[This is a pretty good article, but I'm not so sure that Egypt's ruling military junta committed a "big blunder." The arrest in Egypt of members of "democracy promoting" institutes funded by the U.S. Congress is proving to be popular with the Egyptian people. They know that the U.S. helped prop up Mubarek's felonious dictatorship for 30 plus years.
The Egyptian military rulers most likely made the arrests to divert attention from their own crimes, but whenever the U.S. sends "activists" and funds out to promote American-style democracy most people around the world can smell the hypocrisy, and understand that the various neo-con inspired "democracy workers" are usually used as cover for the CIA and other covert operations.--Rick Congress]
Feb 06, 2012 05:53 pm | James North
from Mondoweiss.com
The military/industrial junta that continues to rule Egypt in defiance of the majority of Egyptians has just made another big blunder. The military says it will put on trial 19 Americans who belong to groups that have been “promoting democracy” in Egypt. The Obama administration and Congress warn that the prosecution will jeopardize this year’s $1.55 billion in American aid, which includes $1.3 billion for the military itself.
The generals are trying to blame “foreign hands” for the continuing mass movement for democracy, and foolishly believe that singling out Americans will confuse the Egyptian public. The military will almost certainly have to back down very soon.
Meanwhile, who are these Americans, and who are they to teach Egyptians about democracy? The two main groups are the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI); they are funded by the U.S. government, and they have been fishy since they started in 1983. Back then they were part of an effort to whitewash the Reagan administration’s criminal and murderous armed interventions in Central America, and they continue their dishonest work; the NRI gave support to the illegal 2009 military coup in Honduras.
But even if the IRI and the NDI genuinely followed their nonpartisan charters, why do Egyptians need lessons in democracy? Over the past few years, the Egyptian people have bravely staged strikes and mass demonstrations, full of enthusiasm, creativity, and humor. Courageous Egyptians, both secular liberals and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, have been jailed for years and tortured just for speaking out, but they did not turn to violence, even though nearly one thousand of them have died so far. They have fought for the right to vote in free elections, and then exercised that right peacefully over the past few months.
Meanwhile, an election season is also starting in the United States. Here, big money has never been more powerful. The Republicans have already spent obscene amounts on television advertising. A single donor, a billionaire Las Vegas gambling czar, has already invested millions to move American policy even more closely toward Israel. An unenthusiastic electorate awaits more mud-slinging.
Here’s a suggestion; Congress should stop funding the IRI and the NDI. Instead, invite groups of young people from Tahrir Square – let’s call them the Egyptian Democracy Institute – to visit the United States, appear on our television programs and conduct workshops in our cities and towns, and explain how they are bravely changing history. For balance, we should also encourage visits by delegations from the Muslim Brotherhood (they could constitute the Egyptian Religious Conservative Institute). It would be priceless to watch Dr. Essam el-Erian, the Brotherhood leader who spent 5 years in prison for peacefully advocating democracy, politely tell Newt Gingrich how to wage a more effective political campaign.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
How do you oppose “Israel Firsters?” Not by being an America Firster!
The term “Israel Firster” has now come into vogue as a way to label politicians, particularly egregious news media outlets and their reporters, and other hard-line backers of Israel who try to act as gatekeepers of what is permissible to say about Israel (mainly praise) and what is prohibited as anti-Semitic (anything critical...or truthful).
Now AIPAC, Christian end-times Zionists, and politicians can be attacked for not being loyal to the USA. They are agents of a foreign power. The Israel Firster sobriquet seems to be replacing the “dual-loyalty” appellation. I've read about it in Mondoweiss.com and have also read about Jack Ross, the author of a biography of Elmer Berger, a non-Zionist rabbi, who spoke at a meeting in Brooklyn last week, where he is said to have criticized American Zionists as being disloyal to America and hurting our country by insisting that the US should back up Israel no matter what, and which is leading us into all kinds of trouble just for the sake of Israel.
The thesis that US foreign policy has been hijacked by the Israel lobby has been around for a while. Meirshimer and Walt's well known book expressed this view a few years ago. APAIC, the mostly Jewish neocons, and the world-wide network of Zionist organizations has, in fact, had a big impact in setting US policy towards Israel, the Palestinians, and the Arab world. And they have egged on the US government's headlong rush into military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and who knows where else (drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, covert actions inside Iran...). Actually we all know where else, war with Iran.
