The Way Forward

"The human rights and Palestine solidarity organization, BDS South Africa, welcomes the calling-off of the Africa-Israel Summit which was meant to take place in Togo next month. The decision comes following several boycott threats. This is welcomed as good news by human rights organisations and the global BDS movement which has called for the isolation of Israel over its human rights abuses and violations of international law... Last month it was reported that several countries, including South Africa, were planning to boycott the summit. South African Ambassador Sean Benfeldt explained that South Africa will not take part because the summit was viewed as a step by Israel to normalize relations between Africa and an 'occupation state.' In addition, the head of International Relations for South Africa's governing ANC party, Minister Edna Molewa, is quoted as saying on the issue: 'We cannot turn a blind eye to Israeli efforts to galvanise support from Africa and elsewhere, with a view to undermining the Palestinian cause.' BDS South Africa welcomes the decision and commends South Africa and other African states who were to boycott the summit. However, our governments must continue to resist all Israeli attempts to influence, corrupt or weaken our solidarity with the Palestinians - including attempts, in contradiction to our policies, by some within our own Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). The Palestinians were a people that supported us during the darkest days of Apartheid, while Isreal, we painfully remember, was supplying arms to the Apartheid government." (BDS South Africa Press Statement: Israel-Africa Summit called off following boycott threats, 11/9/17)

Draw Your Own Conclusions...

"I was born and brought up in South Africa and so naturally people ask me what I see of South Africa in the present situation in Palestine... Apartheid was a system of enforced segregation based on race or ethnicity, put in place by an exclusive, self-defined group in order to consolidate colonial conquest, in particular to cement its hold on the land and natural resources.

"In Jerusalem and in the West Bank - to speak only of Jerusalem and the West Bank - we've seen a system of enforced segregation based on religion and ethnicity, put in place by an exclusive, self-defined group to consolidate colonial conquest, in particular to maintain, and indeed extend, its hold on the land and its natural resources. Draw your own conclusions." (From South African Nobelist [J.M.] Coetzee on Israel and apartheid: 'Draw your own conclusions', Alison Deger, mondoweiss.net, 28/5/16)

Galloway: Jews Don't Have to Be on the Side of Apartheid

Place: Oxford Union
Time: 14/10/13

Zionist Smartypants (referring to an earlier declaration by Galloway that he doesn't debate Israelis):

If I said in a debate that I would not debate with a Pakistani, I would rightly be called a racist. My question for you is: Are you a racist? (Vigorous applause)

George Galloway:

Why are you applauding that? What kind of people would applaud that? Am I a racist? You've sat through the last hour and a half of me speaking and you're applauding someone asking me if I'm a racist? What kind of people are you? Or do you just applaud anything? Would you just applaud anything?

I'll let you in on something you don't know. I'm one of the few people on the Left in Britain who travelled the length and breadth of South Africa as an underground agent of the ANC led by Nelson Mandela, then in Pollsmoor Prison in Capetown. Therefore, the subject of apartheid is particularly important to me. The question of racism is particularly important to me and, in parenthesis, let me tell you this: throughout the entirety of my time underground in South Africa under apartheid, every house I slept in, every dinner I ate, every car I drove in was provided by Jewish activists of the ANC.

So Jews don't have to be on the side of apartheid (Applause), they don't have to be on the side of racism (Vigorous applause). Jewish heroes - amongst my blood brotherhood, like Denis Goldberg, who served 27 years on Robben Island, in Pollsmoor Prison, but never was able to touch Mandela and his comrades because they were on one side of the apartheid prison wall, and he and a few other Jewish heroes of the ANC were on the other. Denis Goldberg, Albie Sachs, Joe Slovo, Ruth First - perhaps you've heard of these people. If you haven't, look them up. Jews don't have to be on the side of apartheid. They can stand up against it, and I say to those who imagine that they are friends of the state of Israel, whose flag was just waved in my face, turn away from the racist, apartheid ideology of Zionism. Turn back towards where Jews were before the emergence of the hegemony of Zionism.

The greatest people on the earth were Jews. The leaders of the socialists, communists, trade unions, liberal enlightenment, throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries, were great Jews. Marx himself was a Jew. None of them believed that, as Jews, they should go and take somebody else's country, and drive millions of them around the world as refugees. All of them would have turned their backs against such an ideology. But because of my experience in South Africa... because of my time in South Africa, because of the decades that I worked against apartheid in South Africa, do you imagine that I would turn up at a university and debate apartheid with a supporter of the apartheid regime from South Africa? I'd rather punch him in the face than debate with him. Why? Because apartheid is a racist poison. It is the worst kind of fascism, and I would never debate with any supporter of South African apartheid. Why should I debate with a supporter of Israeli apartheid?

Just Say No!

A vital message from South African youth:

JOINT STATEMENT:

South African Youth & Student Groups Slam Israeli Propaganda Holiday Trips, 11/6/15

"A meeting was convened earlier today by the leadership of the Progressive Youth alliance (PYA), which is composed of the African National Congress Youth league (ANC Youth League), the youth wing of South Africa's ruling ANC, the South African Students Congress (SASCO), representing university students at institutions of higher learning, the Congress of South African Students (COSAS), representing school learners across the country, and the Young Communist League of South Africa (YCLSA), the youth wing of the South African Communist Party (SACP).

"The Israel lobby in South Africa is increasingly turning to old Apartheid-Day tricks to entice young South Africans and distract us from our solidarity with the Palestinian people and their progressive Israeli comrades. The Israel lobby is throwing free holiday propaganda trips and other gifts at young South Africans, trying to undermine solidarity with the Palestinian people...

"We view these holiday propaganda trips to Israel, organised by pro-Israel lobby groups such as the SA Israel Forum, the SA Friends of Israel and the racist Zionist Federation as nothing more than sanctions-busting propaganda trips similar to the 1980s junkets to Apartheid South Africa organised then, for example, by the South Africa Foundation (then operated in the USA) and the Strategy Network International (that operated in the UK).

"We would in particular single out the SA Israel Forum (SAIF)... The SAIF... was exposed a few years back by the media for being funded by the notorious Cape Gate company, which supplies fencing for the construction of Israel's Apartheid Wall. The SAIF was previously stopped from taking local mayors and municipal members on holiday propaganda trips to Israel in 2012. They now seem to be targeting students after having failed at government level.

"South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation came out very clearly in 2012, saying that: 'Because of the treatment and policies of Israel towards the Palestinian people, we strongly discourage South Africans from going there.' In addition, Minister Miate Nkoana-Mashabane said in 2013 that: 'The Palestinians had asked us in formal meetings to not engage with the [Israeli] regime. Ministers of South Africa do not visit Israel currently... We have agreed to slow down and curtail senior leadership contact with that regime until things begin to look better... the struggle of the Palestinian people is our struggle.'

"In November 2014, one of the highest decision-making bodies of the ANC (the leader of our Mass Democratic Movement to which we as organisations all belong) took a decision to: 'Join the call for a cultural, academic and education boycott of Israel, including travel bans for members and leaders of the ANC, the Alliance, Members of Cabinet, Members of Parliament and Government Officials.'

"Participation in these holiday propaganda trips is a violation of the policies and positions of our organisations, but in addition is a violation of the Palestinian civil society call (supported by a growing number of progressive Israelis) for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Participation in these holiday propaganda trips to Israel, like participation in holiday propaganda trips to Apartheid South Africa, will be viewed as the crossing of a picket line, and will be met with disciplinary action.

