> I think, for example, the condemnation of Zionism as "racism" at
> the racism conference in Durban is textbook anti-semitism.
Calling Zionism "racism" at places like the World Conference against Racism in Durban is a matter of saying "fuck you" to Tel Aviv, which is more a way of reminding Tel Aviv of the role that it played in Africa and elsewhere than condemning its current treatment of Palestinians -- the latter serves as a means to do the former. If the reputation of Tel Aviv is at the rock bottom among many poor peoples in poor nations -- especially in South Africa -- there is a good reason for that. Israel has not simply been a regional power allied with Washington playing a role only in the Middle East. E.g., Jane Hunter, Israeli Foreign Policy, 1987, <http:// www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Israel_SAfrica.html>; Chris McGreal, "Brothers in Arms -- Israel's Secret Pact with Pretoria," 7 February 2006, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/ 0,,1704037,00.html>. People remember shit like that. What does Tel Aviv expect? But the words of politicians are mostly for show, playing to the gallery in the domestic and international political theater -- see below.
> Above all else, I think if one takes seriously Liebknecht's
> admonition that the main enemy is in one's own land, then an
> excessive focus on the crimes of the United States and Israel by
> non-U.S. activists is, if not necessarily evidence of anti-
> semitism, then perhaps a sign of a certain naive social-chauvinism
> and limited understanding of capitalism as a social relationship,
> with "capitalism" as a system being understood as equivalent to the
> United States and Israel.
Historically, when it came to the defense of Tel Aviv, Washington was a late comer. The British Empire made a deal with the French Empire and carved up the Middle East between them and welcomed Zionists as a dependent ally in its imperial management of colonies (the British didn't do enough for Zionists in the eyes of the most rabid right- wing Zionists, of course, but that's another matter), paving the way for the establishment of an anachronistic settler colonial country (anachronistic because it was founded just at the moment when the European and Japanese empires were beginning to lose their colonies); the German money helped build Israel's infrastructure; and France was once Israel's principal military supplier and developed Israel's nuclear technology together with its own (cf. "Israel's Nuclear Weapons Program," <http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/ Isrhist.html>; Michael M. Laskier, "Israel and Algeria amid French Colonialism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1954-1978," Israel Studies 6.2, July 2001, pp. 1-32). And remember Suez. It's only since the 1960s that Washington has achieved its preeminence in the affairs of Israel and Palestinians.
Even today, when the chief political backer of Tel Aviv today is undoubtedly Washington, the European Union is Israel's largest trading partner: "The European Union is Israel's biggest trading partner - approximately 40% of your imports come from us, and about 30% of your exports come to us" ("Business Opportunities Opening in the Region, and International Interest to Take an Active Part in Them," Speech by European Commissioner for External Relations and Neighbourhood Policy, Benita Ferrrero-Waldner, at Prime Minister's Conference for Export and International Cooperation, Tel Aviv, 10 November 2005). The European media and politicians often talk a slightly better talk than the US media and politicians, putting down ugly Americans and trying to pass themselves off as friends of Arabs, but that's just for show, the same as the "state anti-Zionism" of predominantly Muslim states that condemn Tel Aviv and Washington while doing business with them and going along with them on almost all crucial political and economic matters.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>