Instead of upholding a left-wing agenda and a critical lens, liberal Zionists are a mouthpiece for Israel’s occupation and genocide, writes Yoav Litvin.

( The New Arab ) – Israel’s ongoing genocide is part of a downward spiral for the Zionist project. In the words of acclaimed historian Professor Ilan Pappe: “We are witnessing a historical process – or, more accurately, the beginnings of one – that is likely to culminate in the downfall of Zionism.”

Yet Zionism’s long-standing settler goals have not only thrived through genocidal aggression masked as “self-defence” with subsequent land grabs as obscene rewards for its adherents but also via its “liberal” flank serving a crucial propaganda role, posturing as benevolent and humanitarian whilst aligned with aims of American imperialism.

Now, confronted with Israel’s failure to achieve its stated goals and international outrage over its barbaric aggression, liberal Zionist propagandists are intensifying efforts to whitewash Zionism’s genocidal criminality. Their aim is to prevent the project’s collapse by shifting from circling the wagons to rehabilitating the liberal Zionist facade, enabling a return to management of the Occupation with periodic “mowing the lawn.”

What is Liberal Zionism?

The liberal wing of Zionism sanitises and revises the movement’s reactionary, settler-colonialist, and white supremacist nature, masking its true strategy and motive of expansionism through apartheid and genocide.

It deceitfully presents Zionism as compatible with human rights, containing a right-to-left political spectrum with democratic and progressive values and a desire for peace and justice. This facade sanctifies a “peace process” of futile negotiations, while Israeli bulldozers and contractors continue to colonise Palestinian land, marketed in the US at Zionist land sales in synagogues.

Zionism’s liberal propaganda apparatus presents Israeli and Palestinian narratives as parallel truths, duplicitously portraying both peoples as victims with legitimate claims that require lengthy negotiations and concessions. This revisionist narrative equates Israeli settler colonialist aggressors, backed by the global US hegemon, with their Indigenous Palestinian targets. 

Media and Academia

Liberal Zionist media, NGOs, academia and other organizations have been busy obscuring the events of October 7, as well as Israel’s subsequent deceit, including atrocity propaganda and the Hannibal Directive.

They portray Zionist genocide as a trait of an “extreme” form of Zionism, scapegoating Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition as an anomaly rather than acknowledging it as an inherent aspect of the eliminationist project. Additionally, they suggest that by ousting Netanyahu, Zionism could revert to an acceptable trajectory.

Subject to military oversight and censorship under Israel’s “democratic” laws, Haaretz, Israel’s longest-running newspaper and a bastion of liberal Zionism, has engaged in atrocity propaganda, served as a stenography service for political and military agendas, including targeting hospitals in the Gaza Strip, alongside Islamophobic rants which conflate Zionism and Judaism, and attempts to whitewash war crimes such as looting.

“In contrast to their portrayal as aligned with humanitarian and leftist values, liberal Zionists sanitise, justify, sustain, and gatekeep the Zionist project”

Haaretz and its editorial board claim to advocate for “left-wing” and “liberal” agendas, though in fact they promote civil liberties for the privileged class (Zionists) and refuse to address the core white supremacist nature of Zionism, which has terrorised Indigenous Palestinians for over seven decades.

Indeed, anti-Zionist writers, other than a token couple of regular columnists, stand no chance of being published there. Similarly, Israel bars participation of parties in its elections if they negate “the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state,” clearly outlining the boundaries of acceptable debate.

Israeli academia has also served Israel’s reactionary Zionist agenda. In her recently published book, Towers of Ivory and Steel (Verso, 2024), Maya Wind lays out the case against Israeli academia and universities as embodying the apartheid typical of Israeli society and tools of Zionist settler colonialism and ongoing oppression of Palestinian people.

To this end, Israeli universities and legal scholars frequently collaborate with the Israeli military, legitimising Zionist atrocities and collective punishment of Palestinians, while developing and marketing police and military methodologies and weaponry intended for export.

Well-known liberal Zionists, including politicians, such as Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Yair Golan and former Chief of Shin Bet Ami Ayalon, and academics such as Yuval Noah Harari have all stepped up to the Zionist plate, regurgitating claims of guilt on “both sides” of “the conflict,” amongst other liberal Zionist canards.

The new political movement, Standing Together, exemplifies efforts to normalise the liberal Zionist framework. Consistently strengthening the conflation of Zionism with Judaism, Standing Together blames “extremists on both sides,” recently with homophobic graphics.

As stated by the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions: “By trying to paint Israel as a tolerant, diverse, and normal state, and focusing on “hatred” rather than oppression as the problem, this organisation is intellectually dishonest and outright complicit. It is serving a key role in Israel’s international propaganda strategy at this time.”

Within our lifetime

Popular protest in a democracy is aimed at producing political pressure on elected representatives to create substantial change in policy. Protest is typically effective if those protesting have sufficient power to vote the target of the protest out.

Recently, Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a Palestinian-led community organisation in New York City since 2015, faced strong opposition from liberal Zionists, progressives, and Democratic Party loyalists.

They protested at a rally featuring progressive Congressmembers Bowman, Ocasio-Cortez, and Sanders for their continued support of the Biden administration, demanding “pro-Palestinian” politicians: (i) rescind endorsement of Biden; (ii) declare anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, and; (iii) defend Palestinian right to resist. Following WOL’s protest Nerdeen Kiswani, an organiser at WOL said: “Our action accomplished the goal of confronting the hypocrisy within the Democratic Party and not allowing the demonization of those fighting against genocide to be normalised.”

Haaretz critiqued WOL’s protest with typical liberal Zionist talking points, smearing them as a “hard-line group,” simply for reiterating the Palestinian right of self-defence in all forms against occupation as established by international law, echoing critique against the group for rightfully demanding accountability from their elected representatives.

