From a letter to Jimmy Carter written by a "Jew born in Palestine in 1941":
"As numerous Zionist leaders have
openly expressed, they consider assimilation of Jews, such
as mixed marriages, as the main threat to Judaism,
comparable to the Holocaust: Both significantly reduce the
number of Jews. To [equate] the love felt by a person of
Jewish descent to another person of gentile descent with
mass murder testifies to the pathologic nature of Zionist
thinking. It also underlines the hysterical approach of
Zionists to the phenomenon of assimilation."
--Elias Davidsson
On the OpEdNews website, the voluble --and outspoken-- Stephen Lendman calls Zionism indefensible:
"Zionist ideology is extremist,
undemocratic, and hateful. It claims Jewish supremacy, specialness, and
uniqueness - God's 'chosen people.' It harms Jews and non-Jews alike."
Zionism by definition is "undemocratic". I also fully agree that Zionism ultimately harms Jews. Unless the Israelis want to remain in a perpetual state of war, they must eventually abandon the Zionist "ideal".
In a thoughtful article written for Tikkun, Joel Kovel asks a series of questions about the fruit of Zionism:
"What, then, is the real character of
the Israeli state and the Zionism of which it is the fruit?
What are we to call a project which, though it boasts of
being a 'democracy,' reserves 92% of its land for Jewish
people? Where one who converts to Judaism or has a Jewish
great-grandmother is automatically given full rights to the
land while those others whose families merely happened to
have lived there for centuries are at best second-class and
landless?"
He answers with another question:
"Is there any word for this except
racism, institutionalized at the most fundamental level of
the state?"
Of course, this post is all about the inevitability of a one state solution in Israel/Palestine, the only obstacles to which are entrenched Zionism and the continuing support of the United States for a two-state solution, which has no chance of acceptance by Palestinians given the current conditions in the West Bank.
As the 2004 Olga Document puts it:
"Whoever has eyes to see and ears to hear knows
that the choice is between another 'hundred years of conflict' ending
in annihilation, and a partnership among all the inhabitants of this
land. Only such a partnership is capable of turning us, the Jews of
Israel, from foreigners in their country to its real inhabitants."
Peruse these articles for a better understanding of the one state solution.
I don't agree that the U.S. is in favor of a "two-state" solution. If it were, there already would be a Palestinian state, since Israel is dependent economically, politically and militarily on us.
Sure, the kind of "state" proposed by this might be acceptable to the hegemonists, but that's not really a contiguous state, and it would never be acceptable to sane Palestinians.
When has the U.S. ever been interested in furthering the goals of a third world people?
Posted by: Harry Kershner | April 04, 2009 at 05:02 PM