"We are of the opinion that these holiday propaganda trips to Israel are a direct response to the long-standing support of South African students, school-learners and young people to the Palestinian struggle as well as our active endorsement of, and participation in, the non-violent BDS campaign against Israel. It is no secret that our campuses and schools are heavily biased towards supporting progressive international struggles, like the just struggle of the Palestinian people. In fact, SASCO, the oldest and largest student movement on the African continent, was one of the first national student organisations to back the BDS campaign. Subsequently, the South African Union of Students, representing all SRCs in the country supported the BDS campaign... The holiday propaganda trips to Israel are an attempt to reverse the gains of young people on this issue.

"We stress that we are against all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism. In fact, in preparation for today's meeting and press conference, we reached out to our Israeli comrades from Boycott From Within who provided us with much guidance and information. They made it clear that... they did not agree with these white-washing holiday propaganda trips and are discouraging young South Africans from going...

"The organisers of the holiday propaganda trips to Israel try, just like Apartheid South Africa apologists used to in the 1980s, to suggest that the issue of Palestine-Israel is complicated. We maintain that the issue is simple: Israel must end its violations of international law and oppression of the Palestinian people. During the struggle against Apartheid we didn't ask as South Africans for members of the international community to travel to South Africa (as guests of pro-Apartheid organisations). Instead, we were very clear: support, from your countries, the boycott and isolation of Apartheid South Africa. The millions who supported our boycott did not have to come here to see first, then act. They trusted our guidance. Likewise today we trust the guidance of the Palestinian people. Almost the entire Palestinian civil and political society have called for BDS and we must heed this call...

"We hereby:

-Warn all students, school learners, young entrepreneurs and young people that there will be invitations, bursaries, and other 'gifts' from the Israel lobby that will target students and young people. Just say 'no' to these or risk being complicit in the bloodshed of our Palestinian counterparts!

-Declare that while we understand that some may be misled by the Israel lobby, we condemn any leader or member that participates in these Israeli holiday propaganda trips.

-Declare that we will be taking serious disciplinary action against any member or leader that participates in any of these... trips.

-Remind all members of our organisations that any contravention of an organisation's policies and positions, for example, its support for BDS and travel ban to Israel, is to be guilty of ill-discipline.

-Undertake to ensure that the position of not going on Israeli propaganda holiday trips be reinforced at upcoming conferences and congresses of our various organisations including the upcoming ANC NGC.

-Undertake that we will be, in our ongoing interaction at our campuse, schools, and communities, making all members aware of our positions on these reactionary Israel propaganda holiday trips. We will be starting, in fact, to morrow in Soweto at Naledi High School at a COSAS-organised program titled 'Commemorating Youth Month, Celebrating Learner Internationalism.'

"We are painfully aware that the number of Palestinian children killed by Israel in 2014 was the third highest number of children killed in a country. We know that approximately 1,000 Palestinian children have been left permanently disabled by Israel in 2014 alone. We know that more than 260 schools were damaged by Israeli airstrikes last year, including three public schools that were destroyed entirely, and 23 that were 'severely damaged.' We also know that 274 Palestinian kindergartens were damaged by Israel in 2014. We painfully recall last year's horrific Israeli killing on a Gaza beach of four young Palestinian boys who were playing soccer.

"As we are in Youth Month and will be commemorating Youth Day, we wish to extend our revolutionary solidarity to all Palestinian youth, students and school learners. You will overcome, just as we did. The time for Israeli Apartheid is coming to an end. Young people of the world unite!"

The Worse-Than-Apartheid State

"What we went through, over 300 years of colonial oppression in South Africa, is like a Sunday school picnic compared to what the Palestinian people are going through every day in their own land."  Zwelinzima Vavi, General Secretary of COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions), 11/7/14

'A Fierce Opponent of Apartheid'

Just look at this rubbish from yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:

"Ironically, as the Abbott government prepares to soften the laws against racially offensive speech, the O'Farrell government in NSW seems headed down a different path. This week, it announced the appointment of Jewish Board of Deputies head Vic Alhadeff as new chairman of the state Community Relations Commission. Alhadeff, a former South African newsman, was a fierce opponent of apartheid who lost grandparents in the Holocaust. He is a staunch defender of anti-discrimination laws, particularly those aimed at racism." (Inside job draws fire, Deborah Snow, 21/12/13)

A fierce opponent of apartheid?

Says who? Where's the proof?

And as for the uber, ongoing Israeli variety, Alhadeff doesn't even recognise it. This is as far as he's prepared to go:

"It is axiomatic that Israeli society is a work in progress and that Arab Israelis suffer disadvantage in various spheres.... It is also a given that the condition of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is a serious issue, albeit inextricably bound up with the root cause of the conflict, which is the fundamental refusal to accept Israel's existence." (Israel: it's not black & white, The Australian, 1/3/12)

So 'Arab Israelis' suffer disadvantage in Israel (im)proper, and Palestinians under Israeli occupation (a word which Alhadeff cannot even bring himself to use) in the West Bank and Gaza have only themselves to blame for not crying uncle.

Just how fierce can "a fierce opponent of apartheid" be?

OK, enough already, you want the real thing, and Jewish to boot? Here he is. His name is Ronnie Kasrils:

"I am from a background which afforded me privileges in white South Africa, but I grew up with a social conscience and could not tolerate the cruelty and oppression against my black compatriots. After the Sharpeville massacre of March 1961... I took the decision to become an activist and joined the ANC. I was involved in demonstrations and soon came to understand that armed actions were required to reinforce the mass political struggle. I consequently responded to Nelson Mandela's call for volunteers to join the movement's military wing Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK). I was subsequently on the run from the police, left the country for military training in the former Soviet Union, and worked throughout Africa in our military camps and on the front line. I became chief of military intelligence for MK." (Anti-apartheid: An interview with Ronnie Kasrils, aljazeera.com, 27/9/12)

And here is Kasrils on apartheid Israel:

"What is taking place in Palestine reminds us, South African freedom fighters, of what we suffered from... Palestine is an example of people who were dispossessed of land and birthright just like the indigenous people of South Africa. As a Jew, I abhor the fact that the Zionist rulers of Israel/Palestine claim they are acting in the name of Jews everywhere. I am one of many Jews internationally, and in Israel itself, who declare 'Not in my name'... In the Israeli case, it is quite clear that non-Jews do not receive equal rights and treatment as Jews, but the Zionists are embarrassed to admit this. Consequently, they attempt to conceal the fact that Israel is not a democracy for all its citizens, but they have various laws to ensure that Jews receive preferential treatment. It is apartheid by another name. I refer here to the situation in Israel itself where over 40 laws give Jews privileges and rights over non-Jews. In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, it is quite a different matter where open and strict apartheid laws allow for the segregation and control of the Palestinian people whilst the illegal Jewish settlements receive State protection and privileges. But in both cases - Israel itself and the OPT - a clear system of apartheid-style rule operates." (ibid)

Israeli Apartheid: Visible from Space

Israeli apartheid may be visible from space, but not, it seems, down here on the ground in Abbottoir.

Despite the ms media currently being awash with references to the late, unlamented, and thoroughly vile South African brat, you'll find not a whisper about its even more evil twin, Israeli apartheid, such is the terror in our newsrooms at the prospect of a visit by the Zionist thought police.