Haaretz’s gatekeeping aligns with recent findings showing wide-ranging Israeli government efforts to shape US discourse around the genocide in Gaza.

In contrast to their portrayal as aligned with humanitarian and leftist values, liberal Zionists sanitise, justify, sustain, and gatekeep the Zionist project. Media, academia, and political figures within the liberal Zionist sphere are complicit in advancing Zionist agendas and silencing dissent. 

To effectively halt ongoing aggression and the genocide of the Palestinian people, and in line with the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) it is crucial to recognise liberal Zionists who act as agents for the Israeli regime and are reactionary proponents of Zionism and to advocate for their boycott, divestment, and sanction.

Reprinted from The New Arab with the author’s permission.

Since October 2023, American Jews have been engaged in an intense, fractious debate over Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip.

Media reports say that American Jews are experiencing “the great rupture,” widening “rifts,” and stand at a “moral, political crossroads.”

While most American Jews remain broadly supportive of Israel, others have protested vigorously against U.S. support for Israel and are demanding a cease-fire in the Gaza war. They carry signs saying “Not in Our Name.”

Their slogan highlights the fact that American foreign aid to Israel has long relied on the support of American Jews. Unqualified U.S. support for Israel was built, in part, on the promise that Israel kept American Jews – and all Jews – safe, especially after the Holocaust.

But American Jews have never been entirely unified in their support for Israel or in their visions of what role Israel and Palestine should play in American Jewish life.

No consensus

My new book, “The Threshold of Dissent: A History of American Jewish Critics of Zionism,” analyzes a century of debates among American Jews over Zionism and Israel.

My account begins in 1885, when elite Reform Jews, with a goal of full integration in Jim Crow America, composed the Pittsburgh Platform, which rejected Jewish nationalism out of fear that it would make them targets of antisemitic accusations of dual loyalty.

Two years later, Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl founded the modern Zionist movement, relying on European powers for support for a modern Jewish state.

The genocide of Europe’s Jewish population in the Holocaust fundamentally altered American Jews’ perspectives on Zionism.

Many believed that only a Jewish national homeland in what was then Palestine could prevent another genocide. Others insisted that the lessons of the Holocaust meant that Jews must not contribute to making refugees of another group of people: the Palestinians who were then living on the land.

The Majority Report with Sam Seder Video: “Jewish Voice For Peace Grows In North Carolina ”

There were other issues that contributed to a new understanding of Zionism in the 1950s and 1960s within American Jewish communities. Among them: the Nakba, which was the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians during the 1948 founding of Israel; Israel’s treatment of immigrant Jews from the Arab and Muslim world known as Mizrahi Jews; and the rise in Israel’s militarism.

Across the 20th century, mainstream Jewish leaders manufactured an American Jewish so-called consensus on Zionism and Israel, in part by silencing American Jewish critics of Zionism.

From the late 1940s through 1961, journalist William Zukerman edited The Jewish Newsletter, a publication that captured some of the voices of Jewish dissent from Zionism, including his own. He reported on Israel’s human rights abuses against Palestinians and documented how American Jewish funds fueled Israel’s military campaigns instead of supporting vibrant American Jewish communities.

Because Zukerman dared to publish this criticism, he faced campaigns of steep resistance, eventually losing funding and support from Jewish communal organizations.

Anxious that Zukerman’s dissent would cause “increasing trouble” for American support for Israel, Israeli diplomats wrote to American Jewish leaders, and together they convinced some Jewish journalists to exclude Zukerman’s writings from their publications.

Liberation movements, American Jews and Zionism

Into the 1960s, as mainstream Jewish leaders emphasized the urgency of Jewish unity on Israel and Zionism and showed growing intolerance for dissent, anti-colonialist activists gained momentum across the world. From 1948 through 1966, Israel held all Palestinians citizens under martial law, limiting their movement and access to opportunities and resources. Across the 1950s, Israel excluded Palestinian workers from the Histadrut, the state’s largest labor union federation.

Activists allied with the cause of Palestinian rights noted Israel’s alliance with colonial power France during the Algerian war of independence from 1954 to 1962 and criticized Israel as an occupier after the 1967 war. They spoke, too, of Israel’s growing alliance with apartheid South Africa in the 1970s.

Black and Arab leaders in the U.S. taught within, and learned from, these anti-colonial movements. Civil rights and anti-war activists offered new perspectives to debates over Israel and Zionism.

Raised in a liberal Zionist family, student Marty Blatt was learning to fight for justice. Blatt was born in 1951 in Brooklyn, New York. His grandfather had died in a Nazi prison camp. In 1970, he joined the anti-war movement at Tufts University in Massachusetts.

“The Vietnam war was a horrible injustice,” Blatt said. From the movement and from members of the Israeli left, he learned that “Israel/Palestine was another great injustice.”

With no access to the history of Palestinians in school, at home or at the synogogue, young American Jews like Blatt who joined the civil rights and anti-war movements learned these lessons for the first time. When they then criticized Israel and American Zionism, they, too, met with hostility from the mainstream Jewish world.

Blatt sought to teach his fellow students at Tufts with a course in 1973 titled Zionism Reconsidered. In it, he taught the history of Zionism, Palestinian resistance and Israel’s Cold War alliance with the United States. He taught students that anti-Zionism was not antisemitism.

On March 13, 1973, in the midst of the semester, members of the Jewish Defense League, a far-right, anti-Arab, Jewish nationalist group founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane,disrupted Blatt’s class. They called it an “anti-Jewish outrage” and passed out a flyer that read, “Not since Germany in the days of Hitler has any university dared to offer a course presenting a one-sided view of any national movement.”

Boston-area Jewish leaders urged community members to write to Tufts leadership to shut down Blatt’s class. These letters used apocalyptic language to describe the damage wrought by his course, likening it to the destruction of the Jewish people. During this controversy, Blatt picked up the phone one day to hear someone who clearly knew his family history in the Holocaust tell him: “Your parents should not have been saved.”

