I myself am not a Zionist, because I oppose religious states in general. I think the seperation of church and state, or synagogue and state, etc., is a good idea everywhere. But I don't think this is a point of organization. If those who call themselves Zionists can really commit to a just peace in Israel/Palestine, if they can oppose the politics of occupation, and call for and end to US military aid, withdrwal of settlements, negotiations on terms that resspect the Palestinians' right to self-determination and the like, maybe they ccan create a Zionism that is different from what Zionism has become. I wish them luck. I won't attack them for trying.
So, from my point of view, Brad is right: the traget should be the policies of the Israeli government, and the US government's support for those policies.
--jks
>From: Brad Mayer <bradley.mayer at ebay.sun.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: (US) zionism
>Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:13:08 -0700
>
>Because the central aim is to attack the US state, not "Israel", which is
>_nothing but_ an appendage. It is crucial to grasp this. Likewise,
>Zionism - regardless of its European historical origins - is now entirely
>an annex of American politics and ideology. Contemporary historical
>developments have presented this to us as the prime target of
>anti-imperialism - not by choice - but necessarily so, since ideologically,
>Zionism neatly comprises all the reactionary "core values" of US
>imperialism: settler-state, Gods' country, manifest destiny, chosen people
>("americans", that is), military supremacy, race-based "democracy", the "go
>it alone, fuck the world" attitude - the thematic parallels are well
>established in American historiography.
>
>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?
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com