We have also seen the US Congress prostrating itself at the feet of Netanyahu, and the Obama administration working hand in glove with Israel in the UN to stop any support for recognizing Palestine as a sovereign nation.
And then there is the flood of free money the US gives Israel and the intertwining of the US military operations structure and “defense” plans with that of Israel...to say nothing of Israel's peddling to us of security systems and training of various US police forces in how to better violate human rights and terrorize the general population (well, I did say something about it).
This can't be disputed. Israel and its minions (so to speak) have definitely pushed US policy in one direction...more and more hard core support for whatever Israel does and plans to do.
The question is what to make of it. And what to make of it seems to reveal a person's political position on issues like patriotism, universalism and what the USA represents in the world.
If not for the Zionist lobby would US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians be benign? Does our government represent democracy, freedom and equality in the world and the problem is bad policy imposed by outside foreign meddling and their traitorous agents in the USA? Is being a patriotic American a good thing? If the Israel Firsters have imposed policies inimical to our “National Interest,” then what is this national interest?
The United States is a predatory, imperialist, capitalist state which is perfectly capable of inflicting misery upon all parts of the world without any foreign agents leading it around by the nose. We don't have to belabor the long history of extermination of the Indians, slavery, revolving door invasions of South American countries, and then there's organizing the coup in 1954 to put the Shah back in power and then VIETNAM. The US in the world is all about strategic control of natural resources, and economic, political and military dominance of the globe. Yes, the US is now an empire past its prime, going downhill. This makes military technology and brute force all the more urgent for our rulers (the ruling class, power elite, fortune 500, define it as you will...the 1%.) since they have opted for trying to stay on top rather than gracefully ceding primacy to other nations. It can be argued that these are bad tactics and that another policy of accepting parity and using diplomacy is smarter and would work better in the long run. OK, this may be true. But it's not being done just because of undue influence from a foreign power...Israel.
America's rulers are capable of making their own stupid decisions. There are always different tactical and strategic options to choose from. Sometimes there is a consensus around a bad policy, sometimes not.
If America's corporate rulers, along with its paid for politicians and the CIA and Pentagon thought that Israel was an overall liability with no positives, they would ditch it. Apparently, so far, our overlords are sticking with Israel all the way. Some of them may consider Israel a pain in the ass, or think it goes overboard. Some may think that they should keep an eye out for another option in case Israel becomes more trouble than it’s worth. Some may already think that stage has been reached. Does Obama secretly support limiting Israel's actions? Who knows? Some activists will probably vote based on that assumption...or delusion (and it's also an extreme delusion to think that even if he did disagree with his own administration's policies on Israel, that by himself he would or could do anything about it).
One could argue that if the neocon pipe-dream of an invasion of Iraq that would convert that country into an ally of the US, with its people grateful for and supportive of America's “liberating mission” had actually been successful; it would have spelled trouble for Israel. For then the US would have as an ally and friend an Arab country that could be a base of operations, something that would be worth much more for US interests in the long run than Israel alone.
When we talk about America's national interests we are not talking about the American people's welfare. The National Interest is whatever benefits the 1%. If you are a patriot then you are a sucker or stooge of America’s own predatory, internationalist minded capitalist class, which really doesn't care about the people of this country or any country. This holds true for those bankers, and captains of industry who happen to be based in Paris, Berlin, India, Russia...etc.
No, it's not good to be a patriotic American. In fact it's a bad thing. Patriotism is unbreakably linked to supporting “our” rulers in feeding their own greed. When Leon Panetta, or a phony liberal schmuck like Gerald Nadler says someone who supports Palestinian rights is collaborating with terrorists they are speaking in the name of patriotism. Calling people Israel-firsters or disloyal to the good old USA is another form of McCarthyism. The better choice is to be an opponent of imperialism and predatory capitalism. Be a humanist, a universalist, not an America Firster.
Now AIPAC, Christian end-times Zionists, and politicians can be attacked for not being loyal to the USA. They are agents of a foreign power. The Israel Firster sobriquet seems to be replacing the “dual-loyalty” appellation. I've read about it in Mondoweiss.com and have also read about Jack Ross, the author of a biography of Elmer Berger, a non-Zionist rabbi, who spoke at a meeting in Brooklyn last week, where he is said to have criticized American Zionists as being disloyal to America and hurting our country by insisting that the US should back up Israel no matter what, and which is leading us into all kinds of trouble just for the sake of Israel.