An article about Blatt and his course in Boston’s Jewish Advocate was headlined “Tufts Anti-Zionist Course Seen as Abuse of Academic Freedom.” Though Tufts stood behind Blatt’s right to teach the class for another term, which it still touts on the university website, angry responses to the class appeared in community forums for years.

Divided on campus and beyond

In the current moment, college campuses have been riven with debates over the boundaries between student safety and free speech and whether criticism of Israel constitutes antisemitism.

Young Jews dismayed by the unconditional Zionist agenda of Jewish campus organization Hillel and who founded Open Hillel in 2013 are now active in Gaza protests as “Judaism on Our Own Terms.” They might be surprised to learn that in late 1972, even before his course began, Blatt and others founded the Tufts Hillel Non-Zionist Caucus. Hillel subsequently expelled them from the organization.

For over a century, some American Jews have modeled the idea that unqualified support for Israel and Zionism was “not in our name.” They prioritized justice as a Jewish value and were motivated not by self-hatred or antisemitism but by abiding commitments to human rights and to Jewish safety and community.

Today’s activists protesting over the devastation in Gaza are testing the threshold of dissent and the limits of free speech and academic freedom. They embrace what they view as more just visions of Israel and Palestine and more inclusive visions of an American Jewish community, one with space for dissent and earnest conversations about Israel and Zionism, and one in which Jews stand in solidarity with groups working for justice in Palestine, Israel and around the world.

Marjorie N. Feld, Professor of History and Society, Babson College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In the first quarter of the twenty-first century, however, there is only one politically successful tendency in the Zionist movement in Israel. The people in power adhere to forms of right wing Zionism. These are a witches brew of virulent ethno-nationalism and open hatred of the Other. They differ mainly in whether they are secular, as with the Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu or Yisrael Beitenu of Avigdor Lieberman, or whether they are rooted in Jewish fundamentalism, as with Religious Zionism and Jewish Power or Shas.

Right wing Zionism has many resemblances with the MAGA movement spearheaded by Donald J. Trump (or spearheaded by him when he was not engaging in massive real estate fraud or shtupping porn stars and then buying their silence).

1. Both are ethno-nationalist supremacy movements. Trump may be the least likely leader for white Christian nationalism, but that is the mantle he has managed to assume. He routinely denigrates Hispanics. He called COVID-19 the “Chinese flu” and got ordinary Chinese-Americans mugged over it. He referred to the non-white countries of the global south as sh*thole countries. He excoriates immigrants as a criminal class. But some 14% of Americans are foreign born, most immigrated legally, and the success of the US economically and geopolitically depends on them.

If Trump is about white Christians being on top, Netanyahu is all about Jewish supremacy. He has made a career of fomenting anti-Palestinian racism, smearing an entire people as terrorists. He characterized social expenditures on a fifth of Israeli citizens by his predecessor, Naftali Bennett, as giving away millions of shekels to “Arabs.” One of the reasons given for wanting to neuter the Supreme Court by Netanyahu’s Justice Minister Yariv Levin was that “Arabs are buying apartments in the Galilee and causing Jews to leave.” They back the squatter movement of Israelis to move into the Palestine occupied territories and steal privately-owned Palestinian farms and orchards, building Jewish-only settlements on them and going wilding in Palestinian towns, shooting them up and setting fires at will.

Netanyahu takes this line even though 21% of Israelis are of Palestinian heritage and they make up about a quarter of Israeli physicians. But that includes the elderly. In the younger generation, Palestinians are a much bigger proportion of the medical sector. In 2021, nearly half of all new physicians’ licenses were granted to what I term Palestinian-Israelis (on the model of Italian-Americans).

The Hill Video: “Netanyahu Threatens REVENGE If Charged With War Crimes”

2. Both movements use apocalyptic and violent language. Running for president the first time, Trump said of oil fields in Syria controlled by the ISIL terrorist movement, “I would bomb the s— out of them. I would just bomb those suckers. And that’s right: I’d blow up the pipes, I’d blow up the refineries. I would blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.” He asked one of his policy advisers what the point was of having nuclear weapons if we can’t use them. Of Gaza, Trump says he is impatient for Netanyahu to “finish the job.”

Netanyahu’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, recently insisted on genocide in what is left of Gaza: “No half jobs. Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat, total and utter destruction.” Netanyahu had already invoked the “Amalek” doctrine, of wiping out the enemy root and branch. He has dropped more than an atomic bomb’s worth of munitions on the civilian apartment buildings of Gaza.

3. The leaders of both movements put on messianic airs. Trump tells campaign rallies “I am the only one that can save this nation.”

Netanyahu characterizes himself as the only one who can prevent a Palestinian state, the only one who can “handle” the Americans, the only one who can create prosperity in Israel through his Neoliberal policies.

4. Both MAGA and right wing Zionism are built on a tissue of lies. Trump has told thousands of lies. He says he won the 2020 election. He says he never slept with Stormy Daniels. He says climate change is a Chinese hoax. He says wind turbines cause cancer. Virulent nationalist ideologies require daily duplicity, since people are all the same and there are no real races in the 19th century sense, so a doctrine of racial supremacy is always in danger of being revealed to be illusory.

