|
Defining Racism
by Kim Petersen
 The neocon press is not merely confined to the United States. It flourishes in the money-losing Canadian newspaper National Post. The paper rabidly supports Zionism, which means that it supports the dispossession of Palestinians who are indigenous to historical Palestine.
A recent editorial screed (it makes no effort to hide itself as such) was written by a Canadian version of American right-winger Ann Coulter (in regressivism but not glamor), Barbara Kay.
Kay describes Israel as a “literal phoenix risen from the ashes…” Ashes? What she didn’t mentioned was that, if there were any ashes, the ashes were of Palestinians who inhabited the territory.
If, indeed, Palestine was a land without people, then by all
means, Jews (or any other people) migrating to the land, working it,
and making a living there would make for a great success story. No one
should have a problem with this.
Despite deceptive protestations
by erstwhile Israeli politicians, such as Golda Meir, the land was not
empty, and most people, nowadays at least, regard the dispossession of
an indigenous people as morally reprehensible.
Since the fact
of Palestinians being massacred and forcibly expelled from the Jewish
state is established, it would seem to any reasonable observer that
the Palestinian people have a legitimate grievance for being resentful.
Yet, Kay gallingly describes Arab resentment of the crimes that they
have and are facing as a “cancer”: “anti-Semitism.” If Kay’s logic is
sound, then by the same logic, Jewish resentment of crimes against them
by Nazis would be anti-Teutonism on the part of Jews. This is patently
absurd, as is Kay’s nonsense.
Kay writes, “The new Jew-hatred
isn’t characterized by brutal government-sponsored Kristallnachts.” Kay
attempts to wipe out the historical context here, to erase Deir Yassin
among other massacres, to elide the wiping of over 500 Palestinian
villages off the map.
Kay proffers, “It should go without
saying that criticism of Israel is, in itself, not tantamount to
anti-Semitism. Clearheaded critics treat Israel as a country like any
other, including their own. They judge Israel’s actions by the single
standard they apply to everyone else, and speak of Israel in language
appropriate to truthful exchange.”
This sounds fine. This is the
principle I will apply. I will start from the principle that
dispossession of indigenous peoples from their land is wrong. I asked
Kay:
“Do you deny that an indigenous people — the Palestinians —
were forcibly transferred from their land so that Israel might ‘rise
like a phoenix from the ashes’?
“Just as the expulsion of Jews from European countries was wrong, was it not wrong to expel Arabs from their land?”
Kay’s
email response is telling in how it avoided the questions, placed the
blame on the victims, and regurgitated discredited Zionist propaganda.
The
great majority of the Palestinians would not have left the land if they
had not been told to by their leaders, who expected that the combined
might of the attack by 7 Arab countries would soon settle the issue of
Israel altogether. Those who stayed have Israeli citizenship and are
very happy in israel. If Iisrael [sic] was so bent on ethnic cleansing,
how is it that they did not kick out those who did not leave
voluntarily?
The answer is that apart from a few unsavory incidents,
the Palestinians left to be out of the way of the coming war, and fully
expected to return when the war was won by their side. Too bad, they
bet on the wrong horse. Those are the fortunes of war, and there are so
many other cases of that in history, but somehow it is only Israel that
gets flak for what all other countries have done when wars are won.
Since Israel did not start that war, the losers have only themselves to
blame. The Jews who were kicked out of Arab lands were welcomed into
Israel, just as the Palestinians should have been welcomed into Jordan
and Lebanon, and the books would have been nicely balanced. They were
left to rot in refugee camps by their “brothers” as political pawns and
to arouse the sympathy of people like you. But they should not be
Israel's problem.
History has moved on. The moral of the story is that
if you want to live in peace with your neighbours, don't start wars
with them, as you may not be happy with the result. They should be
offered monetary restitution for their homes and then let them make
their peace with their bad gamble.
Barbara Kay makes assertions.
Where does she base her claim that Palestinians are happy with Israeli
citizenship? Is she referring to the happiness felt by Bedouins whose
homes and crops are demolished in the Negev? Is she referring to the
happiness Palestinians feel at being unable to buy land from the Jewish
National Fund — an embarrassment to Jews?
