Part I

Austrian political leader Jorge Haider favors a virtual ban on immigration
into his nation, and he campaigned against the European Union's eastward
expansion out of fear that migrants will flood into Austria, the end result
being (so he believes) the disruption of Austrian culture. This is one of
the primary reasons he was widely condemned in the mainstream media of the
United States and Europe as a racist.

With this in mind, consider the following statement by Jewish Middle East
analyst, Mitchell Bard, made in Ohio's most important newspaper, THE PLAIN
DEALER. "Most Israelis have argued that Israel cannot remain a Jewish state
or a democracy if it incorporates the occupied territories, because
Palestinians would alter the nations demographic balance. The result would
be a binational state in which Arabs would wield substantial power."1 In
more straightforward terms, most Israeli Jews view Palestinians from the
occupied territories as a threat to Israeli society.

For a more recent statement of similar sentiments, we have the claims of Dan
Ashbel, Israeli consul-general for the mid-Atlantic region of the United
States. Describing his views, THE PLAIN DEALER noted: "Ashbel said Israel
fought its wars to repel attackers bent on Israel's destruction. Even though
many Arab states and the Palestinian authority now recognize the Jewish
state's right to exist, he said the idea that millions of Palestinians are
entitled to return [to Palestine-Israel] could be a backhanded way to
destroy Israel."2

The feelings for Palestinians expressed by most Israeli Jews and Israeli
consul-general Ashbel are very similar to those Haider has expressed in
regard to Eastern European and non-white immigrants. Whereas the former look
upon Palestinian Arabs as unassimilable aliens and a threat to Israeli
society, the latter views non-Germanic immigrants as a disruptive force
within the Austrian nation. Yet, Haider is roundly condemned as a racist
while Israeli Jews and Ashbel have their beliefs publicly enunciated with no
outcry or editorial condemnation.


Indeed, the American mass media openly encourages Jewish separatism and
racialism in Israel. One of the most important and influential newspapers in
the United States is THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. In regard to allowing
Palestinian refugees to return to Palestine-Israel, they opined that the
"right of return" of Palestinian refugees would result in the "demographic
destruction of the Jewish state."3

Imagine if a respected Western newspaper opined that, if Jewish refugees
from the former Soviet Union are allowed to migrate to a predominantly
non-Jewish nation, this would result in the demographic destruction of that
society. This newspaper and its editorial staff would be swiftly and
incessantly condemned as "evil racists." They could be even charged with a
crime in those Western nations that have "hate crimes" laws in effect.

Adel Qa'adan is an Israeli Arab who wanted to move his family into the
Jewish town of Katsir, Israel. He was told that Katsir does not accept Arabs
into the community, and the Katsir local council informed him that they will
not sell homes or land in Katsir to non-Jews.4 In an attempt to remedy this
injustice, Mr. Qa'adan took his case to the Israeli Supreme Court where he
attained a judgment in his favor. The Jewish state's highest court ruled the
Arab family could not be barred from living in a community built solely for
Jews, overturning a 52-year-old state policy of excluding Arabs from Jewish
communities. Nevertheless, the kibbutzim, or communal farms, would remain
closed to Arab residents, and the government may introduce legislation that
circumvents the Supreme Court ruling.5

Although the seemingly anti-racist, anti-segregationist NEW YORK TIMES
(NYT), America's most important newspaper, carried a short article and
letter on this affair (possibly solely in order to maintain an image of
"journalistic fairness"), they never issued an editorial hailing this
victory against racial segregation, nor did they condemn Israel's other
racist practices or the fact that the kibbutzim would still exclude Arabs. A
little over a month later however, NYT editorialized the Confederate flag
should be removed from South Carolina's Statehouse dome because it
"symbolizes racism and segregation."6

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is widely held to be one of the
premier civil rights organizations in the world. On a regular basis they
issue public, high profile condemnations of acts and statements of alleged
racism and bigotry that occur worldwide. However, when this writer requested
(in a letter sent by certified mail) that ADL Director Abraham Foxman
condemn anti-Arab discrimination in Israel and publicly support the Qa'adan
family in their attempt to move into the Jewish neighborhood of their
choice, he waffled. Writing me a short and vague letter that repeats worn
out clichés, Foxman never did issue a high-profile statement in support of
Adel Qa'adan that condemns Israeli racial discrimination, nor did the ADL
ever (to this writer's knowledge) make any public pronouncements cheering
the Arab family's victory over Israeli racism--strange behavior for an
organization that claims to be in the forefront of the fight against racial
discrimination worldwide.7

What these examples suggest is there is a racial double standard that haunts
American society. On a regular basis the mainstream media and public
officials condemn anti-immigrant sentiment, xenophobia, racial
discrimination, apartheidism and anti-Semitism-the notable exception being
Zionist racism. Not only does the U.S. government, many "civil rights"
advocates and the mass media usually remain silent about Zionist racism,
they actively support the Israeli state which embodies it.

Why the racial double standard? We shall return to this question in a
moment.