Zionists have likewise erected a vast tissue of lies. Palestine was “empty,” at a time in the early twentieth century when there were a million Palestinians and a few tens of thousands of Zionist colonists. “A land without a people for a people without a land.” Honest Zionists like Ahad Ha’am (Asher Hirsch Ginsberg) came out to Palestine and saw that it was full of people, and warned that their rights must not be violated. Other Zionists privately acknowledged that the plan was to render an entire people homeless. Nur Masalha writes, “In June 1938, Ben-Gurion told a meeting of the Jewish Agency, ‘I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.'” More recently Zionists have maintained that the Israeli army is the most moral in the world, despite its role in slow-motion ethnic cleansing in the Palestinian West Bank and in rapid ethnic cleansing, not to say genocide, in Gaza. They have said that the UN Relief and Works Agency that provides aid to Palestinians is a terrorist organization, and the world community cut UNRWA off during an investigation that discovered the Israeli government to be lying. These were precious weeks in which an Israeli-imposed famine began in Gaza. In the US, Zionists falsely allege that mere oral critiques of Zionism make them feel physically “unsafe,” in an attempt to manipulate outsiders.

One could go on.

Both movements are lawless, with Trump vowing to act unconstitutionally and Netanyahu vowing to gut the Israel Supreme Court. Both are corrupt, with both leaders on trial for various forms of corruption.

No wonder there is a budding love fest between Smotrich and Trump, once Trump rejected the two-state solution and renounced the idea of a Palestinian state.

Both movements depend on hogging all the rights for their ethnic group, and reducing others to second- or third-class citizens.

The Anne Frank House Center says that, “Zionism is about the pursuit of an independent Jewish state.” That was accomplished in 1948, and affirmed in bloody wars in 1956, 1967, 1973 and in various attacks and battles since then. On October 7 the Zionist military apparatus, for all its impressiveness, failed because of hubris. Modern Jewish history didn’t start then. The post-World War I San Remo Conference of 1920 was the genesis for current dynamics, when the artificial boundaries of the Levant were created by the victorious Western empires.  

Zionism is abused as a social and religious cudgel by the Evangelical movement, and has become another tool of divisiveness for the American far-right. Evangelicals, not Jews, comprise a greater plurality of Israeli tourism now, as more American and European Jews reject this narrative of a “false idol,” in the words of author and activist Naomi Klein. She wrote in a recent ‘Street Seder Address’ published in The Guardian, that Zionism “is a false idol that takes our most profound biblical stories of justice and emancipation from slavery – the story of Passover itself – and turns them into brutalist weapons of colonial land theft, roadmaps for ethnic cleansing and genocide . . . . . a metaphor for human liberation that has traveled across multiple faiths to every corner of this globe – and dared to turn it into a deed of sale for a militaristic ethnostate.”

Netanyahu’s virulent Likud form of Zionism, which he has now allied with the openly racist and even genocidal Religious Zionism and Jewish Power blocs, has created an image of the movement that is anathema to many progressive and leftist activists, and it fuels anti-Semitism as less informed people on the right and left conflate this ruthless ultra-nationalism with Judaism. Just as marriages can run their course, leading to a necessary divorce, the time has come for Jews to divorce Zionism. Bibi has become a literal Pharaoh to Palestinians.  Klein adds, “From the start it has produced an ugly kind of freedom that saw Palestinian children not as human beings but as demographic threats – much as the pharaoh in the Book of Exodus feared the growing population of Israelites, and thus ordered the death of their sons. It is a false idol that has led far too many of our own people down a deeply immoral path that now has them justifying the shredding of core commandments: thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet.”

Democracy Now! Video: “Naomi Klein: Jews Must Raise Voices for Palestine, Oppose “False Idol of Zionism”

It’s important to remember that “Judaism and Zionism are two distinct terms often intertwined, in reality, they represent rather distinct concepts with different historical, cultural, and most importantly, political implications,” as noted in The Business Standard.  They add, “Following the establishment of Israel, Zionism became an ideology that continues to support the development and protection of the State of Israel. Zionism, at its core, can be understood as a manifestation of Jewish nationalism.”  Judaism is a religion, while Zionism is a political ideology.

 The original anti-Zionists were, “from fringe Orthodox sects and maintain that Israel can only be regained miraculously. They view the present state as a blasphemous human attempt to usurp God’s role, and many seek to dismantle the secular State of Israel. However, unlike many gentile anti­-Zionists, Jewish anti-Zionists usually firmly believe in the Jewish right to the Land of Israel, but only at the future time of redemption.”  Though the Neturei Karta were the most visible of observant anti-Zionists, most Haredim in Israel continue that tradition with their refusal to participate in the military or support the embattled state.

Klein asserts that the Zionist ideology, “. . .  is a false idol that equates Jewish freedom with cluster bombs that kill and maim Palestinian children. Zionism is a false idol that has betrayed every Jewish value, including the value we place on questioning – a practice embedded in the Seder with its four questions asked by the youngest child. . . . Including the love we have as a people for text and for education. . . .Today, this false idol justifies the bombing of every university in Gaza; the destruction of countless schools, of archives, of printing presses; the killing of hundreds of academics, of journalists, of poets.” She calls this “scholasticide,” which is parallel to the burning of libraries and synagogues by Nazis.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) is one of many Western Jewish organizations that continues to promote the false idol narrative.  They argue that anti-Zionism means that Jews “do not have a right to self-determination — or that the Jewish people’s religious and historical connection to Israel is invalid.” The AJC also says that, “Calling for a Palestinian nation-state, while simultaneously advocating for an end to the Jewish nation-state is hypocritical at best, and potentially anti-Semitic.” The polemical problem is that the Jewish nation is a powerful “fact on the ground,” though threatened by hostile outside forces. Israel is a political reality. But Judaism and Zionism are also threatened internally by Bibi’s leadership record of self-destruction, as his primary aim is political self-preservation. Israel’s economy and security are also undermined by the refusal of the Haredim to support the state and serve in the military.

Not only can Israel remain secure without Zionism; it may become more secure, as the provocations towards Palestinians would cease. The Temple Sunday School narrative minimizes, euphemizes and marginalizes what Palestinians suffered in the Nabka, concurrent with Israeli independence. It’s time to correct that false narrative, and recognize that Zionism has run its course.