And yet, those of conscience, familiar with both, couldn't help but notice that the two came from the same stock. One such, the South African anti-apartheid activist and associate of ANC leader Oliver Tambo, Ronald Segal (1932-2008), made the following observations as long ago as 1973:

"A second insight of the Arab case is the similarity between Israel and white South Africa. After all, the pioneers of white settlement in South Africa were refugees, too; from Catholic power and intolerance in Europe. And the subsequent history of the Afrikaners was long informed by the resistance to British imperial ambitions. The cause of the Jewish state has enjoyed support from the same sort of liberal opinion in the West that rose to the defence of the Boer republics at the turn of the century.

"The unique identity of the Afrikaner nation is now undeniable. And the cry of the Afrikaners - that they have nowhere else to go; that no reasonable refuge offers itself; that they are engaged in their conflict with Africans for no less than their very survival as a people, after centuries of separate existence - is not without its resemblance to the profile of Israeli nationalism. (Which is one reason why, for all the recent past of organized and even institutionalized anti-Semitism among them, the Afrikaners regard Israelis today with a kind of kinship.)

"And just how different has been the treatment of Arabs under their control by the Israelis from the treatment of Africans by white South Africa? Under the wrappings, many of the goods are the same. Land has been expropriated under various pretexts from Arabs who did not flee, and at times of relative peace; with compensation long delayed and, when finally paid, far below real value. And this plundering has been extended even to Druze land; though the Druzes have never been considered a significant security risk and are, indeed, permitted to serve in the Israeli armed forces.

"Whatever the security excuse, the Israeli Defence Laws have operated to treat Arab citizens quite differently from Jewish ones, with restrictions on movement, curfews, detention or banishment, and the confiscation or destruction of property. And though military rule within Israel proper has receded since the Six Day War, the occupied territories are administered on the basis of economic but not political integration. Some 40 to 50 thousand workers from these territories have already been sucked into the Israeli economy, in an effective relationship not so remote from that between white South Africa and the Bantustans. Indeed, many Israelis see in what would be a virtual Bantustan a solution to the problem of the West Bank: whose overt political autonomy would be in pawn to an inescapable economic subservience.

"Certainly, as the Israeli authorities have been quick to declare, such workers earn more in Israel than they would in the territories themselves, let alone almost anywhere else in the Arab world. But this argument is, after all, rather like the conventional apology of apartheid: that Africans in general earn much more in South Africa than they do elsewhere on the continent, and that the borders must be controlled to prevent illegal immigrants from coming to enjoy the notorious discrimination of racial policy. Yet even given the accuracy of the South African government contention, what matters, of course, is not the difference between black earnings in South Africa and black earnings elsewhere, but the difference between the earnings of blacks and the earnings of whites within the same country. Similarly, what matters in an assessment of Israeli society is that in general Arab labour from the occupied territories earns substantially less than does Jewish labour: not because, as in South Africa, the state explicitly requires it, but because there is, in institutionalized Jewish labour organization, a form of pressure on employers not possessed by migrant Arab labour.

"And the parallel with white South Africa is taken further. Israel is essentially a Jewish state, and Jewishness has been made an essentially biological phenomenon. By the Law of Return, 1950, Israeli citizenship is all but automatically conferred on any Jew who arrives and asks for it.And a decision was recently taken to confer Israeli citizenship on Jews still living abroad who choose to claim it. On the other hand, to become a Jew, it is not enough to fulfil certain residential and other civil requirements customary in other countries. It is not enough even to be born in the Jewish state. A Jew is someone born of a Jewish mother. (Whose Jerusalem?, pp 13-15)

Of course, there was an occasion, though only one that I can recall, when both branches of the Australian corporate press uncharacteristically lapsed into plain talk and used the 'a' word to describe Israel.  

Then the shit really hit the fan. (See my posts Consensus At Last (7/5/12) & Down the Memory Hole (10/5/12).)

Israel Lobbyist Fails Crocodile Dundee Test

Clarification:

In Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald, chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, tiresome tireless Israel lobbyist, and former South African apartheid-era journalist, Vic Alhadeff, portrayed his South African employer thus:

"I served as chief sub-editor of The Cape Times during the apartheid era - and Nelson Rohilahla Mandela was the unspoken presence in the room... As one of the nation's anti-apartheid newspapers, we were acutely aware that in our midst was a colossus whose time had come." (Media bans kept colossus out of sight, 7/12/13)

Just as well he said "one of" because really, to rephrase Crocodile Dundee, That wasn't "an anti-apartheid newspaper." This was "an anti-apartheid newspaper":

"The loss-making but hugely influential [Rand Daily] Mail had by then [1985] waged a lonely 30-year struggle on behalf of truth and decency against overwhelming odds. Scores of Kafkaesque laws circumscribed its coverage. It was infiltrated by government spies, communists and agents provocateurs. Its management was either inept or craven or both. Yet despite everything, and thanks to a succession of strong editors, the Mail not only survived but set a standard that all other media outlets in South Africa are still judged against." (The Daily Courage, Robin Knight, Time, 12/6/00)

Cautiously Fighting Apartheid

Fair dinkum,  despite the millions of black and coloured survivors of South African apartheid, the best the Sydney Morning Herald could come up with to commemorate the passing of Nelson Mandela in its Saturday edition was the testimony of a white man. And not just any white man either - Australia's most vocal defender of Israeli apartheid:

"I served as chief sub-editor of The Cape Times during the apartheid era - and Nelson Rohilahla Mandela was the unspoken presence in the room. A key instrument in the government's strategy of subjugating the country's black population while keeping the ruling white sector uninformed about the revolutionary movements fermenting beneath the surface was press censorship. It was illegal for newspapers to promote the aims of a 'banned' organisation... South Africans never heard from Mandela or his colleagues... [Yet] Mandela was there. Silenced. Casting a giant shadow. And as one of the nation's anti-apartheid newspapers, we were acutely aware that in our midst was a colossus whose time had come." (Media bans kept colossus out of sight, Vic Alhadeff, chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Sydney Morning Herald, 7/12/13)

One of the nation's anti-apartheid newspapers?

So just what was it that qualified a South African newspaper of the time to be described as anti-apartheid?

"We consistently erred on the side of caution because we knew from harsh experience what the penalties were for violating the censorship laws." (Riots of change, Vic Alhadeff, The Australian Jewish News, 26/6/09)

Consistently err[ing] on the side of caution. I see... so that's what brought apartheid to its knees. Who would have thought?

But what a modest man Alhadeff is! I bet you didn't know what a critical role he played in the Mandela story?

I thought not.

Come now, surely you don't think Mandela could have done it all by himself? No, contrary to current media adulation, great man though he was, Mandela was no saint. Not even close! There were actually times when he needed to be taken aside and told to mend his errant ways... which is where Alhadeff comes in:

"Firmly opposed to apartheid, [Alhadeff] worked against it and even confronted Nelson Mandela personally when he felt the great man had been hypocritical." (Former journalist Vic Alhadeff, abc.net.au, 22/1/08)

I told you what a modest man Alhadeff is. I mean, why else would he not include that particular revelation in his piece for the Herald?

Perhaps the editor of the 'Independent. Always' Sydney Morning Herald could prevail upon him to tell the full story in a future edition.

For those not into holding one's breath, see my 23/10/10 post SuperVic?

