Why Did Early Political Zionists Want to Confuse Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism?

(This is the second in a series of posts discussing the recent debate over anti-Semitism vs. anti-Zionism.  You can find the first post here.)

I have a favorite book shop in the Palestinian section of Jerusalem.  It’s only a short walk from our favorite hotel just down the road from the Damascus Gate of the Old City.

Terry usually steps across the street to shop for children’s books while I search the long rows of “alternative” books on the history of Palestine, Israel, Zionism, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the political debates fueled by the post-Zionist movement, and much much more.

I never cease to be amazed at the ready availability (at least, if you know where to look) of anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian literature in the heartland of ethnocratic, political Zionism.  I suspect that I could never find these titles in anything but the most exotic, well-hidden American bookstore.

My regular pilgrimage to this wonderful, mental oasis — owned and operated by a most congenial Palestinian family, whose children can operate the cash register as easily as their parents — always concludes as I carry away arm-loads of new books to devour during our stay.

I like to read as many of these titles as possible while we are living with our Palestinian family in the refugee camp.  It allows me to share what I am learning and ask questions of my friends, Ayed and Ghada, to compare their personal knowledge with the things I am reading.

One of the books I read this past November was State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel, by Thomas Suarez, published by Olive Branch Press, 2017.  I encourage you to read it.

Suarez’s work is built upon extensive research in various national archives, and is bolstered with copious citations from these first-hand sources.

The esteemed Israeli historian Ilan Pappe wrote about this book:

The book is the first comprehensive and structured analysis of the violence and terror employed by the Zionist movement, and later the state of Israel, against the people of Palestine.

A German, Jewish physicist, Wolfgang Yourgrau had emigrated to Palestine but decided to abandon the Zionist project in 1948.  On the front-piece of

his book, Suarez quotes Yourgrau from the February 1943 edition of the Orient.  Yourgrau wrote:

The growth of Fascism in Palestine at a time when the liberated nations will put it into its grave is a tragi-comedy.

These two citations will give you a sense of the story-line waiting to unfold when you pick of a copy of State of Terror. It’s a book that makes for horrific reading, especially for anyone not already familiar with the revolutionary, nationalist-racial movement known as Zionism.

Heck, I’ve studied this story extensively, and I still found myself horrified by the new things I learned while reading Suarez.

One of the themes Suarez documents is the efforts of men like David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s first prime minister) and his circle of cronies to identify anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Weaponizing the charge of anti-Semitism so that it could be lobbed like a hand-grenade at anyone critical of early Zionism and their methods was a deliberate rhetorical strategy devised by Zionists in public debate.

Ben-Gurion and his comrades were shrewd.  People were especially sensitive to accusations of anti-Semitism before and during the Second World War.

Defenders of Zionism knew they could get away with such slanderous smears with minimal push-back in the era of Adolf Hitler.

But more importantly there was an important ideological basis for this particular word game.

The early Zionists insisted that their new state of Israel would become THE

national homeland for all of world-wide Jewry.  Even today, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, can insist that when he opens his mouth, he speaks “not just as the prime minister of Israel but as a representative of the entire Jewish people.”

As the author of this piece in Haaretz (Feb. 12, 2015) says, the leader of Israel readily claims to “speak for all Jews whether they like it or not.”

Ben-Gurion and his cohorts believed what they wanted to believe: Israel was going to represent all Jews everywhere.  All Jews everywhere were automatic citizens, whether or not they had ever set foot in Palestine.  Zionist Israel would become the global, collective “Jew” standing astride the world stage.

By this logic, if you accept it, wittingly or unwittingly, criticizing Israel is transmogrified into criticizing Judaism and all Jews.  Anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism because there is no longer an independent concept of Jewishness apart from the life, health and prosperity of the new Zionist nation-state.

Consequently, from its very early days, Zionist leaders worked to exacerbate anti-Semitism (real or imagined) whenever and wherever possible in order to motivate immigration to the Promised Land — the only place for all Jews to properly belong.

Many people do not realize that before Israel was officially established, Zionist leaders refused to assist European Jews escaping the Holocaust unless they first pledged to settle in Palestine.  If you were a refugee fleeing the Nazis and you wanted passage to Canada or American, for example, David Ben-Gurion happily left you to your fate in Auschwitz.

Early Zionism also fomented anti-Semitism in order to encourage increased in immigration through fear.  Suarez provides documentation describing the well-known Zionist bombing of an Egyptian movie house for the sole purpose of stirring up anti-Jewish sentiment.  The resulting Arab attacks against Egyptian Jews prompted a sizeable increase in Jewish emigration from Egypt into Palestine.

In fact, Suarez documents internal conversations confirming that early Zionist leaders depended on something they called “the eternal crisis” of global anti-Semitism.  The never-ending threat of this “eternal crisis” became an important means of fueling the perpetual fear and insecurity that Zionists could exploit in motivating people to immigrate to Palestine, the only land where they could ever “be safe.”

Fortunately, many people, both then and now, have seen through the web of lies and illogic at the root of Zionism’s language games.  The Jewish authors mentioned in my previous post well describe how to untangle this web of misrepresentations.

Israel does not represent all Jews or all of Judaism.

Zionism is not the same as Jewishness or Judaism.

In fact, the earliest and most vocal anti-Zionists were orthodox rabbis and their congregations who saw the identification of a nation-state with the aspirations of their revered religion as nothing short of blasphemy.

Anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism.

They are not synonyms.  They are two separate things all together.

It’s not hard to see how the ghosts of David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and Menachim Begin live on in the likes of Benjamin Netanyahu, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and the current crop of pro-Israel spokespeople attacking Rep. Ilhan Omar.

The US Congress is powerfully haunted by the illogic, deceit and deliberate misconceptions planted by pro-Zionist apologists.  As Mark Twain said, A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is still lacing up its boots.

However, that only means that those who know and speak the truth, people like Ilhan Omar, Rebecca Vilkomerson, Phyllis Bennis and numerous orthodox rabbis will need frequent encouragement never to give up.

I pray that my readers will join their ranks and defend the universal principles (applicable to all people in all nations) of human rights, dignity and justice for all, without discrimination.