As for the notion
of a voluntary efflux of Palestinians, Jewish Israeli historian Ilan
Pappe refuted this propaganda.
Kay’s question about an incomplete
“ethnic cleansing” is glaring in its presumptions. She is unaware or
ignores polls that indicate a plurality of Israeli Jews are bent on
“ethnic cleansing.” Moreover, the Jewish state does not function in a
sealed domestic vacuum. Flagrant violations of human rights and crimes
against humanity are likely to heighten the international opprobrium
directed at Israel, and no state willingly courts pariah state status.
The
Right of Return is a universal right. It is the same right that Jews
lay claim to in migrating to Israel, and deny to indigenous and refugee
Palestinians. The double standards here are stark.
The
disinformation is so dense, it astounds. It disingenuously plays into
Jewish victimhood. The easy refutation of Kay’s many assertions, speaks
compellingly of the invalidity of the bulk of assertions she has made.
Complains
Kay, “But you know Israel critics have become Israel haters when: they
are obsessed with Israel’s moral failures and ignore others’; they
respond compassionately to Arab war victims, but not to Israel’s terror
victims…”
Kay invokes an egalitarian principle that criticism
must not be focused exclusively on the “moral failures” of one group.
This is fair. To have any legitimacy in denouncing crimes committed
against people elsewhere, one must first acknowledge and denounce the
crimes committed by one’s own country.
Authentic Journalism
The
hallmark of any authentic journalist must be to present a coherent,
well-written story that is backed by solid facts. An authentic
journalist will scrutinize any sources cited and verify their
statements for accuracy. Second, an authentic journalist will avoid
assertions and unsubstantiated opinions, to protect the verisimilitude
of their journalism and the integrity of their person. Third, an
authentic journalist will never stoop to the gutter tactic of
name-calling. The quality of Kay’s journalism will be self-evident when
one reads it and checks for factual accuracy, assertions, and ad
hominem:
- Point 1: “Israel haters maliciously appropriate the
discourse of Jewish victimhood to promote hate in others through
outright historical lies.” No examples are provided by Kay, so,
presumably readers are expected to believe this based on Kay’s
authority.
- Point 2: “They label Israel an apartheid state.” She
never identifies who “they” are, but presumably former president Jimmy
Carter is one of “they,” an Israel-hater.
- Point 3: “[They]
call Israeli soldiers Nazis.” The comparison may be apt or not. Kay
does not deal with this. When behaviors are similar, people often
resort to comparisons. That Jews base their claim to historical
Palestine, partially based on the crimes perpetrated against them by
Nazis; it, therefore, seems fair to compare Nazis with Zionists when
the behaviors of the two are the same.
- Point 4: “[They] portray
Ariel Sharon eating babies.” Some of “they,” whoever “they” are, resort
to ridiculous insults. That Sharon was a murderer of Palestinians is
undeniable. Kay averts dealing with this substantiated fact.
- Point
5: “[They] compare Gaza to Buchenwald and in short seek to normalize
the idea that support for Israel is support for racism, today’s
ultimate taboo.” Again, Kay provides no examples to back up her claims.
Buchenwald was a Nazi slave-labor camp where many prisoners starved to
death. Likewise, Gaza is often referred to as an open-air prison where
deliberate Israeli government policy withholds Palestinian money,
threatening Palestinians with starvation (a war crime, as the occupier
is responsible for the well-being of the occupied people).
Kay
admits that in Canada, “open manifestations of anti-Semitism” are rare,
but she complains “a handful of labour leaders and politicians —
marched in solidarity alongside Hezbollah supporters carrying placards
urging ‘Death to the Jews.’”
Such a placard would be
repugnant. I could find no images about such placards through an online
search. I searched on google images for “death to the jews Hezbollah”
and through the first 12 pages could not view one single image of such
a placard or other such signage.
On the first page of the search, there
was a link to an image of a double door with spray-painted graffito:
“KILL ALL ARABS!” On the same page was a link to a man carrying a
placard reading: “ISLAM IS A DEATH CULT.” Only once in the 12 pages of
searching did I come across any signs aimed at Jews. This placard read:
“JUDAISM REJECTS ZIONISM.” The bearers of the placards were the
Orthodox Jews of Neturei Karta.
