July 2006 # 3

(Right Click here to download Audio - MP3)

In my time I’ve been called lots of things. Some not repeatable here. But the two epithets that really get up my nose are “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Howard”. These two descriptors are thrown around with little regard for what the terms actually imply. I’ll start with the first. 

The term “anti-Semitic” is associated with anyone who speaks out against the atrocities the Israeli government carries out against the Palestinians and the nations that surround Israel. The absurdity of the phrase has been lost in time but if anyone is “anti-Semitic” then they must also be “anti-Maltese”, “anti-Lebanese”, “anti-Syrian”, “anti-Jordanian” and “anti-anyone who is a descendent of Noah’s son, Shem”. 

The term has been captured by a very narrow but powerful and radical Zionist lobby who have, for more than 150 years, sought to establish, by any means possible, a state of Israel as a political and social entity. Immediately I hear the cries, “anti-Zionist” go up. So what is meant by Zionism? 

The Zionist movement is a very complex and convoluted one. However, to narrow my discussion down, the type of Zionism I am referring to is the one we see in action today. The one revealed, not so much in the in the ideology of its founding fathers but in the actions borne out of something other than peaceful and cooperative coexistence. While it is historically correct to note that the Jewish Diaspora has maintained links to Jerusalem since the Roman’s drove them out in AD135, until the mid to late 1800’s there was no coordinated attempt to resettle the Palestinian territories.  

By the end of the 1800’s the fledgling Zionist movement had staked out its claim and was making representations to the British and other governments. This group, led by the  Hungarian born former journalist, Theodor Herzl, was, perhaps to be generous, convinced that a Jewish state was needed. He is often referred to as the founder of modern Zionism. However, it seems to me he would be spinning in his grave at what the last 100 years has done to his vision. To Herzl, it was diplomacy and the force of public opinion that should lead to the establishment of the Israeli state and not the brutal force of arms. 

However, his vision was soon to crumble as wealthy Jews sponsored the resettlement of their less well off cousins in Palestine. The British who controlled the region at that time, ended up acting as the guards of both the newly arrived Jews and the existing Palestinian Arabs. Both groups were antagonistic and the British, reeling from the costs of their exploits in South Africa and more lately WWI, were looking for a way out of the mire in which they found themselves. Those who care to look will find that modern terrorism was born in the proto-Israeli state as the extremists took to blowing up and shooting British soldiers who were, in effect, trying to keep the peace. 

With the support of many British politicians and with growing influence in the US, the Zionist movement worked steadily and methodically towards the formation of the state of Israel which was born out of the 1947 UN declaration and partition of the disputed land. However, this not something all Jews wanted or supported. It was argued by the opposers that Israel was to be a people without a land until the Messiah arrived. To these people, the attempt to establish a political, physical entity called “Israel” was to go against the will of G_D. 

Oblivious to these religious and many would argue legitimate claims, the Zionists formed, with the help of a former British army officer, their own militia, the Haganah and it’s splinter group the Irgun, who eventually, at the formation of the state, became the Israeli armed forces. It is interesting to note the first Prime Minister, David Ben- Gurion was a former military officer. The movement from actively trying to cultivate widespread support for the establishment of the state, as envisaged by Herzl, had now been lost as the bellicosity of the newly created Israeli “leadership” grew as they claimed a mandate to occupy, own and trade land to the detriment of the pre-existing owners and occupiers. 

As it is now, so it was then. Many dedicated Jews who wanted to live in peaceful coexistence with their Arab neighbours were interrupted by the claims of the radical Zionists who demanded that all non-Jews leave the land and that if they did not go peacefully, they would be subject to force majeure. And so it was that the earlier and not sanctioned driving off of the Palestinian people from their land now took on a new shade as Israel claimed the ‘legitimate’ and ‘exclusive’ right to the mandated but disputed territory the international community had granted it. 

Almost 60 years later the radical Zionists who see no “solution” save blood and killing, are directing their hatred to the North and West again. For these men (and women) Southern Lebanon and the Gaza strip is “their” land. The current border, they would argue is not where we want it and so they continually embark on their “incursions” and threatening activity on their Northern border. It would seem now, that they are intent on the total destruction of this region in an attempt to make it uninhabitable by destroying all forms of infrastructure. In order to try and win public support and convince us that this is a “justified attack”, the spin-meisters fall back on the tried and true, “We’re being subject to brutality sponsored by third parties”.  

To some extent this is true. Lebanon has been the scene of many battles in which it’s land became the battle ground for other’s grievances. It is interesting to note that our government, led by John Howard, has not offered any support for or assistance to the Lebanese government over the last week or so. Rather, he has continued to back Israel at the behest of his radical Zionist supporters. John Howard, it must be remembered, has received no less than four international awards from organisations who are ostensibly Jewish, but whose roots are firmly Zionist. Howard and his government have proved, over the last week or so, by their strange lack of urgency in evacuating Australian citizens from Lebanon, that they have firmly planted their support behind the radical Zionists who see no solution other than complete and utter destruction of all Arab life - both in land and in body. 

Am I an “anti-Semite”? No. What I am is an opposer to the undeniable use of overwhelming force against civilian life and infrastructure - no matter who is lobbing the bombs. The Hezbollah infrastructure that Israel is so intent on destroying are schools, hospitals and community centres. The very places that Israel knows their “enemy” would flee to when their bombs rained down.  

This conflict will not be settled until the so called “global leaders” - of whom Howard sees himself - are prepared to stand up for all Semitic peoples and cease their biased and “anti-Semitic” support of those who do not want peace, but complete and utter power. 

As the Israeli government sanctions a ground invasion of the sovereign territory of Lebanon it is time to decide whether you are the side of peace or the side of the warmongers. I am on the side of peace and if that makes me “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Howard” then so be it. I would rather see peace at no cost than total destruction at any cost.