The outpouring of objection to American funding of the Israeli war machine is unprecedented in size and scope. In turn the size and scope of government efforts to quash these protests is also unprecedented, now becoming evocative of Kent State in 1970. That’s the first thing that comes to mind when anyone proposes placing National Guard troops on a US college campus. Doing so would be a provocation and incitement for escalation, and that game plan appears to be unfolding.

Judaism and its offshoots, Christianity and Islam, have all been plagued by departures from their spiritual ethics into orgies of violence. We see this phenomenon in Bibi’s brand of imperial Zionism, Hamas’ and other extremist groups’ violent perversion of Islam, preferring an ideology of hate and misogyny, and the White Christian Nationalist movement in the US, fueled by Trump. The religions of Christianity and Islam have struggled to come to terms with secular modernity, and have seen powerful and violent movements during that struggle. Judaism has the spiritual Reform movement, but no corresponding social-political movement. Judaism came first and has an obligation to take the lead in creating a new paradigm, of a monotheistic, biblically-rooted tradition that nevertheless stands for tolerance and human rights for all. Jews must recognize that the shelf-life of Zionism has expired. Also important is that Judaism is a religion, not a form of ethno-nationalism, despite former President Trump’s attempts to dragoon all Jews into the effort to censor free speech over Palestinian human rights.

(The Conversation) – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has signaled that Israel’s military will soon launch an invasion of Rafah, the city in the southern Gaza Strip. More than 1 million Palestinians, now on the verge of famine, have sought refuge there from their bombed-out cities farther north. Despite U.S. President Joe Biden’s warning against the move, Netanyahu appears, for now, undeterred from his aim to attack Rafah.

The attack is the latest chapter in Israel’s current battle to eliminate Hamas from Gaza.

But it’s also a reflection of an ideology, known as the “Iron Wall,” that has been part of Israeli political history since before the state’s founding in 1948. The Iron Wall has driven Netanyahu in his career leading Israel for two decades, culminating in the current deadly war that began with a massacre of Israelis and then turned into a humanitarian catastrophe for Gaza’s Palestinians.

Here is the history of that ideology:

A wall that can’t be breached

In 1923, Vladimir, later known as “Ze’ev,” Jabotinsky, a prominent Zionist activist, published “On the Iron Wall,” an article in which he laid out his vision for the course that the Zionist movement should follow in order to realize its ultimate goal: the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine, at the time governed by the British.

Jabotinsky admonished the Zionist establishment for ignoring the Arab majority in Palestine and their political desires. He asserted the Zionist establishment held a fanciful belief that the technological progress and improved economic conditions that the Jews would supposedly bring to Palestine would endear them to the local Arab population.

Jabotinsky thought that belief was fundamentally wrong.

To Jabotinsky, the Arabs of Palestine, like any native population throughout history, would never accept another people’s national aspirations in their own homeland. Jabotinsky believed that Zionism, as a Jewish national movement, would have to combat the Arab national movement for control of the land.

“Every native population in the world resists colonists as
long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised,” he wrote.

Jabotinsky believed the Zionist movement should not waste its resources on Utopian economic and social dreams. Zionism’s sole focus should be on developing Jewish military force, a metaphorical Iron Wall, that would compel the Arabs to accept a Jewish state on their native land.

“Zionist colonisation … can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach,” he wrote.

Jabotinsky’s heirs: Likud

In 1925, Jabotinsky founded the Revisionist movement, which would become the chief right-wing opposition party to the dominant Labor Party in the Zionist movement. It opposed Labor’s socialist economic vision and emphasized the focus on cultivating Jewish militarism.

In 1947, David Ben Gurion and the Zionist establishment accepted partition plans devised by the United Nations for Palestine, dividing it into independent Jewish and Palestinian Arab states. The Zionists’ goal in accepting the plan: to have the Jewish state founded on the basis of such international consensus and support.

Jabotinsky’s Revisionists opposed any territorial compromise, which meant they opposed any partition plan. They objected to the recognition of a non-Jewish political entity – an Arab state – within Palestine’s borders.

The Palestinian Arab state proposed by the U.N. partition plan was rejected by Arab leaders, and it never came into being.

In 1948, Israel declared its independence, which sparked a regional war between Israel and its Arab neighbors. During the war, which began immediately after the U.N. voted for partition and lasted until 1949, more than half the Palestinian residents of the land Israel claimed were expelled or fled.

At the war’s end, the historic territory of Palestine was divided, with about 80% claimed and governed by the new country of Israel. Jordan controlled East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip.

In the new Israeli parliament, Jabotinsky’s heirs – in a party first called Herut and later Likud – were relegated to the opposition benches.

Old threat, new threat

In 1967, another war broke out between Israel and Arab neighbors Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It resulted in Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. Yitzhak Rabin led Israel’s military during that war, called the Six-Day War.

From 1948 until 1977, the more leftist-leaning Labor Party governed Israel. In 1977, Menachem Begin led the Likud to victory and established it as the dominant force in Israeli politics.

However in 1992, Rabin, as the leader of Labor, was elected as prime minister. With Israel emerging as both a military and economic force in those years, fueled by the new high-tech sector, he believed the country was no longer facing the threat of destruction from its neighbors. To Rabin, the younger generation of Israelis wanted to integrate into the global economy. Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, he believed, would help Israel integrate into the global order.

In 1993, Rabin negotiated the Oslo Accords, a peace deal with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The two men shook hands in a symbol of the reconciliation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The agreement created a Palestinian authority in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as part of the pathway to the long-term goal of creating two countries, Israel and a Palestinian state, that would peacefully coexist.

That same year, Benjamin Netanyahu had become the leader of the Likud Party. The son of a prominent historian of Spanish Jewry, he viewed Jewish history as facing a repeating cycle of attempted destruction – from the Romans to the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazis and the Arab world.