Mandela: 'Arafat is a Comrade-in-Arms'

If you search the Internet for evidence of Nelson Mandela's support for the Palestinian struggle, you'll generally come across this particular statement: "We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians."

Given that too little is known of his principled and unequivocal support for the Palestinians (never of course referenced in the mainstream media), I'm posting the relevant sections of an interview he did with the presenter of the US Nightline program, Ted Koppel in 1990. The interview took place at a public meeting in the City College of New York. At the time, Mandela, not long out of prison, was in the US on a tour, advocating for the continuation of international sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. Needless to say, Koppel being Koppel, New York being New York, and the US being the US, the question of Mandela's links with Yasser Arafat and the PLO loomed large at the meeting.

Note that I've selected only Mandela's statements on this issue, simplified Koppel's rambling questions, and, in only one case, abridged Mandela's answer. The entire interview, along with Mandela's trademark dignity, gravitas and humour, can be enjoyed at youtube.com/watch?v=mMT36t (My tribute to vintage Nelson Mandela of South Africa part 2)

Mandela: We identify with the PLO because, just like ourselves, they are fighting for the right of self-determination.

Koppel: You met over 3 times with Yasser Arafat.

Mandela: Yasser Arafat, Colonel Gaddafi and Fidel Castro support our struggle to the hilt.

Koppel: You've said some controversial things which might alienate some people in this country. That could cause them to contact their congressman and say, 'Go ahead, lift the sanctions on the South African government.'

Mandela: One of the problems we are facing in the world today are people who do not look at problems objectively but from the point of view of their own interests. That makes things difficult because once a person is not objective, it is extremely difficult to reach an agreement. One of the best examples of this is to think that because Arafat is conducting a struggle against the state of Israel we must therefore condemn him. We can't do that. It is just not possible for any organisation or individual of integrity to do anything of the sort... It would be a grave mistake for us to consider our attitude towards Yasser Arafat on the basis of the interests of the Jewish community. We sympathise with the struggles of the Jewish people and their persecution right down the years... but that does not mean to say that the enemies of Israel are our enemies. We refuse to take that position. You can call it 'impolitical' [Koppel had been suggesting that Mandela needed to be more political/flexible to win American Jewish support] or a moral question [a Jewish leader had earlier accused Mandela of being amoral] but a man who changes his principles depending on who he's dealing with - that is not a man who can lead a nation... They must know what our stand is: Arafat is a comrade-in-arms and we treat him as such.

'Moses' Mandela

How sweetly they're singing now:

"Nelson Mandela was one of the most prominent role models of our time. He was the father of his nation, a man of vision, a fighter for freedom who denounced violence. He gave a personal example to his people during the long years he was imprisoned." Benjamin Netanyahu, israelhayom.com, 6/12/13

But back in the 70s and 8os they were singing a very different tune:

"The Israeli-South African relationship was not only about profit and battlefield bravado... After Menachem Begin's Likud Party came to power in 1977, these economic interests converged with ideological affinities to make the alliance even stronger. Many members of the Likud Party shared with South Africa's leaders an ideology of minority survivalism that presented the two countries as threatened outposts of European civilization defending their existence against barbarians at the gates.

"Indeed, much of Israel's top brass and Likud Party leadership felt am affinity with South Africa's white government, and unlike Peres and Rabin they did not feel a need to publicly denounce apartheid while secretly supporting Pretoria. Powerful military figures, such as Ariel Sharon and Rafael (Raful) Eitan, drew inspiration from the political tradition of Revisionist Zionism - a school of thought that favoured the use of military force to defend Jewish sovereignty and encouraged settlement of the biblical lands of Greater Israel, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sharon, Eitan, and many of their contemporaries were convinced that both nations faced a fundamentally similar predicament as embattled minorities under siege, fighting for their survival against what they saw as a common terrorist enemy epitomized by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) and Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)." (The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, 2010, p 8)

***

"The end of the Cold War dramatically altered the political and strategic landscape of Southern Africa. Cuban troops were already withdrawing from Angola when F.W. de Klerk replaced P.W. Botha as president in August 1989. The Berlin Wall fell 3 months later and de Klerk soon embarked on a radically different course that led to the release of Nelson Mandela in early 1990. With the Soviet and Cuban threat gone, South Africa could no longer appeal for Western support by invoking anticommunist arguments, nor could it rationalize repression of the democratic opposition by cloaking apartheid in Cold War rhetoric.

"... In Pretoria, the Israeli government went to great lengths to improve its image after Mandela's release. Veteran left-wing critics of apartheid were appointed to key posts, including Alon Liel, who became ambassador in 1992 and worked hard to redefine Israeli-South African relations for the postapartheid era. Even so, the legacy of the 1970s and 1980s left Mandela with a sour taste.

"A year before South Africa's first democratic elections, Elazar Granot of Israel's far-left Mapam Party addressed the delegates of the Socialist International - a global gathering of Social Democratic leaders attended by many European heads of state. Granot lavished praise on Mandela, comparing him to Moses and arguing that South Africa's president-in-waiting was even greater than Moses for he had actually reached the Promised Land. But Mandela did not succumb to his flattery. As Granot recalls it, the first words from South Africa's icon of foregiveness and reconciliation were: 'The people of South Africa will never forget the support of the state of Israel to the apartheid regime'." (ibid, pp 218-219)

That was in 1993. Today, neither the people of South Africa nor its government have forgotten worse-than-apartheid Israel's alliance with apartheid South Africa:

"As reported by South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper, Times LIVE, [and] Israel's Haaretz newspaper... South Africa's Minister for International Relations, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, has confirmed a long-standing South African government position of not engaging with Israel.  Speaking on Friday... Minister Nkoana-Mashabane said: 'Ministers of South Africa do not visit Israel currently... our Palestinian friends have asked us in formal meetings to not engage with the [Israeli] regime. We have agreed to slow down and curtail senior leadership contact with that regime until things begin to look better.' [She] also criticised the Israeli regime's recent announcement to build new, illegal, Jewish-only settler units on confiscated Palestinian lands: 'That arrangement there in Palestine keeps us awake... the last time I looked at the map of Palestine, I could not go to sleep. Its 'dots', smaller than those of the [former South African] homelands.'... Finally, [she] expressed her solidarity with the Palestinian people, saying: 'The struggle of the people of Palestine is our struggle'." (South Africa to 'curtail' relations with Israel, OptionsBDS South Africa, 2/12/13)

Deir Yassin: 65 Years Today

Today is the 65th anniversary of Palestine's infamous Deir Yassin massacre.

The following diary entries - April 10 & 14 1948 - by American Quaker Christina Jones, a teacher at the Friends' Boys' School in Ramallah at the time, provide a near real-time, albeit second hand, account of the massacre and its aftermath. Particularly prophetic is Jones' reference in the second entry to "an apartheid Jewish State":

[10 April] "The most tragic and dastardly act of the Stern and Irgun occurred at Deir Yasin yesterday afternoon. These terrorists went into the village and massacred 250* old men, women and children and threw their bodies into the village well. Young men of the village were at work in Jerusalem and in their fields. The survivors are being cared for at Beit Safafa. It does not seem possible that it can be true, but the story is confirmed by the International Red Cross delegates and representatives of some of the consulates who have gone to the village. We wonder what the effect will be when the news reaches Lake Success. The fact that it has happened while the Mandate Government is still here indicates the attitude of the Zionists towards it and Great Britain, and sadly underlies their confidence in the support of the USA. To say that this has created panic in surrounding villages puts the situation mildly...

