Mondoweiss
Gideon Levy calls out Israel's fundamental, racist religion: Zionism
Jonathan Ofir on September 2, 2017 43 Comments
Gideon Levy, October 5, 2016, Lensic Performing Arts Space, Santa Fe, NM.
Gideon Levy published a column in Haaretz yesterday that goes to the
furthest extent I have seen in Israeli mainstream media in challenging
Zionism. He calls it a movement that "contradicts human rights, and is thus
indeed an ultranationalist, colonialist and perhaps even racist movement, as
proponents of justice worldwide maintain".
His piece, titled "Minster of Truth", was a typically sarcastic one, set
against the background of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who had said
earlier in the week that
"Zionism should not - and I'm saying here that it will not - continue to bow
its head to a system of individual rights interpreted in a universal
manner".
Levy takes Shaked's words and elucidates the message further:
"Thus Shaked believes, as do so many around the world, that Israel is built
on foundations of injustice and therefore must be defended from the hostile
talk of justice. How else can the repulsion to discussing rights be
explained? Individual rights are important, she said, but not when they are
disconnected from 'the Zionist challenges.' Right again: The Zionist
challenges indeed stand in contradiction to human rights."
And Levy is very clear about what opposing this will mean:
"Zionism is Israel's fundamentalist religion, and as in any religion, its
denial is prohibited. In Israel, 'non-Zionist' or 'anti-Zionist' aren't
insults, they are social expulsion orders. There's nothing like it in any
free society. But now that Shaked has exposed Zionism, put her hand to the
flame and admitted the truth, we can finally think about Zionism more
freely. We can admit that the Jews' right to a state contradicted the
Palestinians' right to their land, and that righteous Zionism gave birth to
a terrible national wrong that has never been righted; that there are ways
to resolve and atone for this contradiction, but the Zionist Israelis won't
agree to them."
The background is that Shaked was responding to the Supreme Court's decision
last Monday, ruling against indefinite imprisonment of African asylum
seekers who refuse to be deported to a third country (typically Uganda or
Rwanda). Whilst permitting the deportation of what the court terms
"infiltrators," the court limited the term of their imprisonment to two
months. Now notice what Supreme Court President Miriam Naor wrote:
"During this time, it's permissible to try to persuade him through means
that don't infringe on his free will, or to try to find other ways to deport
him against his will".
This is the typical "light coercion" of the "Israeli democracy", similar to
the uniquely-Israeli expression "moderate physical pressure" as a legalized
euphemism for torture.
Court President Naor adds: "Similarly, the state can consider alternatives
to deportation, including the alternative of restricting his place of
residence" (that is, within Israel).
Many people would naturally balk at this contempt for human rights. But for
Israeli leaders, this was outrageous for the opposite reason: the court was
too liberal.
Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, whilst welcoming the decision that
"infiltrators" could be sent to third countries, nonetheless decried the
court for depriving him of a "very important tool", and criticized the court
for allowing only voluntary deportations (in some cases).
"The decision not to allow the state to deport infiltrators against their
will is very problematic," Deri said. "We have to care for the citizens of
Israel, the residents of south Tel Aviv and other cities where residents'
lives are unlivable."
And Prime Minister Netanyahu? He said:
"We'll have to enact new laws that will enable us . to send the illegal
infiltrators out of our country."
In saying that human rights must yield to "the Zionist challenges," Shaked
was basically making it clear, as Levy stated, that Zionism stands in
opposition to universal human rights - intrinsically so. Levy seems to
hedge, writing that Zionism is a "perhaps even racist movement" (my
emphasis), but the hedge disappears when he describes Zionism as a
colonialist and ultranationalist movement. In other words, Levy is calling
Zionism racism.
The historical notion of Zionism as racism is clear to Levy, and he mentions
the UN Resolution 3379 of 1975, equating Zionism with racism, in his second
paragraph. I have also mentioned that resolution (which Israeli UN
Ambassador Haim Herzog famously tore apart, and which was later rescinded),
in conjunction with the recent UN agency commissioned report on Israeli
Apartheid, which noted the "state's essentially racist character".
What's also important to note in this case is the background - not of
Palestinians, but simply of non-Jewish asylum seekers. This is an important
notion, because it flies in the face of the notion of Israeli policies being
merely a response to Palestinian aggression, as it were. There is no
aggression here as such, and there are no Palestinians in this story. It is
merely about the presence of non-Jews.
When Zionism's founder Theodore Herzl wrote in his diary in 1895 that "We
shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border . while
denying it any employment in our own country", he was not likely thinking of
African refugees. But reality has shown that Zionism will enact such
policies against anyone who endangers its racist, colonialist and
ultranationalist designs.
So here we are: things are being said out loud. No more apologies. This is
also evident in what Netanyahu recently said to a settler audience: "We are
here to stay forever," Netanyahu reassured. "We will deepen our roots,
build, strengthen and settle" (as noted by Jonathan Cook).
And Levy sets the stakes:
"Now, then, is the time for a new division, braver and more honest, between
those Israelis who agree with Shaked's statement and those [who] disagree.
Between supporters of Zionism and supporters of justice. Between Zionists
and the just."
Indeed, and not a moment too soon.
