|
Zionism Equals Racism: Placing the Label Where it Belongs
By Omer bin Abdullah
06/08/2001
The founding myth of the state of "Israel" is that it is "a land for people without land…in a land without people". Palestine, however, was home to more than one million people when the Zionists laid claim to it, and these one million people included Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The myth then, in rather simple English, means that Zionists believe that only Jews qualify to be defined as human, while one million Muslims and Christians are not; because if they were human, then how could Palestine be called "a land without people".
Ironically, Great Britain - the great power of the era in which the myth was initiated - sacrificed the rights of its Christian coreligionists and revived the Crusaders' dream of emptying Palestine of its Muslim residents. Britain became, and served as, the upholder of this racist entity for as long as its imperial strength lasted, and upon breathing its last, handed over this blood-drenched baton to the U.S., which has taken its support and nurturing of this racist ideology beyond the pinnacle of immorality.
Racism within the Zionist ideology is not new; it has been an integral concept since its conception. Vladamir Jabotinsky, father of revisionist Zionism, said in a racist boast in 1923, "There can be no discussion of a voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs… Any native people… view their country as their national home… they will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner… Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible… colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population - an iron wall, which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy" (Sahyoun, 2001).
It was such thinking that led to the establishment of the racially exclusive state of Israel in 1948, and the subsequent expulsion of the indigenous Palestinians from their land. As a result, the Zionists severed a relationship that people had to the land for over 4,000 uninterrupted years, since even before the time of the Prophet Abraham ('alayhi al Salaam).
The Zionists are forever buying sympathy by reminding the world that Adolf Hitler made them wear yellow tags, without reminding themselves that they force the Palestinians to ride only in those vehicles that have yellow license plates. Does the yellow of Nazism have a different hue than the yellow of Zionism?
The Zionist entity has built "by-pass" roads that allow Jews to bypass Palestinian areas, and of course, the "settlements" sets up along those roads are exclusively Jewish. Such travel and living arrangements only find one parallel: apartheid South Africa, where whites were kept in racially "pure" areas away from blacks.
In 1975, the United Nations set the record straight by adopting Resolution 3379, which determined that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." Indeed, Resolution 3379 referred back to a similar 1973 resolution condemning "the unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism," and to a 1963 resolution, which determined that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous." However, 16 years later, in December 1991, the U.S.- ruling in a unipolar world - twisted enough arms to oblige the U.N. General Assembly to invalidate Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism.
U.S. strong-arm tactics notwithstanding, the reality of Zionism has not changed; and it is opportune that the U.N. revisits and re-adopts the language of Resolution 3379.
The revival of such a call has warmed many souls. Human Rights Watch has urged the United States to throw its support behind the United Nations-sponsored World Conference Against Racism to be held in Durban, South Africa. "The [George W.] Bush administration needs to show that it really cares about the problem of racism, in the United States and around the world," said Reed Brody, Advocacy Director of Human Rights Watch. "The way to do that is to use this conference to press for concrete solutions and programs to address the problem, not to sit on the sidelines."
The passages that the Zionist entity and its sidekick, the U.S., want to exorcise, reads: ''The World Conference recognizes with deep concern the increase of racist practices of Zionism and anti-Semitism in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement which is based on racial superiority.''
Another paragraph that irks the two partners in crime, without directly mentioning Israel or Zionism, says Palestinians face ''practices of racial discrimination ... which have an impact on all aspects of their daily existence.''
Ironically, Bush is himself a racist, and we need to recall that it is under the Bush administration that a Muslim American was kicked out of the White House because he was an Arab. Bush, however, later apologized for political expediency, but the reality is that he is a committed racist. Otherwise, which other person would have cavorted with Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Sabra and Shatilla, at his farm, which is built - of course - on stolen land. Such camaraderie can only be possible among similar thinking people, and apparently bulldozing a few score Muslims into the dust is an acceptable act - an act of ridding the earth of an unacceptable race. George W. has only to look up to his father George H. W. Bush, who butchered Iraq with gleeful abandon, for inspiration.
The Bush administration thinks that it can delegitimize the conference by staying away. However, the U.S. must remember that it failed to get elected on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and despite that, the Commission continues to serve. In fact, in staying away to please the Zionists, the U.S. is only going to succeed in ceding important decisions to others. The heavily Zionist-dominated administration of former U.S. president Bill Clinton had committed an initial $250,000 toward the conference before it left office; the Bush administration has not increased the initial funding. By contrast, the United States provided several million dollars to the 1995 United Nations conference on women in Beijing. Such an imbalance is understandable; at Beijing, the U.S. wanted to promote its immoral agenda. However, in Durban, the U.S. faces a demand that it agree to pay compensation for slavery, and of course accept the reality that Zionism is a form of racism.
Ironically, the U.S. that opposes compensating the slaves who built America was at the forefront of the fight to force Germany and other European countries to compensate the Jews who served them under forced labor.
Arab ambassadors have suggested that they would offer support to black African nations in their demands for compensation from the West for slavery and colonialism in exchange for African support for Arab positions. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said on June 20th in a Senate hearing that attacks on Israel could derail the meeting. Perhaps, the General is twisting the right number of arms into making that a reality. Only the outcome will tell how many states will sell out to American pressure and side with injustice.
The U.N. World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance will meet from August 31st to September 7th .
Sources:
Sahyoun, Rabee'. "Why Zionism Is
Racism". July 3, 2001. www.albalagh.net
|