[14 April] "We hear that the terrorists are driving through Jerusalem streets using loud-speakers to warn the people to leave or Deir Yasin will be their fate also. More news of the horrible incident comes to us. The Arabs are surprised that Deir Yasin should be the village attacked, for the people there were thought to be too friendly to the Jews in the past. The village so near to Jerusalem is strategically located for Jewish development, but I am inclined to think it is just part of the campaign to rid the country of Arabs in order to make more room for immigrants so that an apartheid** Jewish State may be set up. I hope I am wrong. It is almost more than one can bear to be so near such a great human tragedy and such sheer brutality." (The Untempered Wind: Forty Years in Palestine, 1975, pp 88-89)

Jones elaborates on her 1948 diary entries thus:

"Statements made by Zionist leaders following the Deir Yasin massacre give chilling reasons for it. In his book, The Revolt, [Menachem] Begin, who commanded the Irgun Zvai Leumi, writes that the terror inspired by this massacre resulted in the 'maddened uncontrolled stampede of 635,000 Arabs... the political and economic significance of this development can hardly be over-estimated.' Ben Gurion, on his part, said: 'Without Deir Yasin, there would be no Israel.' And later Dr Weizmann, first president of Israel, referred to the Arab flight as 'a miraculous simplification of Israel's tasks'... As we watched events during those days, it seemed obvious that the Zionists, fearing a reversal of the United Nations policy, were determined to get all the territory allotted to them in the partition scheme before the end of the Mandate Government and face the world with a fait accompli. The first step was to dispossess the Arabs. Before the British left Palestine, there were already more than 200,000 refugees, and they did not flee from their homes with the thought that it would be for ever." (p 89-90)

[*The accepted figure today is just over 100;** The Reunited National Party of Daniel F. Malan won power in South Africa on an apartheid platform on 26 May 1948. According to Israeli scholar Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "An official South African source is not alone in claiming that Daniel F. Malan visited Israel in May of 1948, but there seems to be no evidence for that claim... Malan actually visited Israel in September of 1953; he was the first foreign prime minister ever to do so." (The Israeli Connection: Whom Israel Arms & Why, 1987, p 110)]

Israeli Apartheid: The Jury's In 2

The jury's in again*: Israel is an apartheid state - no if's, but's, and maybe's. And yes, it's from the river to the sea:

"The Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) is an international citizen-based Tribunal of conscience created in response to the demands of civil society (NGOs, charities, unions, faith-based organisations) to inform and mobilise public opinion and put pressure on decision makers. In view of the failure to implement the Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the failure to implement resolution ES-10/15 confirming the ICJ Opinion, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 July 2004, and the Gaza events of December 2008-January 2009, committees were established in different countries to promote and sustain a citizen's initiative in support of the rights of the Palestinian people. The RToP is imbued with the same spirit and espouses the same rigorous rules as those inherited from the Tribunal on Vietnam (1966-1967), which was established by the eminent scholar and philosopher Bertrand Russell... The Tribunal has no legal status; it operates as a court of the people.

"The Israeli Government was invited to present its case before the Tribunal but chose not to exercise this right and provided no answer to correspondence from the RToP.

"Following the hearings and deliberations of the jury, the findings of the third session of Russell Tribunal on Palestine, held in Cape Town on 5-6 November 2011, are summarised as follows.

I. Apartheid

"The Tribunal finds that Israel subjects the Palestinian people to an institutionalised regime of domination amounting to apartheid as defined under international law. This discriminatory regime manifests in varying intensity and forms against different categories of Palestinians depending on their location. The Palestinians living under colonial military rule in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are subject to a particularly aggravated form of apartheid. Palestinian citizens of Israel, while entitled to vote, are not part of the Jewish nation as defined by Israeli law and are therefore excluded from the benefits of Jewish nationality and subject to systematic discrimination across the broad spectrum of recognised human rights. Irrespective of such differences, the Tribunal concludes that Israel's rule over the Palestinian people, wherever they reside, collectively amounts to a single integrated regime of apartheid.

"The state of Israel is legally obliged to respect the prohibition of apartheid contained in international law. In addition to being a crime against humanity, the practice of apartheid is universally prohibited. The Tribunal has considered Israel's rule over the Palestinian people under its jurisdiction in the light of the legal definition of apartheid. Apartheid is prohibited by international law because of the experience of apartheid in southern Africa, which had its own unique attributes. The legal definition of apartheid, however, applies to any situation anywhere in the world where the following 3 core elements exist: (i) that two distinct racial groups can be identified; (ii) that 'inhuman acts' are committed against the subordinate group; and (iii) that such acts are committed systematically in the context of an institutionalised regime of domination by one group over the other.

Racial Groups

"... On the basis of expert evidence heard by the Tribunal, the jury concludes that international law gives a broad meaning to the term 'racial' as including elements of ethnic and national origin, and therefore that the definition of 'racial group' is a sociological rather than biological question... From the evidence received, it was clear to the jury that 2 distinct, identifiable groups exist in a very practical sense and that the legal definition of 'racial group' applies to all circumstances in which the Israeli authorities have jurisdiction over Palestinians.

Inhuman Acts of Apartheid

"Individual inhuman acts committed in the context of such a system are defined by international law as crimes of apartheid. The jury heard abundant evidence of practices that constitute 'inhuman acts' perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the Israeli authorities. These include:

"Widespead deprivation of Palestinian life through military operations and incursions, a formal policy of 'targeted killings', and the use of lethal force against demonstrations.

"Torture and ill-treatment of Palestinians in the context of widespread deprivation of liberty through policies of arbitrary arrest and administrative detention without charge. The jury finds that such measures frequently go beyond what is reasonably justified by security concerns and amount to a form of domination over the Palestinians as a group.

"Systematic human rights violations that preclude Palestinian development and prevent the Palestinians as a group from participating in political, economic, social and cultural life.

"Palestinian refugees who remain displaced are also victims of apartheid by virtue of the ongoing denial of their right to return to their homes, as well as by laws that remove their property and citizenship rights.

"Policies of forced population transfer remain widespread, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territory.

"Civil and political rights of Palestinians including rights to movement, residence, free opinion and association are severely curtailed.

"Palestinian socio-economic rights are also adversely affected by discriminatory Israeli policies in the spheres of education, health and housing.

"Since 1948 the Israeli authorities have pursued concerted policies of colonisation and appropriation of Palestinian land. Israel has through its laws and practices divided the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian populations and allocated them different physical spaces, with varying levels and quality of infrastructure, services and access to resources. The end result is wholesale territorial fragmentation and a series of separate reserves and enclaves, with the 2 groups largely segregated. The Tribunal heard evidence to the effect that such a policy is formally described in Israel as hafrada, Hebrew for 'separation'.

A Systematic & Institutionalised Regime

"The inhuman acts listed above do not occur in random or isolated instances. They are sufficiently widespread, integrated and complementary to be described as systematic. They are also sufficiently rooted in law, public policy and formal institutions to be described as institutionalised. In the Israeli legal system, preferential status is afforded to Jews over non-Jews through its laws on citizenship and Jewish nationality, the latter of which has created a group privileged in most spheres of public life, including residency rights, land ownership, urban planning, access to services and social, economic and cultural rights... The Tribunal heard expert evidence detailing the relationship between the State of Israel and the quasi-state Jewish national institutions (the Jewish Agency, World Zionist Organisation, and Jewish National Fund) that embed and formalise many of the material privileges granted exclusively to Israeli Jews.