The thesis that US foreign policy has been hijacked by the Israel lobby has been around for a while. Meirshimer and Walt's well known book expressed this view a few years ago. APAIC, the mostly Jewish neocons, and the world-wide network of Zionist organizations has, in fact, had a big impact in setting US policy towards Israel, the Palestinians, and the Arab world. And they have egged on the US government's headlong rush into military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and who knows where else (drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, covert actions inside Iran...). Actually we all know where else, war with Iran.
We have also seen the US Congress prostrating itself at the feet of Netanyahu, and the Obama administration working hand in glove with Israel in the UN to stop any support for recognizing Palestine as a sovereign nation.
And then there is the flood of free money the US gives Israel and the intertwining of the US military operations structure and “defense” plans with that of Israel...to say nothing of Israel's peddling to us of security systems and training of various US police forces in how to better violate human rights and terrorize the general population (well, I did say something about it).
This can't be disputed. Israel and its minions (so to speak) have definitely pushed US policy in one direction...more and more hard core support for whatever Israel does and plans to do.
The question is what to make of it. And what to make of it seems to reveal a person's political position on issues like patriotism, universalism and what the USA represents in the world.
If not for the Zionist lobby would US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians be benign? Does our government represent democracy, freedom and equality in the world and the problem is bad policy imposed by outside foreign meddling and their traitorous agents in the USA? Is being a patriotic American a good thing? If the Israel Firsters have imposed policies inimical to our “National Interest,” then what is this national interest?
The United States is a predatory, imperialist, capitalist state which is perfectly capable of inflicting misery upon all parts of the world without any foreign agents leading it around by the nose. We don't have to belabor the long history of extermination of the Indians, slavery, revolving door invasions of South American countries, and then there's organizing the coup in 1954 to put the Shah back in power and then VIETNAM. The US in the world is all about strategic control of natural resources, and economic, political and military dominance of the globe. Yes, the US is now an empire past its prime, going downhill. This makes military technology and brute force all the more urgent for our rulers (the ruling class, power elite, fortune 500, define it as you will...the 1%.) since they have opted for trying to stay on top rather than gracefully ceding primacy to other nations. It can be argued that these are bad tactics and that another policy of accepting parity and using diplomacy is smarter and would work better in the long run. OK, this may be true. But it's not being done just because of undue influence from a foreign power...Israel.
America's rulers are capable of making their own stupid decisions. There are always different tactical and strategic options to choose from. Sometimes there is a consensus around a bad policy, sometimes not.
If America's corporate rulers, along with its paid for politicians and the CIA and Pentagon thought that Israel was an overall liability with no positives, they would ditch it. Apparently, so far, our overlords are sticking with Israel all the way. Some of them may consider Israel a pain in the ass, or think it goes overboard. Some may think that they should keep an eye out for another option in case Israel becomes more trouble than it’s worth. Some may already think that stage has been reached. Does Obama secretly support limiting Israel's actions? Who knows? Some activists will probably vote based on that assumption...or delusion (and it's also an extreme delusion to think that even if he did disagree with his own administration's policies on Israel, that by himself he would or could do anything about it).
One could argue that if the neocon pipe-dream of an invasion of Iraq that would convert that country into an ally of the US, with its people grateful for and supportive of America's “liberating mission” had actually been successful; it would have spelled trouble for Israel. For then the US would have as an ally and friend an Arab country that could be a base of operations, something that would be worth much more for US interests in the long run than Israel alone.
When we talk about America's national interests we are not talking about the American people's welfare. The National Interest is whatever benefits the 1%. If you are a patriot then you are a sucker or stooge of America’s own predatory, internationalist minded capitalist class, which really doesn't care about the people of this country or any country. This holds true for those bankers, and captains of industry who happen to be based in Paris, Berlin, India, Russia...etc.