Netanyahu saw the Oslo peace process as the sort of territorial compromise Jabotinsky had warned about. To him, compromise would only invite conflict, and any show of weakness would spell doom.

The only answer to such a significant threat, Netanyahu has repeatedly argued, is a strong Jewish state that refuses any compromises, always identifying the mortal threat to the Jewish people and countering it with an overwhelming show of force.

No territorial compromise

Since the 1990s, Netanyahu’s primary focus has not been on the threat of the Palestinians, but rather that of Iran and its nuclear ambitions. But he has continued to say there can be no territorial compromise with the Palestinians. Just as Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state, Netanyahu refuses to accept the idea of a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu believed that only through strength would the Palestinians accept Israel, a process that would be aided if more and more Arab states normalized relations with Israel, establishing diplomatic and other ties. That normalization reached new heights with the 2020 Abraham Accords, the bilateral agreements signed between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and between Israel and Bahrain. These agreements were the ultimate vindication of Netanyahu’s regional vision.

It should not be surprising, then, that Hamas’ horrific attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, took place just as Saudi Arabia was nearing normalization of relations with Israel. In a twisted manner, when the Saudis subsequently backed off the normalization plans, the attack reaffirmed Netanyahu’s broader vision: The Palestinian group that vowed to never recognize Israel made sure that Arab recognition of Israel would fail.

The Hamas attack gave Netanyahu an opportunity to reassert Israel’s – and Jabotinsky’s – Iron Wall.

The massive and wantonly destructive war that Netanyahu has led against Hamas and Gaza since that date is the Iron Wall in its most elemental manifestation: unleashing overwhelming force as a signal that no territorial compromise with the Arabs over historical Palestine is possible. Or, as Netanyahu has repeatedly said in recent weeks, there will be no ceasefire until there’s a complete Israeli victory.

Eran Kaplan, Rhoda and Richard Goldman Chair in Jewish Studies, San Francisco State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Madrid and State College, Pa. (Special to Informed Comment; Feature) – In a statement from March 12, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem announced the suspension of Professor Nadera Shalhoub Kevorkian, an internationally renowned Palestinian scholar and a faculty member in the Law School and School of Social Work. The drastic and unprecedented move came after Shalhoub talked in an extended podcast interview about the October 7 horrors and the ensuing devastating war and mass killings in Gaza. Two sentences that were taken out of context dominated the public conversation. First, “And of course, they will use any lie. They started with babies, they continued with rape, they will continue with million other lies every day with another story.” Second, “Only by abolishing Zionism, we can continue. This is what I see.” The public outrage, of course, ignored her comments, conveying sympathy to the victims of October 7. In fact, she said, “My reaction to the stories on October 7th was horrified…I will never allow anybody to touch a baby, to kidnap a child, to rape a woman”, adding, “all our lives, we fought for the dignity, for life, for the wholeness of a human and not the opposite.” 

In its statement, the Hebrew University rejected “all of the distorted the statements of Professor Kevorkian”. Emphasizing that the University “is proud of being an Israeli, public, and Zionist institution. As in the past, the heads of the university repeated their call for Professor Kevorkian to find another academic home that suits her position. In this stage, and in order to maintain a safe climate on campus for the benefit of our male and female students, the university decided to suspend her from teaching.” 

But what does it mean when a central institution of higher learning defines itself as Zionist? What does it mean for the non-Zionist or anti-Zionist faculty and students? What does it mean for the Palestinian national minority of seventeen percent that has been victimized by Zionism for years that this institution is Zionist and that any attempt to criticize this ideology faces the strongest possible reaction in the university toolbox? To be clear, Jewish professors have been able to criticize Zionism openly. As a state ideology, it is fair or even necessary to question the value and substance of this ideology. Few Jewish professors–to date– faced suspension or demands to find a new academic home for their critique of Zionisim. At the same time, faculty members at the Hebrew University who have been publicly defending war crimes and cheering on genocidal acts faced no disciplinary actions.

Democracy Now! Video: “”Anti-Zionism Is Not Antisemitism”: Palestinian Prof on Her Suspension from Hebrew University”

Just recently, the International Court of Justice ruled that the allegations that Israel is violating the Genocide Convention are plausible. Too often, the commission of international crimes is made possible through aggressive attempts to silence dissent and punish dissenters. The suspension of Professor Shalhoub by the Hebrew University is only one example of the relentless efforts on the part of Israeli institutions to silence dissent, making the university itself complicit in the atrocities that are being committed in Gaza. The witch hunt against Professor Shalhoub did not start with the decision to suspend her. In fact, it reached unprecedented levels months ago after she signed and circulated a petition accusing Israel of committing genocide. The publication of an official letter by the university accusing her of incitement and sedition not only contravened basic tenets of academic liberty, but it also put her life in real danger, given the rising violence of extreme right-wing activists against Palestinians. If this could be done to an internationally renowned scholar, we can only imagine how easy it would be to intimidate and target junior Palestinian scholars and students. 

Needless to say, the establishment of the state of Israel and the ensuing Palestinian Nakba were marked with attempts to destroy the Palestinian cultural and intellectual life to disorient Palestinians who remained in their homeland. The crackdown on Palestinian academics and Palestinian students in Israeli universities is a continuation of this policy, and it aims at thwarting any attempt on the part of the Palestinian citizens to fight for their national collective rights. Using such coercive measures against the Palestinian intellectual community could have a devastating impact on the Palestinian citizens as a whole, who are already deprived of their right to self-determination under the Nation-State Law.

These disciplining attempts are prevalent in all public spaces. About the same time as the Hebrew University issued its statement, the Israeli Football Association announced it was going to put Bnei Sakhnin (the senior Palestinian football club in the Israeli premier league) in a disciplinary process because its fans cheered loudly during the playing of the national anthem, therefore, not honoring it. This, too, joins the effort to suppress and limit Palestinian voices.   