"Regarding the West Bank, the Tribunal highlights the institutionalised separation and discrimination revealed by the existence of 2 entirely separate legal systems: Palestinians are subject to military law enforced by military courts that fall far short of international fair trial standards; Israeli Jews living in illegal settlements are subject to Israeli civil law and a civil court system. The result is a vastly different procedure and sentence for the same crime, committed in the same jurisdiction, by members of a different group. An apparatus of administrative control implemented through pervasive permit systems and bureaucratic restrictions adversely affects Palestinians throughout territories under Israeli control. In contrast to the explicit and readily available South African legislation, the Tribunal draws attention to the obscurity and inaccessibility of many laws, military orders and regulations that underpin Israel's institutionalised regime of domination.

"Much of the evidence heard by the Tribunal relating to the question of apartheid is also relevant to the separate crime against humanity of persecution, which can be considered in relation to Israeli practices under the principle of cumulative charges. Persecution involves the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights of the members of an identifiable group in the context of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population. The Tribunal concludes that the evidence presented to it supports a finding of persecution in relation to the following acts:

"The siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip as a form of collective punishment of the civilian population; The targeting of civilians during large-scale military operations; The destruction of civilian homes not justified by military necessity; The adverse impact on the civilian population effected by the Wall and its associated regime in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; The concerted campaign of forcible evacuation and demolition of unrecognised Bedouin villages in the Negev region of southern Israel.

III. Legal Consequences

"Apartheid and persecution are acts attributable to Israel and entail its international legal responsibility. Israel must cease its apartheid acts and its policies of persecution and offer appropriate assurances and guarantees on non-repetition. In addition, Israel must make full reparation for the injuries caused by its internationally wrongful acts, with regard to any damage, whether material or moral. With regard to reparation, Israel must compensate the Palestinians for the damage it has caused, with compensation to cover any financially assessable damage for loss of life, property, and loss of profits insofar as this can be established.

"States and international organisations also have international responsibilities. They have a duty to cooperate to bring Israel's apartheid acts and policies of persecution to an end, including by not rendering aid or assistance to Israel and not recognising the illegal situation arising from its acts. They must bring to an end Israel's infringements of international criminal law through the prosecution of international crimes, including the crimes of apartheid and persecution.

IV. Recommendations

In view of the above findings, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine resolutely urges all relevant parties to act in accordance with their legal obligations.

Accordingly, the Tribunal urges:

"The state of Israel to immediately dismantle its system of apartheid over the Palestinian people, to rescind all discriminatory laws and practices, not to pass any further discriminatory legislation, and to cease forthwith acts of persecution against Palestinians;

"All states to cooperate to bring an end to the illegal situation arising from Israel's practices of apartheid and persecution. In light of the obligation not to render aid and assistance, all states must consider appropriate measures to exert sufficient pressure on Israel, including the imposition of sanctions, the severing of diplomatic relations collectively through international organisations, or in the absence of consensus, individually by breaking bilateral relations with Israel.

"The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to accept jurisdiction as requested by the Palestinian authorities in January 2009, and to initiate an investigation 'as expeditiously as possible' as called for by the 'Goldstone Report', into international crimes committed in Palestinian territory since 1 July 2002, including crimes of apartheid and persecution;

"Palestine to accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;

"Global civil society... to replicate the spirit of solidarity that contributed to the end of apartheid in South Africa, including by making national parliaments aware of the findings of the Tribunal and supporting the campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS);

"The UN General Assembly to reconstitute the UN Special Committee against Apartheid, and to convene a special session to consider the question of apartheid against the Palestinian people. In this connection the Committee should compile a list of individuals, organisations, banks, companies, corporations, charities, and any other private or public bodies which assist Israel's apartheid regime with a view to taking appropriate measures;

"The UN General Assembly to request an advisory opinion from the ICJ as called for by the current and former UN Special Rapporteurs for human rights to the occupied Palestinian territory, as well as by the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, to examine the nature of Israel's prolonged occupation and apartheid;

"The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to address the issue of apartheid in its forthcoming review of Israel in February 2012;

"The government of South Africa, as the host country for the third session of the RToP, to ensure that no reprisals of any sort are taken by the state of Israel against the witnesses that testified before the Tribunal..." (Dr. Hanan Chehata, middleeastmonitor.org.uk, 7/11/11)

It goes without saying that the the above finding was not reported by any Australian ms media outlets that I'm aware of.

[*See my 21/9/09 post Israeli Apartheid: The Jury's In.]

Yes, Q&A, Israel is an Apartheid State

Tonight's Q&A program raised the issue of Israel as an apartheid state, but unfortunately neither of the pro-Palestinians on the panel (The Greens' Lee Rhiannon and Fairfax journalist and author Paul McGeough) seemed particularly well equipped to explain exactly why Israel should be so described.

Allow me, therefore, to introduce (yet again*) the definitive study on the subject of Israeli apartheid: the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa's report, Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law.

In its report, the HSRC finds:

a) that, although Israel has clearly been in military occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) since 1967, according to international humanitarian law it has no right whatever to annex or permanently control these territories;

b) that Israel's policy and practices in the OPTs (fragmenting, annexing, appropriating land and water, merging economies, dominating Palestinians etc) are colonialist and therefore violate the Palestinians' right of self-determination, one of the essential principles of international law;

c) Israel's laws and policies in the OPTs fit the definition of apartheid in the International Convention on the Suppression & Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (aka the Apartheid Convention).

Here is that definition: "Inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."

In South Africa, apartheid had 3 key features:

1) laws which demarcated the population into racial groups and accorded superior rights, privileges and services to the white group;

2) the segregation of the non-white group into fragmented geographic 'reserves' (black homelands) and their confinement to same;

3) a matrix of draconian security laws and policies to suppress any opposition to the regime and reinforce the system of racial domination, by providing for administrative detention, torture, censorship, banning, and assassination.

In the OPTs, the privileged Jewish settlers are the 'whites' and the occupied Palestinians the 'non-whites'; the besieged, non-contiguous and invariably shrinking Palestinian enclaves (along with the blockaded Gaza Strip) are the new fragmented black homelands; and Israel's mantra of security, used to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of expression, assembly, association and movement, is designed to mask its intent to suppress resistance to its system of domination over Palestinians as a group.

To summarise, Israel has been found to be an apartheid state by South Africa's pre-eminent national social science council, the HSRC, because in the OPTs it privileges Israeli Jews over occupied Palestinians legally and materially; confines them to reserves; and, in the name of security, pauperises, humiliates, imprisons, tortures and murders them in order to keep them from challenging its rule.

And that's just Israeli apartheid in the OPTs. For apartheid within Israel (im)proper see my 16/7/10 post Howes: Apartheid? No Way!

[* See my 21/9/09 post Israeli Apartheid: The Jury's In]

SuperVic?

