catbird seat in the US regime, but with a noticeable tilt (with historical roots) towards the Democrats. Well, that just happens to be the party favored by the majority of US leftists, and attacking US Zionism would threaten the ongoing suppression of an organized independent Left. So, for this and other reasons, US Zionism is a crucial nexus for holding together the US regime. It's hardly the only one, but its the one that current developments have offered up as a target, and it is as good as any other potential candidate.
And, when - as we should - we place the whole "Israel" question in the greater context of US intervention in the Middle East, we begin to see that this struggle is much more like Vietnam than South Africa. The US never seriously strove for "victory" in South Africa, but it did in Vietnam and it is attempting to do so in the Middle East today, where annihilating at least one Arab nation will serve a subjugating example for the rest. Ain't that how Empire's done, if necessary?
And what was really radicalizing about the anti-Vietnam War struggle was that it caused a lot of people to begin to question these "core values", to begin to see that this "America" really presented a huge problem for the development of humanity, indeed, its number one problem.
So, to focus on the so-called "foreign" state of Israel is not only besides the point and misleading, but a positive political disservice as well. This only serves to mobilize the anxieties of American Jews (who will reject "attacks on the state of Israel") along reactionary lines, while keeping the rest of the American population asleep.
But it will keep the Democratic Party intact. And preserve the status quo among US leftists.
-Brad Mayer
At 12:41 PM 7/12/01 -0400, you wrote:
>One thing I have never understand (or may understand well) is why opponents
>of Israeli repression insist on referring to it simply as Zionism, as in
>"Zionism equals racism" when it would be simple enough, less inflamatory and
>more accurate just to say the Israeli state practices racism and oppression.
>
>Zionism is a broad theory and ideology of population migration that had many
>strains, some of which worked closely with Palestinian groups in the early
>part of the century. All sorts of groups over the millenium have seen the
>need to leave their present residence to escape repression and seek a new
>home. The world is hardly a place where every person is in the same place
>their ancestors lived and the world map is shaped by mass migrations of
>peoples.
>
>To single out the migration ideology of the Jews as uniquely racist is not
>anti-Israel but anti-Jewish. It is the specific end-product of that
>migration, the Israeli state that deserves the criticism, so casual attacks
>on "Zionism" rather than the Israeli state just melds anti-semitism into the
>criticism.
>
>As well, of course, the history of this century has such propaganda as the
>"Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which gives attacks on "Zionism" in
>criticisms hands an extra taint of the antisemitic propagandists.
>
>So I wonder why people insist on attacking "Zionism" rather than attacking
>the Israeli state?