No, it's not good to be a patriotic American. In fact it's a bad thing. Patriotism is unbreakably linked to supporting “our” rulers in feeding their own greed. When Leon Panetta, or a phony liberal schmuck like Gerald Nadler says someone who supports Palestinian rights is collaborating with terrorists they are speaking in the name of patriotism. Calling people Israel-firsters or disloyal to the good old USA is another form of McCarthyism. The better choice is to be an opponent of imperialism and predatory capitalism. Be a humanist, a universalist, not an America Firster.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Watching Dennis Ross on PBS News Hour
January 18, 2012
Tonight, lounging on the couch, I surfed to channel 13 and caught part of The News Hour...usual stuff & the usual suspects. Then there was a segment on "Are we moving towards war with Iran?"
And again there was Dennis Ross, the Netanyahu/APAIC approved man in the Clinton and Obama administrations holding forth on the issue, attempting to sound reasonable: "the stability of the entire region is threatened if Iran doesn't cease its nuclear efforts."
I leaped to my feet! "My god, he's right!" If Iran gets an A bomb then the US and Israel won't be able to attack them! Things will be stable. A balance of power preventing a war. This is terrible!! Iran will continue to be a sovereign nation and not bend to what the predatory military/corporate empire demands of it. "Iran IS a threat to the current instablilty!"
I sat back down on the couch muttering to myself, and then realized that Ross thinks that things are stable now and that if Iran can credibly defend itself from a US/Israeli attack then things will be instable....OH! Never mind.
Tonight, lounging on the couch, I surfed to channel 13 and caught part of The News Hour...usual stuff & the usual suspects. Then there was a segment on "Are we moving towards war with Iran?"
And again there was Dennis Ross, the Netanyahu/APAIC approved man in the Clinton and Obama administrations holding forth on the issue, attempting to sound reasonable: "the stability of the entire region is threatened if Iran doesn't cease its nuclear efforts."
I leaped to my feet! "My god, he's right!" If Iran gets an A bomb then the US and Israel won't be able to attack them! Things will be stable. A balance of power preventing a war. This is terrible!! Iran will continue to be a sovereign nation and not bend to what the predatory military/corporate empire demands of it. "Iran IS a threat to the current instablilty!"
I sat back down on the couch muttering to myself, and then realized that Ross thinks that things are stable now and that if Iran can credibly defend itself from a US/Israeli attack then things will be instable....OH! Never mind.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Israel: Still not doing Gandhi very well
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
By Nima Sharizi
from his blog Wide Asleep in America
Palestine News and Information Agency (WAFA) reports:
"An Israeli plan to build a statue for the late Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi on an East Jerusalem plot is actually a pretext to seize Palestinian land, the Jerusalem Center for Social and Economic Rights (JCSER) said in a statement Sunday."
That Israel would erect a statue in honor of the great indigenous nationalist, anti-colonialist, and practitioner of non-violence speaks to either its complete lack of self-awareness and blindness to the appalling irony of its proposal or to its profound sense of humor. Recall not only what Director of Policy and Political-Military Affairs at the Israel Ministry of Defense, Major General Amos Gilad, told U.S. officials that "we don’t do Gandhi very well" when discussing peaceful West Bank demonstrations and anti-occupation protests, but also what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi himself had to say in 1938 (in part) about the imposition of Zionist colonization of Palestine:
The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.
The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.
I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds. (emphasis added)
In response to these statements, which were published in Gandhi's Harijan newspaper, letters were written to Gandhi by people like Martin Buber and Judah Magnes, both putting their concepts of Jewish exceptionalism and disinterest in Palestinian self-determination on full display. American Zionist Hayim Greenberg even wrote something (in 1939) that could easily be found in the Jerusalem Post today: "I cannot avoid the suspicion that so far as the Palestine problem is concerned, Gandhi allowed himself to be influenced by the anti-Zionist propaganda being conducted among fanatic pan-Islamists."
A recounted conversation between Gandhi and British Labor party MP Sydney Silverman from March 1946 is remarkable for Silverman's incessant stream of hasbara; talking points that are still used by defenders of ethnic cleansing, mythologized history, and Israeli occupation and apartheid.