Faster than a speeding (IDF) bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound. Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird. It's a plane. It's SuperVic! Yes, it's SuperVic - strange visitor from apartheid South Africa who came to Australia with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. SuperVic - who can change the course of mighty Mandelas, bend Australian politicians with his bare hands, and, disguised as Vic Alhadeff, mild-mannered former Australian Jewish News reporter turned Israel lobby supremo, fights the never ending battle for Strewth, Justice (Israeli-style) and the Zionist Way:

"Vic Alhadeff is the current chief executive officer of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and an outspoken supporter of Israel. Vic grew up in South Africa after his parents managed to escape from the Holocaust in Europe, but his childhood was still full of anti-Semitic experiences. In later years, as a crusading journalist in South Africa, he played a role in uncovering a scandal which brought down the prime minister of the day. Firmly opposed to apartheid, he worked against it and even confronted Nelson Mandela personally when he felt the great man had been hypocritical... He worked in South Africa where, as chief sub-editor of The Cape Times he played his part in exposing the biggest scandal of the day. 'It was an exciting time, but it was also a time where one could at least feel that one was opposing this horrific racist system and doing what one could. When my wife and I were getting married there was never a doubt in our minds that we would leave South Africa [this was still 1984]. We simply did not want to bring our children up in a country which judged people on the colour of their skin'. They moved to Israel, but Vic knew he couldn't stay there for too long. 'Socially, we were extremely happy there. It's a very robust democracy, and being a journalist at heart I very much appreciated that, and we very much enjoyed the open lifestyle. The problem for me as a journalist was the language. Professionally, I knew that I needed to get back into an English-speaking country'. After moving to Australia, he became editor of The Australian Jewish News. 'It wasn't just writing another story, it was dealing with issues that I care about. That's what took me into Jewish journalism - [issues] ranging from discrimination and anti-Semitism to giving me a platform to promote and advocate on behalf of human rights issues, whether or not they were intrinsically Jewish'." (Former journalist Vic Alhadaff, abc.net.au, 22/1/08)

Nah, it's just a bird:

"Vic Alhadeff, CEO of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, was a sub-editor on The Cape Times newspaper in Cape Town at the time of the Soweto Riots. Then 24 years old, his version of the dark chapter in South Africa's apartheid history is through a journalist's eyes. 'Under the apartheid regime, South Africa had a draconian system of laws, which tightly restricted every word that appeared in the media', he said. As a sub-editor at The Cape Times, Alhadeff's task was to select stories for publication, edit them and design the pages. 'We consistently erred on the side of caution because we knew from harsh experience what the penalties were for violating the censorship laws. Journalists were monitored, banned, arrested, deported', he said. Such close monitoring affected the journalists' choice of content for the paper. Reporting an anti-apartheid demonstration could be construed as promoting the aims of a banned organisation, and it was also an offence to quote banned people or publish their photographs. Such restrictions meant opportunities for whites to hear the voices of the oppressed majority were scarce. 'All of which meant that a lid was kept on awareness of the extent to which anti-apartheid sentiment was brewing. When the Soweto riots erupted therefore, they were a shock to the system', Alhadeff said. He mentioned the earlier watershed protest, when thousands of blacks gathered outside the Sharpeville police station in 1960, and 69 were shot dead. 'Soweto was the other major signal that the iniquitous system called apartheid could not be sustained - that despite the suffocating authoritarian controls, a mass of people was desperate for its place in the sun and could not and would not be denied'." (Riots of change, The Australian Jewish News, 26/6/09)

Sheridan in Love 4

"Second only to the US, Israel is the most acute object of the hostility to the West that flourishes in Western intellectual life... [because] it is capitalist, Western, an ally of the US and uses military force when necessary to maintain its security. It rules, if temporarily*, over an occupied Arab population and despite its own racial diversity is a mostly non-Arab population in a predominantly Arab region... But there is another factor... and this is Israel's role as the homeland of the Jewish people... but which also gave full political, civic and human rights to all its citizens regardless of their religion or racial background... Israel's role as the Jewish homeland, when Jewish civilization was nearly wiped out by the Holocaust, gives it a special place in the estimation of those who love and admire Jewish culture... But it is the central reality for those motivated by anti-Semitism... Israel is called an apartheid state... Increasingly, anti-Israel demonstrations in the West include direct references to Jews as well as to the state of Israel... Every American Jew who supported the US intervention in Iraq was suspected without evidence, of doing so because of considerations for Israel, thus reviving the old canard that Jews cannot be loyal citizens of the state they live in because of their over-arching loyalty to Israel. Even when hostility is directed specifically at Israel rather than at Jews, when this hostility is extreme and beyond reason, it affects the social atmosphere for Jews." (Israel still looks good, warts & all, Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, The Australian Literary Review, 6/5/09) [*42 years of occupation notwithstanding]

Sheridan here airbrushes Israel, the Jewish state which discriminates in law against its non-Jewish citizens, misrepresenting it as a warm and fuzzy "Jewish homeland," a mere repository of Jewish "civilization" and refuge in troubled times. Notably absent is any reference to what Israel actually is or does. He then goes on (after a long discussion of classical anti-Semitism, which I've omitted) to claim in effect that virtually ALL criticism of this "Jewish homeland" is either anti-Semitic in motivation or encourages and promotes anti-Semitism.

Mike Marqusee's recent (2008) memoir If I Am Not for Myself: Journey of an Anti-Zionist Jew is only one of many critiques of the Zionist project which refute this canard. Given the comprehensive nature of his refutation, however, he's worth quoting at some length: "The European Union Monitoring Committee on Racism and Xenophobia has published a 'working definition' of anti-semitism which declares that 'anti-semitism manifests itself' in 'drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis' as well as 'denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour'. Former Israeli minister Natan Sharansky defined 'the new anti-semitism' by applying what he calls the '3D test': 'demonization' (comparing Israelis to Nazis), 'double standards' (measuring Israel by different yardsticks than are applied to other countries), and 'delegitimization' (denying the Jewish right to a state)... Irwin Cotler, the Canadian Justice Minister, claimed that acceptable criticism of Israel ends and anti-semitism begins when critics deny the Jewish people's right to self-determination, when they 'Nazify' Israel, or when they 'single out Israel for discriminatory treatment in the international arena'." (pp 24-25)

Regarding the issue of double standards and singling out, Marqusee points out that in determining a "single standard of human justice, it is necessary to engage in the process of analogy. And on this the Zionists place a priori restrictions. Israel demands exemptions: on refugees' right to return or compensation, on seizure and settlement of land acquired by military conquest, on torture and assassinations, on the indiscriminate use of violence in densely populated areas, on nuclear proliferation. These exemptions are embodied in hundreds of US vetoes on Israel's behalf at the Security Council. So who is really doing the 'singling out'?" (p 25)

"Of course," he continues, "Israel is not the only offender in today's world... But if no protest against a particular crime is to be admitted unless all crimes are equally and presumably simultaneously protested against, then there will be no protest at all, against any crimes. This is an acute form of moral relativism masquerading as its opposite. The upshot is to minimize or relativize Israel's crimes and to attempt to delegitimize those who would judge Israel by universal standards of human decency." ( pp 25-26)

On the issue of Jewish self-determination, Marqusee points out that "anti-Zionists, of course, do reject the idea that there should be a Jewish state in Palestine. In so doing it's said we are 'singling out' Jews by denying their rights to the statehood that others enjoy. Here the Zionists move from objecting to inappropriate analogies to insisting on analogous status with other national groups. A rejection of that particular analogy, and the preference for other analogies - other readings of history - is ruled anti-semitic, either in motive or effect." He asks, "Were those who opposed national self-determination for Afrikaaners... in post-apartheid South Africa 'singling out' [this] ethnic group by denying [it] this universal right?... Their claims were universally rejected by liberal and left opinion. [It was] recognized as [an] undemocratic, exclusivist nationalism... seeking to establish ethnic privileges. In the end, the bulk of the South African population decided that only majority rule across the country, not separatism, could guarantee minority rights. World public opinion was in complete accord, yet to advocate that self-same solution for Palestine is deemed - officially - anti-semitic." ( p 26)