Israel has long imposed a regime of racial supremacy on Palestinians, the last months have proved that it is willing to escalate in its resort to coercive measures to maintain this regime and to eliminate any meaningful opposition to it. When leading academic institutions become the arm of the state in enforcing such policies, the international academic community should respond promptly and loudly.   

Sonia Boulos is an Associate Professor of international human rights law at Nebrija University and the Co-editor of Palestine/Israel Review

Lior Sternfeld is an Associate Professor of History and Jewish Studies at Penn State University and the Associate Editor of Palestine/Israel Review

IMDB’s laconic description of Glazer’s masterpiece, based on a novel by Martin Amis, goes this way: “Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss and his wife Hedwig strive to build a dream life for their family in a house and garden beside the camp.” The film is an indictment of what Hannah Arendt called “The Banality of Evil.”

The British national Glazer, however, clearly has a difficulty with the Zionist Right, which has appropriated the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews as a primary plank in its platform of bestowing impunity on the Israeli government for whatever atrocity, whatever violation of international humanitarian law, whatever genocide its leaders wish to commit.

In his Oscar acceptance speech, Glazer said,

“All our choices were made to reflect and confront us in the present — not to say, ‘Look what we did then,’ rather, ‘Look what we do now.’ Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. It shaped all of our past and present. Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for so many people. Whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack in Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?”

Here’s the clip:

ABC Video: THE ZONE OF INTEREST Accepts the Oscar for International Feature Film

Daniel Arkin at NBC writes, “Inside the Dolby Theatre, many in the audience could be seen cheering and applauding. Sandra Hüller, the German actor who portrayed Höss’ wife, Hedwig, appeared to be crying and put her hand to her chest.”

He adds, “Billie Eilish, Mark Ruffalo and Ramy Youssef wore red pins on the Oscars red carpet symbolizing calls for a cease-fire.”

Glazer’s international platform (19.5 million people watched live) and his universalist sentiments posed a severe difficulty for the Zionist right wing. Glazer was saying that the Holocaust was an event in human history, not solely in Jewish history, and that its lesson is that dehumanization leads to atrocities and even genocide. In wartime Nazi Germany Jews were called “Rats, lice, cockroaches, foxes, vultures.” And then they were murdered in their millions by the National Socialist government.

Likewise, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called Palestinians in Gaza “human animals.”

Glazer is aware that the Hamas commandos who killed over 600 Israeli civilians on October 7, along with some 400 military personnel, also dehumanized those Jews, allowing them to mow down attendees at a music festival and left wing grandmothers at Kibbutz hamlets.

He was saying that this dehumanization, and its consequences in the casual murder of other human beings, clearly needs to be resisted. But how? How? is the existential question of the twenty-first century.

But for the current full-on fascist cabinet in Israel and its cheerleaders in the United States, the Holocaust and October 7 aren’t about universal values, they are about Jews and Zionism. They are antinomian in effect, justifying Israeli troops in committing any action, any crime. They are a get out of jail free card for Zionists. The Right denies that Israel is carrying out a genocide in Gaza, even though over 13,000 children have been killed in indiscriminate bombing and another 12,000 women noncombatants have been killed. How else, they ask, could you destroy Hamas? Even President Biden, however, has begun pointing out in public that there are other ways of targeting a small terrorist organization than killing tens of thousands of noncombatants.

Glazer also violated the tenets of the Zionist Right by saying that his film about the Holocaust is not about what people did in the 1940s but about what people do today. His clear implication is that the tactics the Israeli government is using in Gaza must be condemned for the same reason that the Holocaust must be condemned. These actions, while of entirely different scale, are atrocities that spring from a denial of our common humanity.

Glazer’s most controversial assertion was, “Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for so many people.”

He was saying that the Zionist far right of Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich had attempted to hijack the Jewish religion to which Glazer and some of his colleagues adhere, and that he rejects this appropriation.

This statement strikes at the core of Zionist nationalism, which insists that Judaism and Zionism are identical. Non-Zionist Jews from this point of view are traitors. Never mind that in opinion polling significant numbers of American Jews express discomfort with the right wing Zionism that has come to dominate Israeli politics.

Because Glazer’s brief, historic statement profoundly threatened the project of what some have called “Israelism,” a cult-like induction of people into the Zionism=Judaism and “Jews must support Bibi” complex of beliefs, some Zionists decided that he must be smeared and his reputation destroyed.

Batya Ungar-Sargon, Newsweek deputy opinion editor, author of a book on how “woke” media is allegedly undermining democracy, and inveterate propagandist for the Israeli Right, presented a gross distortion of what Glazer said on X:

I simply cannot fathom the moral rot in someone's soul that leads them to win an award for a movie about the Holocaust and with the platform given to them, to accept that award by saying, "We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness."

— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) March 11, 2024

Even X’s community comments eventually flagged the post as misleading, though it is actually a horrid lie, and it is hard to understand why anyone should ever again take seriously anything she says.

Her posting was widely reposted and paraphrased on the Zionist Right, in a disinformation campaign attempting to make it look as though Glazer were an apostate and had abandoned Jewish values rather than standing up for them.

An attempt was also made to push back against the red pins worn by numerous celebrities at the Oscars, symbolizing their call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza (which in polling the majority of Americans of both parties desire).

Foreign policy expert Matt Duss pointed to another disinformation campaign:

pic.twitter.com/h2KG6p0SW1

— Matt Duss (@mattduss) March 12, 2024

Another poster saw a pattern:

Lol.

You can watch the roll out of the propaganda in real time…

As a bunch of geographically dispersed accounts amazingly arrive at the same conclusion simultaneously. pic.twitter.com/tJk7NmfI7z

— Conor Hennessy (@typingduck) March 12, 2024

In fact, the red pins were distributed by ArtistsForCeasefire
who said, “The pin symbolises collective support for an immediate and permanent cease-fire, the release of all of the hostages and for the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza,”

Israeli propaganda, or Hasbara, as Duss points out, has reached the level of irrationality and of sheer crazy that characterizes QAnon conspiracies such as Pizzagate and Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Jewish space lasers.

