If we focus on its origins, the Zionists who founded Israel, particularly the most rightwing of them, were firmly rooted in the fascist movements in Europe from which they sprang. One of their leaders, Jabotinsky, was based in Mussolini's Italy with his full support. Yitzhak Shamir signed a letter in 1941 offering to fight with Hitler against his British enemies. Shamir was elected prime minister by an Israeli electorate which knew all about his history. Israel was also one of the closest allies of apartheid South Africa, not only in trade, military cooperation--including join development of nuclear weapons and counterinsurgency--and diplomatic ties but also in very close political sympathy because of the closeness of the two settler colonial states and their practices.
Let's look at another bit of political nonsense which is rarely questioned. Palestinians and Arab governments are demanded to accept the right of the state of Israel to exist. Let's examine that. Since when do states have a right to exist independent of their behavior? Certainly not in the US Declaration of Independence. Would anyone argue that the apartheid South African state had a "right to exist." Human beings do have a right to exist. But the right of a state to exist is conditional on its behavior and on whether those who live under its rule accept its existence and want it to exist. In other words, this demand is totally illogical.
To conclude this first blog, I want to comment on what I consider to be one of the greatest intellectual crimes of the 20th century: the repeal by the United Nations of its resolution recognizing political Zionism as a form of racism. The central idea of political Zionism is that Jews do not belong in the countries where they live but should instead emigrate to another place. This is precisely what European anti-Semites were saying when this political movement began. This position is thus profoundly anti-Jewish and thus racist. Of course, we could also discuss the racism which led European settlers to act as though nobody was living in Palestine with any rights worth respecting, but that flows directly from the central idea using what I call the logic of settler colonialism. Once a group decides it will take over territory occupied by someone else, it defines the indigenous inhabitants as a threat to their security. Of course, there is a kind of twisted self-fulfilling prophecy in that since most people do resist the takeover of the native land. To be sure, there are always those within the settler community who stand up against the worst outrages and sometimes even side with the colonized peoples. I salute them for their heroism. But the overwhelming majority surrender to the logic of settlers, dismiss the very notion that the displaced have rights, and willingly perform the most horrible crimes against them. In the case of Israel, they even describe themselves as honorable, humane, and civilized when they are nothing of the sort. So, this first blog concludes with the promise of more to come.