He deftly underlines the uniqueness of Israel's position as a self-styled Jewish state, a real self-singling out if ever there was one: "There are currently no Protestant or Catholic or Hindu or even Muslim states that legally privilege members of those religions in the way that the state of Israel privileges Jews. There are Muslim states that give privileges to Islam and to Muslim citizens, but there is no Muslim state that offers all Muslims worldwide a homeland, or that endows foreigners with full (indeed privileged) citizenship, simply because they are Muslims. While religion may affect citizenship rights, it is not the determinant - which is birth or long residence within the borders of the state. Paradoxically, although the Jewish state is said to belong to Jews everywhere, it does not define Jewishness by religious observance. It claims to be a secular state, unlike those Muslim states that require public observance of specific forms of Islam." (p 28)

When it comes to adjudicating the world's many nationalisms, Marqusee insists on the application of the principle of "the democratic content of the national demand... In many situations it is unclear where the balance lies. But in the case of Zionism the verdict is dramatically stark: Zionism involves, unavoidably, a denial to others of democratic and equal rights. It is an obscurantist claim dressed in the garb of secular modernity, underpinned from the beginning by naked power... Critically, even in the most clear-cut claims for national self-determination, there is no right to build a state on land already inhabited by others, or to sustain an ethnic majority in a state through the dispossession of others. It is here the Zionists make for Israel an exceptional claim among the nations. Their case cannot be sustained by analogy, so they deligitimize the process of analogy. However, there is, even here, one analogy they do claim: that between Americanism and Zionism. Like Palestine, North America was a land without people for a people without land. Both Americanism and Zionism are settler-colonial ideologies infused with utopianism - and racism. Both the Israeli and the US state are presented as embodying extra-territorial ideas. The 'city on the hill' is an outpost, and in latter days an embodiment, of white European civilization. American exceptionalism and Israeli exceptionalism are mirrors and partners. Like the Zionists who founded Israel, the Protestant settlers who founded the USA were fleeing from and supported by an empire. They dispossessed the indigenous people while declaring them the beneficiaries of their good intentions. Among the charges the declaration of Independence makes against King George III is that he has blocked 'new appropriation of lands', failed to encourage migration from Europe, and sided with the 'merciless Indian savages' against the 'inhabitants of our frontiers', namely, the white settlers seeking to expand the colonial domain. The American Revolution, like the Zionist struggle against the British mandate in 1945-47, was partly a response by settler-colonialists to imperial restrictions on their right to dispossess natives. I've heard this analogy used to justify the Nakba, the Palestinian 'catastrophe' of 1948: terrible things happened to the Native Americans but these are the casualties of progress, and cannot be undone. Every people acquires its land, at one point or another, by conquest, so why should the Jews be any different? But that raises the less comfortable case of another settler-colonialism, white South Africa. When it comes to the apartheid analogy, what's decisive is not Carter's legitimizing of it but the fact that it arises, spontaneously and irresistably, to the lips of black South Africans visiting the Occupied Territories. What they see there - the Jews-only roads, the confinement of Palestinians in camps and villages, the checkpoints, the harassment, the second-class citizenship based on ethnicity - reminds them graphically of the system they suffered under and struggled against. The Afrikaaners were immigrants from Europe with a religious-nationalist consciousness whose racist assumptions about their right to the land were underpinned by superior European technology and weaponry. White settlers acquired control of the state thanks ultimately to British imperial power, with which, like the Zionists, they were often nonetheless in conflict. There is at least one major difference between Israel and South Africa, though it's not one that favors the former. Under apartheid, the dominant whites used the black population as a source of cheap labor. In contrast, Zionism has aimed to remove the Palestinian population, to replace Palestinians with Jews. And this has been evident from what Zionists called 'the conquest of labor' in the 1920s (when Jewish settlers campaigned for the non-employment of Palestinians), to the Nakba of 1948 and its aftermath, to the current calls within Israel for 'transfer', the final expulsion of the bulk of the Palestinian population." (pp 29-31)

Finally, Marqusee tackles the Nazi/fascist analogy, and makes the telling point that "the prime culprit here... is not the left. In my lifetime, every US military action, from Vietnam to Iraq (and now the threat against Iran), has been justified with analogies drawn from World War II. Every enemy is a new Hitler (Qadaffi, Noriega, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad), every call for peace is Munich-style appeasement, and every challenge to Israel is an existential threat akin to that posed by the Nazis - from the days of Nasser down to Hamas and Hezbollah. Of course, the Nazis and the holocaust represent an acme of inhumanity, an evil so enormous that any comparison seems dubious. Yet if we remove them from history and treat them as sui generis, we debar ourselves from learning and applying the broader lessons. When the world discovered the extent of Nazi barbarism in the wake of World War II, the cry was 'Never again!' We cannot turn that cry into a reality, we cannot ensure that nothing even remotely like this happens again, unless we are permitted to draw appropriate analogies from the experience. Where there is Nazi-like behavior, a Nazi-like idea or a Nazi-like threat, then it is right that the comparison is noted. Is it permitted, however, to compare anything to the holocaust? Its industrial and ideological nature and scale seem to make it unlike anything in the annals of genocide. But even these salient features occur only within the broader phenomenon of imperialism, racism and colonialism. That's where the story of the extermination of European Jewry belongs and it does not in the least belittle or relativize the magnitude of its horror to say so. (pp 31-32)

And Sheridan's poor, misunderstood American Jews, who supposedly supported the invasion of Iraq because they thought it was the right thing for America to do at the time without being in any way influenced by the sabre-rattling of Israeli politicians, Israel-friendly American neocons in and out of the Bush administration, and the Israel lobby, and who therefore came under suspicion of dual loyalty? Even assuming the reality of such straw men, the very fact that Israel presents as a Jewish state, and that Zionists routinely conflate Judaism and Zionism, is bound to lead to such suspicions. As Norman Finkelstein has pointed out: "In some quarters anger at Israel's brutal occupation has undoubtedly spilled over to an animus toward Jews generally. But however lamentable, it's hardly cause for wonder. The brutal US aggression against Vietnam and the Bush administration's aggression against Iraq engendered a generalized anti-Americanism, just as the genocidal Nazi aggression during World War II engendered a generalized anti-Teutonism. Should it really surprise us if the cruel occupation by a self-declared Jewish state engenders a generalized antipathy to Jews?... [I]f many Jews themselves repudiate any distinction between Israel and world Jewry, indeed, if they denounce such a distinction as itself anti-Semitic; if mainstream Jewish organizations lend uncritical support to every Israeli policy, however criminal, indeed, abetting the most virulent tendencies inside Israel and muzzling principled dissent outside Israel; if Israel defines itself juridically as the sovereign state of the Jewish people, and Jews abroad label any criticism of Israel anti-Jewish - the real wonder is that the spillover from antipathy toward Israel to Jews generally hasn't been greater" (Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism & the Abuse of History, 2005, pp 81-82)