I asked Kay for evidence of
the placard. Such a placard would be highly objectionable, but Kay only
asserts the carrying of such a placard.
She replied in detail:
 There
were two demonstrations in Montreal that summer. One had a sign reading
“Mort aux juifs” [”Death to the Jews”] (I can't provide an image, but
it was there and there have been many such signs in demonstrations in
other parts of the world with this and similar signs.By the way, if
you are wondering what the mandate of Hezbollah is, it is to eradicate
Jews everywhere in the world. Hezbollah was responsible for the 1984
bombing of the Argentinian community centre which killed a high number
of Jews, and many other attacks on diaspora Jewish centres. When someone
walks beside a supporter of Hezbollah with the sign “Long Live
Nasrallah” one is essentially supporting someone with the sign “Long
live Hitler” because both have the same agenda.
It is possible that you
believe the propaganda that Hezbollah is some kind of benevolent
charity group. It is indeed a terrorist organization primarily
interested in exterminating Jews, not just Israelis. Barbara
Okay,
let’s grant that there was such a despicable sign in Montreal. Then
let’s examine the logic that flows from what else she wrote. If at an
open gathering of people opposed to violence or injustice, a few
persons appear bearing an objectionable banner, then all conscionable
people should abandon the progressivist gathering? Really?
What an
effective way to kill opposition to violence and injustice in one swell
swoop. All that would be necessary then is for Zionists to plant one or
two members with racist signs among gatherings of people opposed to
Zionist crimes. No more dissent to Zionism. No more dissent to anything
in the world.
Kay is buying into the fallacy of guilt by association in
attempting to pin the objectionable actions of a few people on all
dissenters. This is a tactic of authoritarians to undermine effective
dissent. It also plays into the mindset that allows for collective
punishment of Palestinians by Zionists (a violation of the Fourth
Geneva Convention).
Kay’s account is ahistorical. She ignores
that Hizbullah arose after the Jewish-Israeli invasion of Lebanon in
1985. Kay is likeliest referring to the 1994 bombing of the
Argentina-Israeli Community Center. Hezbollah can hardly be blamed for
something that occurred before its inception. Hezbollah denies
involvement in the bombing.
Clearly Kay puts forth a double
standard. Comparing Hitler to Nasrallah is okay, but comparing Sharon
to Hitler is not okay, even anti-Semitic. So why is a comparison of
Nasrallah to Hitler not anti-Islamic?
Also, the mandate of
Hezbollah does not, as Kay erroneously alleges, call for the
“eradicat[ion of] Jews everywhere in the world.” It does, however, call
for the destruction of Israel.
The “The Hezbollah Program” states: “Our
primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist
entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested
from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people.”
Israel has launched serial wars against Lebanon in recent decades. It
was not until Israel invaded Lebanon and essentially destroyed it in
1982 that Hezbollah began to form. Hezbollah is a resistance movement.
War involves destroying the other. When an entity tries to destroy you,
then one logical response is to destroy whatever is trying to destroy
you.
I certainly do not advocate the destruction of other
humans. But one must rail against the one-sided stigmatization of
people who are legitimately defending themselves from outside
aggression.
With so many garbled facts, what credibility do the rest of Kay’s assertions have?
Kay
presents herself as a defender of Jews from racism. Jews should be
defended from racism. All peoples should be defended from racism.
Racism is a scourge that should be obliterated. Yet, in essence, Kay
exposes her own racism by ignoring or minimizing the terrible crimes
perpetrated on Palestinians by Jews.
Kay and other apologists
for Zionist crimes strive to entrench criticism of Zionist crimes as
the “ultimate taboo” and to bludgeon the anti-racist critics with the
label of anti-Semitism. But Zionism is not the equivalent of Judaism,
as Neturei Karta evince.
Anti-Semitism is being wielded as a
fallacious defense against racism. In fact, it is racism under the
guise of anti-racism. In a moral world, seeking justice for
Palestinians must not be conflated with anti-Semitism.
Notes:
 |
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