As far back as 1921, Gandhi understood well the Zionist intentions toward Palestine and the gross injustice of the Balfour Declaration. In Young India on March 23, 1921, he wrote,
Britain has made promises to the Zionists. The latter have, naturally, a sacred sentiment about the place. The Jews, it is contended, must remain a wandering race unless they have obtained possession of Palestine. I do not propose to examine the soundness or otherwise of the doctrine underlying the proposition. All I contend is that they cannot possess Palestine through a trick or a moral breach. Palestine was not a stake in the War. The British Government could not dare have asked a single Muslim soldier to wrest control of Palestine from fellow-Muslims and give it to the Jews. Palestine, as a place of Jewish worship, is a sentiment to be respected and the Jews would have a just cause of complaint against Mussulman idealists if they were to prevent Jews from offering worship as freely as themselves. By no canon of ethics or war, therefore, can Palestine be given to the Jews as a result of the War. (emphasis added)
In an interview he gave to London's Jewish Chronicle in early October 1931, he stated that "Anti-Semitism is really a remnant of barbarism," but explained:
Zionism in its spiritual sense is a lofty aspiration. By spiritual sense I mean they should want to realise the Jerusalem that is within. Zionism meaning reoccupation of Palestine has no attraction for me. I can understand the longing of a Jew to return to Palestine, and he can do so if he can without the help of bayonets, whether his own or those of Britain. In that event he would go to Palestine peacefully and in perfect friendliness with the Arabs. The real Zionism of which I have given you my meaning is the thing to strive for, long for and die for. Zion lies in one's heart. It is the abode of God. The real Jerusalem is the spiritual Jerusalem. Thus he can realise this Zionism in any part of the world. (emphasis added)
Unsurprisingly, Zionist propaganda was often used to refute Gandhi's views on the Jewish colonization of Palestine during the British Mandate. In response to the Jewish Chronicle interview, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) chairman Rabbi Stephen Wise, speaking in late October 1931 at the Dinner of the Friends of Gandhi in New York in honor of Gandhi's 62nd birthday, countered, "Jews throughout the world cannot but help regretting the word of Gandhi spoken concerning Zionism. It is strange to find Gandhi alluding to Zionism as if it might mean the 're-occupation of Palestine', with all of the sinister military meaning which 'occupation' and 're-occupation' convey." Wise continued,
As for the Jewish settlers in Palestine, no one can sanely and honestly accuse them of resting their case on bayonets. Their title is immemorial, and they have returned to Palestine not to hurt and to wound, but to serve to enrich and to bless the land and all its people. This have they done from every point of view, economically, culturally, morally and spiritually.
[...]
Would that Gandhi knew that what he claims is the suffering and denial of his people in India is the status of the largest number of Jews in the world, that Jews have no desire for military occupation or forcible re-entry into Palestine, that they seek peaceably and, in a very real sense non-resistently, to live and labour and serve and to sacrifice for Palestine, which means to many Jews exactly what India means to Gandhi! (emphasis added)
The irony of Wise's words, considering the actions of pre-State Zionist terror militias, the Israeli military, and Jewish colonists over the intervening eight decades, is staggering.
Perhaps more striking, however, is what Gandhi wrote on July 14, 1946 in Harijan: "...in my opinion, they [the Zionists] have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism." He continued:
No wonder that my sympathy goes out to the Jews in their unenviably sad plight. But one would have thought adversity would teach them lessons of peace. Why should they depend upon American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine? (emphasis added)
Also of note is his answer to the question "What do you feel is the most acceptable solution to the Palestine problem?" posed to him by United Press of America on June 2, 1947. He replied, "The abandonment wholly by the Jews of terrorism and other forms of violence."
By Nima Sharizi
from his blog Wide Asleep in America
Palestine News and Information Agency (WAFA) reports:
"An Israeli plan to build a statue for the late Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi on an East Jerusalem plot is actually a pretext to seize Palestinian land, the Jerusalem Center for Social and Economic Rights (JCSER) said in a statement Sunday."
That Israel would erect a statue in honor of the great indigenous nationalist, anti-colonialist, and practitioner of non-violence speaks to either its complete lack of self-awareness and blindness to the appalling irony of its proposal or to its profound sense of humor. Recall not only what Director of Policy and Political-Military Affairs at the Israel Ministry of Defense, Major General Amos Gilad, told U.S. officials that "we don’t do Gandhi very well" when discussing peaceful West Bank demonstrations and anti-occupation protests, but also what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi himself had to say in 1938 (in part) about the imposition of Zionist colonization of Palestine:
The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.
The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.