That is why we increasingly have to consider what comes out of AIPAC, the Israeli Prime Minister’s office and other Zionist organizations as QZionism, a form of information pollution.

Bibi’s war crimes have fueled an explosion in global Antisemitism on the Left, while Donald Trump stokes it from the right. Most of the world, including many Jews; don’t distinguish between Zionism as a mutated political philosophy from Judaism, the religion. Now the American material and financial support of the Israeli war machine is deeply hurting President Joe Biden’s re-election bid. The US has enabled Israel since it supplanted Great Britain and France as Israel’s protectors after the failed 1956 Suez invasion. The unwillingness of the US to divorce itself from Israel, and many Jews to divorce Judaism from Zionism, is strengthening Antisemitism. It is also inadvertently helping Trump’s bid to re-take the presidency.

Antisemitism has been a social disease for about 2,024 years, if not longer. In the wake of Trump’s presidency and metastasizing political movement, it is globally stronger and more visible than any time since WWII. His leadership has empowered not only Fascists in the US, but authoritarian dictators and movement globally. Most destructive is how Trump and Bibi have cross-promoted one another’s quest for fascist dictatorships.

At the same time, Jewish Americans have been subjected to the “Great Replacement” Conspiracy Theory. Some on the MAGA far right have adopted it. At Charlottesville, pro-Trump Neo-Nazis chanted “Jews will not Replace us.”

As Juan Cole wrote recently, “In 2021, [Rep. Elise] Stefanik began taking up the talking points of the Great Replacement Theory. It holds that wealthy Jewish businessmen are bringing in immigrants from the Global South to replace white workers, since the immigrants will work more cheaply. Stefanik perhaps did not utter the phrase, but she appealed to all the dog whistles of this odious theory. Marianna Sotomayor noted last year at the Washington Post that Stefanik put out campaign ads saying, “Radical Democrats are planning their most aggressive move yet: a PERMANENT ELECTION INSURRECTION . . . Their plan to grant amnesty to 11 MILLION illegal immigrants will overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington.” Guess who the “radical Democrats” might be, to which she refers? Could they possibly be people such as, oh, I don’t know, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and other Jewish American legislators who have worked for immigration reform?”

Antisemitism has also become a 3^rd Rail in American politics, with many elected officials intimidated from weighing in either way. That’s the case in the City of Oakland, where I live. The Mayor’s Office, City Administrator, HR Division and City Council members have all ignored a week’s worth of inquiries, requesting to discuss the visible rise of Antisemitism in City government and the Oakland Unified School District. Dozens of Jewish families have withdrawn their children in response to hostility. Some people on the fringe left, including public employees in Oakland are arguing that, “the October 7 attack was a ‘false flag’ staged by Israel – likely with help from the Americans — to justify genocide in Gaza.” This is a gross characterization born out of willful ignorance.

The new Antisemitism from the left may actually be more dangerous than the traditional, garden-variety brand, embraced by the far-far right. October 7 denial is more dangerous than Holocaust denial, which has fueled Antisemitism on the extreme right for decades. Cyber-Well, a non-profit devoted to countering Antisemitism online cautioned, “Whereas Holocaust denial at its height was limited to fringe academic circles and extremist hate groups who gained a limited following through traditional media, conferences, and papers, today social media platforms provide an algorithmically enhanced stage to disseminate the Antisemitic narrative of October 7 denial directly into the mainstream from a select few influential accounts.” The denialist POV is ignorant about some very important things: 1.) Hamas is NOT Islam and indeed committed atrocious war crimes that violate Islam’s Shari’a code. 2.) Zionism is NOT Judaism, but a mutant ideology that strayed far from its secular, agrarian ideals under a series of corrupt politicians. The Gaza War crimes are afoul of Halacha (Jewish law), as Hamas is of Shari’a.

Democracy Now! “New Film Examines American Jews’ Growing Rejection of Israel’s Occupation”

Counterintuitively, the compulsion for unquestioned American support for Israel is now driven more by US Evangelicals than Jews, as more Jews turn away from Zionism. To many Jews, the Temple Sunday School myth that Israel MUST be a central focus of Judaism is invalid. Since October 7, more Jews than ever have stopped supporting Israel. Anti-zionism, as the concept has evolved, does not mean dismantling the State of Israel, but demanding a Palestinian State alongside it. Zionism began as a non-nationalist, secular agrarian movement, without any rhetoric about Jewish Nationalism or fulfilling Biblical prophecy.

October 7 denialism is not so different from January 6 denialism. One promotes and advocates violence against the US government, and the other violently marginalizes a vital sector of the American population – Jews in this case. The ugliness of this false narrative resulted in an atmosphere of unfettered anti-Jewish sentiments, clothed in objections to Israel.

I’ve openly taken Israel to task for its gross war crimes since the late 1970’s, and I have formally dissociated myself from Zionism. So I am making this critique from a progressive POV.

Reasonable objectors were shouted down and verbally abused at a recent City Council meeting.

The “false flag” promoted by leftists denies some very obvious war crimes, which have been well-documented in Hamas and Israeli videos, plus independent media outlets. As for validating the horrors inflicted on Israeli women, it’s been well documented, but is somehow ignored even by groups devoted to protecting women. Oakland and all municipalities in the Bay Area make it a priority to protect women, promote women’s safety and services. We can expect city employees to show the same concern for Jewish lives. Decrying the atrocities of the Gaza campaign and standing for Palestinian rights are worthy causes that are cheapened by denying the basic facts of the horrific terrorist attack launched by Hamas militants on October 7.