[Marxism] Re: Most Zionists are non-Jews

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Mon Aug 7 13:51:23 MDT 2006

Respuesta a:"[Marxism] Re: Most Zionists are non-Jews"
Enviado por:Brian Shannon
Con fecha:7 Aug 2006, a las 10:42

> On Aug 7, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Nestor Gorojovsky wrote:
> > The kernel of Zionism is the idea that Jews the world over have a 
> > special right to live in, be defended by, get representation from, 
> > and support unquestioningly the State of Israel.  Most people who 
> > believe this are non-Jewish.
> >
> > Thus, there are more non-Jewish Zionists than Jewish Zionists.
> >
> > This is not a moot point.  Whether someone is affiliated with some 
> > Zionist organization or not (in this case, yes, it is usually Jews 
> > who are involved -but not always!) the actual Zionist Party 
> > overlaps with the large Imperialist Party the globe over.  Most 
> > pointedly,  with the US Imperialist Party in the US of A.
> You are only partially correct in describing this as the "kernel of 
> Zionism". And your description is so broad as to be an inch deep and 
> a mile wide as it relates to non-Jews. 

[1] Could you give me a better definition of such kernel, Brian?  

[2] And as to shallowness and expanse of the definition as it relates 
to non-Jews, yes, of course:  but this is its _political_ interest, at least 
for Zionists.  This should be taken as a blessing, because its shallowness 
should make it an easily beatable position 

Maybe what follows will make what remains of my e-mail unnecessary, but when I speak of "special rights" I am not thinking of any religious right or a right that is said to stem from religion.  I am talking of crude right in the bourgeois sense of the word.  If this is enough for Brian, then we can stop it here.  If it is not, please go ahead:

> And the devotion of "most 
> people who believe this are non-Jewish" to this idea has nothing in 
> common with Jewish Zionists who advocate Zionism as the religious/
> secular solution to the "Jewish question."

It has a lot to do.  To begin with, because this was not the idea of those 
early Zionists who, like Ahad Ha'am and (later on) Martin Buber wanted 
to create a "cultural-religious" rallying point for Jews the globe over. 

BTW, Buber said once that the State of the Jews, after it was installed, 
would have to sever its ties to Jews elsewhere or face mayhem!  The 
imperialist _contents_ of Zionism, of course, took the lead and Buber's 
ideas remained just that:  fizzling bubbles in the brain of an old 
Heideggerian clad Rabbi.

Current Zionists watch them with the sympathetic gaze you can cast on some old, already withering, cherished relative that goes on saying nonsense.  They were ran over by the more serious "political" Zionists, namely Hertzl.  And what did Hertzl do, in fact?  Did he try to convince Jews?  No, no.  He started his struggle by offering his idea to every Great Power at hand (the Ottoman Empire included).  At last, Britain took the bid.  Thus, without non-Jewish Zionists, Jewish Zionists (a minority among Jews up to 
Hitler) would not even exist.

> "Special right" is vague and stretches and expands from the strict 
> tenets of Zionism (including encouraging Jews to move to Israel, 
> which I don't think would be included even under your concept of 
> "special right") to many threads including protection of Europeans, 
> racism against Arabs, and throwing up one's hands at the problem.

A special right is a special right.  Of course it includes 
"encouraging Jews to move to Israel", but this goal, at this time of 
the performance, is becoming a bad joke.  No Zionist seriously 
believes in (nor desires) a massive influx of American Jews to 
Israel, and this is the last massive influx available (there are news 
on Russian Jews returning to Russia from Israel after the Yeltsin 
nightmare passed away).  

These "special rights" include whatever you want, Brian.  What they 
do not include (and this is what actually matters) is the not-so-
special right of a good deal of Israeli citizens (Arabs, for example) 
to have a saying on issues that the State of Israel gives a saying to 
_me_, a Buenos Aires Jew!

> For some Jews, this became an important issue within the U.S. SWP 
> during the 1967 and 1973 wars. It did not present a problem for any 
> non-Jewish members. This is a small sample, of course, but it does 
> point up the emotional and moral distinction that divides the 
> thinking of Jews from non-Jews regarding the "depth" of this issue, 
> even among those who had a common secular outlook on the world.

This issue is inevitably tied to being a Jew, simply because the 
Zionist State of Israel does not say it kills and maims children in 
Lebanon in the name of Zionism, but in the name of Jews.  Non-Jewish 
Zionists cash in the earnings at bargain price:  their policy is 
performed by the Zionists, and the Jews are the ones to be blamed for 


> My point is that 
> convincing non-Jews of the inherent justice of the Palestinian cause 
> is not that difficult.

Yes, of course.  Take the anti-apartheid struggle.  It was easier to 
convince a GM manager in Detroit  than some Sasol CEO in 
Johannesburg.  This did not make the GM involvement in South Africa 
any less pro-apartheid.

> Most of the Zionist non-Jews defend Israel because they don't know 
> what other solution is possible, not because of any religious belief 
> in a "special right."  

They defend Israel because the only solution they see is, precisely, 
their "special right":  if things turn out to work against me here, 
then I always can migrate to Israel!


> The more important "special right" that you describe is the right of 
> citizens (white) of imperialist countries to do what they want to do 
> and live where they want to live.

No, not exactly:  Jews who are not citizens of imperialist countries 
(me) have _the same right_ as a Jew in New York to go and do my 
liking in Israel.  Jews who are citizens of imperialist countries 
have that right _the world over_.  For Jews in the semicolonial 
world, Zionism is also a passageway leading to First World, more or 
less like those Central Americans who get US citizenry by offering 
their bodies and life to the imperialist army in Iraq.


> So I think that when we refer to Zionism, it is better to restrict it 
> to its historic origin and WWII and post-war expansion among the 
> Jewish immigrants to Israel. It we let it become all those who 
> protect the "special right," the word becomes too vague as to be
> usable.

In spite of what I said above, I may tend to agree with you, Brian, 
but on different grounds.  It is important to make a difference -back 
to my apartheid example above- between the GM executive and the Sasol 
CEO.  But this, just in order to bring the GM executive to the "good" 
side (not "our" side, we are socialists) in this struggle against 
apartheid.  Ah, I go on reading and I read that we agree:

> It is also important not to put too many people into the enemy camp. 

But in order to bring them to our camp, it is not a bad idea to ask 
them, once they have discovered the evils of Zionism,  whether they 
want to be Zionists without their knowing it, or rather not be 
unconsciously Zionists any more.

> Likewise, the Z word. There are Zionists, Zionist policies, defenders 
> of the Zionist state, defenders of our "democratic" ally Israel, 
> defenders of Israel, defenders of Israelis (against Muslims), etc,
> etc.

On this, we agree.  But I insist:  when "Zionists" are equated with 
"Jews", it is Zionists who have won.

Este correo lo ha enviado
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
[No necesariamente es su autor]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"La patria tiene que ser la dignidad arriba y el regocijo abajo".
Aparicio Saravia
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

More information about the Marxism mailing list