I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds. (emphasis added)
In response to these statements, which were published in Gandhi's Harijan newspaper, letters were written to Gandhi by people like Martin Buber and Judah Magnes, both putting their concepts of Jewish exceptionalism and disinterest in Palestinian self-determination on full display. American Zionist Hayim Greenberg even wrote something (in 1939) that could easily be found in the Jerusalem Post today: "I cannot avoid the suspicion that so far as the Palestine problem is concerned, Gandhi allowed himself to be influenced by the anti-Zionist propaganda being conducted among fanatic pan-Islamists."
A recounted conversation between Gandhi and British Labor party MP Sydney Silverman from March 1946 is remarkable for Silverman's incessant stream of hasbara; talking points that are still used by defenders of ethnic cleansing, mythologized history, and Israeli occupation and apartheid.
As far back as 1921, Gandhi understood well the Zionist intentions toward Palestine and the gross injustice of the Balfour Declaration. In Young India on March 23, 1921, he wrote,
Britain has made promises to the Zionists. The latter have, naturally, a sacred sentiment about the place. The Jews, it is contended, must remain a wandering race unless they have obtained possession of Palestine. I do not propose to examine the soundness or otherwise of the doctrine underlying the proposition. All I contend is that they cannot possess Palestine through a trick or a moral breach. Palestine was not a stake in the War. The British Government could not dare have asked a single Muslim soldier to wrest control of Palestine from fellow-Muslims and give it to the Jews. Palestine, as a place of Jewish worship, is a sentiment to be respected and the Jews would have a just cause of complaint against Mussulman idealists if they were to prevent Jews from offering worship as freely as themselves. By no canon of ethics or war, therefore, can Palestine be given to the Jews as a result of the War. (emphasis added)
In an interview he gave to London's Jewish Chronicle in early October 1931, he stated that "Anti-Semitism is really a remnant of barbarism," but explained:
Zionism in its spiritual sense is a lofty aspiration. By spiritual sense I mean they should want to realise the Jerusalem that is within. Zionism meaning reoccupation of Palestine has no attraction for me. I can understand the longing of a Jew to return to Palestine, and he can do so if he can without the help of bayonets, whether his own or those of Britain. In that event he would go to Palestine peacefully and in perfect friendliness with the Arabs. The real Zionism of which I have given you my meaning is the thing to strive for, long for and die for. Zion lies in one's heart. It is the abode of God. The real Jerusalem is the spiritual Jerusalem. Thus he can realise this Zionism in any part of the world. (emphasis added)
Unsurprisingly, Zionist propaganda was often used to refute Gandhi's views on the Jewish colonization of Palestine during the British Mandate. In response to the Jewish Chronicle interview, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) chairman Rabbi Stephen Wise, speaking in late October 1931 at the Dinner of the Friends of Gandhi in New York in honor of Gandhi's 62nd birthday, countered, "Jews throughout the world cannot but help regretting the word of Gandhi spoken concerning Zionism. It is strange to find Gandhi alluding to Zionism as if it might mean the 're-occupation of Palestine', with all of the sinister military meaning which 'occupation' and 're-occupation' convey." Wise continued,
As for the Jewish settlers in Palestine, no one can sanely and honestly accuse them of resting their case on bayonets. Their title is immemorial, and they have returned to Palestine not to hurt and to wound, but to serve to enrich and to bless the land and all its people. This have they done from every point of view, economically, culturally, morally and spiritually.
[...]
Would that Gandhi knew that what he claims is the suffering and denial of his people in India is the status of the largest number of Jews in the world, that Jews have no desire for military occupation or forcible re-entry into Palestine, that they seek peaceably and, in a very real sense non-resistently, to live and labour and serve and to sacrifice for Palestine, which means to many Jews exactly what India means to Gandhi! (emphasis added)
The irony of Wise's words, considering the actions of pre-State Zionist terror militias, the Israeli military, and Jewish colonists over the intervening eight decades, is staggering.
Perhaps more striking, however, is what Gandhi wrote on July 14, 1946 in Harijan: "...in my opinion, they [the Zionists] have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism." He continued:
No wonder that my sympathy goes out to the Jews in their unenviably sad plight. But one would have thought adversity would teach them lessons of peace. Why should they depend upon American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine? (emphasis added)
Also of note is his answer to the question "What do you feel is the most acceptable solution to the Palestine problem?" posed to him by United Press of America on June 2, 1947. He replied, "The abandonment wholly by the Jews of terrorism and other forms of violence."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)