Part II

Zionism is a political philosophy which is firmly grounded in the
anti-integrationist racial thought of the past and present.8 In the words of
Zionist political thinker Moses Hess, "Jews are not a religious group, but a
separate nation, a special race, and the modern Jew who denies this is not
only an apostate, a religious renegade, but a traitor to his people, his
tribe, his race."9

In a similar vein, the founder of modern Zionism, Theodore Herzl wrote: "I
referred previously to our [Jewish] assimilation [with gentiles]. I do not
for a moment wish to imply that I desire such an end. Our national character
is too glorious in history and, in spite of every degradation, too noble to
make its annihilation desirable."10

Although it may raise eyebrows, it is no exaggeration to say that political
Zionism and German Nazism bear some distinct similarities.11 Joachim Prinz,
a former Vice-President of the World Jewish Congress, in 1934 praised the
Nazi revolution (1933) in Germany: "The significance of the German
revolution for the German people will ultimately be revealed only to those
who have undertaken to achieve it, and have themselves shaped its form. Its
significance for us [Jews] will be stated here.We want to posit instead of
assimilation [into Gentile communities] something new; undertaking the yoke
of joining the Jewish people and the Jewish race. Only a state based on the
principle of the purity of the nation and the race can possibly endow
dignity and honor on.those Jews who themselves subscribe to this
priniciple."12

Stephen S. Wise, a former president of the American Jewish Congress and the
World Jewish Congress, told a New York rally in June 1938: "I am not an
American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew.Hitler was right in one
thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race."13

Although these passages were composed over 60 years ago, the beliefs they
contain still are part and parcel of Zionist ideology and practice.

In an attempt to shed light upon the biological history of the Jewish people
and how the latter differ from the non-Jewish world, Israeli and American
scientists have conducted studies which show that Jewish communities differ
significantly from gentile communities in a genetic-biological sense.14 As
we shall soon see, this information is apparently going to be used to define
into existence a "Jewish race" and discriminate against non-Jews.

What is even more interesting about these research projects is that they
highlight the hypocritical double standard that is so deeply ingrained in
certain segments of society. It's socially and morally acceptable for Jews
to conduct such research projects. Anthropologist Roselle Tekiner suggested
that queries into Jewish genetics may be motivated by a desire to "justify"
and bolster Zionist nationalism; the idea of a "Jewish race" with a special
set of "Jewish genes" could serve to unite world Jewry.15 There is no highly
visible, widespread public condemnation of these inquiries, which there
would be if others were to conduct similar studies. Indeed, Jewish Zionists
and their gentile supporters would probably be the most vocal of all
protestors if, for example, it were found that German and British scientists
were attempting to determine how Nordics differ from Jews and Blacks in
genetic-biological sense, and this information would be used to implement
racially discriminatory policies.

Enter Dr. Jared Diamond, a prominent Jewish scientist and well-known
opponent of alleged "racism." He hailed GENES, PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES, the
book by Professor Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, a population geneticist, for
allegedly dismantling the idea of race.

In the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, Diamond saluted Cavalli-Sforza for
"demolishing scientists' attempts to classify human populations into races
in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races."16
According to this thinking, the classification of humans into races has
proved to be a futile exercise; because the popular assumption of clearly
defined races has allegedly been discredited, this will lead to the
elimination of so-called "racism."

Apparently, Diamond operates with a hypocritical double standard. In an
article that appeared in the prestigious NATURAL HISTORY, Diamond discussed
the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this
astounding statement: "There are also practical reasons for interest in
Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support
immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in
other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a
Jew."17

The implication here is obvious. The Zionist elite is planning to refuse a
person the right to settle in Israel if they do not have "Jewish genes."
With this in mind, consider point #4 of the Nazi Party Program of May 25,
1920. It reads: "None but members of the nationality may be citizens of the
state. None but those of German blood, irrespective of religion, may be
members of the nationality."18 In contemporary terms, only those with
"German genes" could be citizens of Nazi Germany. I can't emphasize enough
that this is similar to the type of Israeli policy that Diamond describes.

Diamond, a prominent "anti-racist," opposes classifying human populations
into races-except of course populations of Jews and non-Jews. He apparently
has given his silent assent to the proposed Israeli-Zionist policy of
defining and classifying Jews and non-Jews on the basis of whether or not
they possess "Jewish genes."

In May 2000, another major study of Jewish genetics was published in the
prestigious PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. According to
the NEW YORK TIIMES, the analysis provided genetic witness that the Jewish
communities in Europe and the Middle East "retained their biological
identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little
intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries."19

What is most interesting is that the results of this study are apparently
going to be used to define into existence a "Jewish race." Dr. Lawrence H.
Schiffman, chairman of the department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New
York University, said that the findings would be used to answer the question
of "who is a Jew."20

We live in a society in which any manifestation or hint of racism brings
forth numerous and high profile condemnations-except of course when the
racialist ideas and practices serve the interests of organized Jewry and its
Zionist ideology.

In the winter-spring 2000 in London, British historian David Irving brought
a high-profile libel suit against Jewish activist and historian Deborah
Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books. Irving was labeled a "racist"
because he was accused of opposing the intermarriage between whites and
non-whites. Even D.D. Guttenplan, an anti-Irving journalist who covered the
trial, hinted at the racial double standard at work here. He wrote: ".it was
hard not to feel queasy listening to Rampton [the defense attorney for
Lipstadt] quiz Irving about his attitude to 'intermarriage between the races
'-on behalf of a defendant who has written, 'We [Lipstadt and her fellow
Jews] know what we fight against: anti-Semitism and assimilation [of Jews
and non-Jews], intermarriage [between Jews and non-Jews] and
Israel-bashing."21

In her famous book, DENYING THE HOLOCAUST, Lipstadt specifically condemned
white gentile Holocaust revisionists who oppose the integration of Europeans
with non-whites. She wrote: "These [revisionist] publications constitute
vivid examples of the relationship between Holocaust denial, racist
nationalism, and antisemitism."

She then goes on to discuss a specific example of "this evil, white racist
nationalism," the work of Richard Harwood: "Harwood echoed the familiar
extremist charge that the Anglo-Saxon world faced the gravest danger in its
history: the presence of 'alien races' in its midst. Linking Holocaust
denial and the defense of the 'race,' he argued that unless something was
done to halt the immigration and assimilation of non-Caucasians,
Anglo-Saxons were certain to experience not only 'biological alteration' but
the 'destruction' of their European culture and heritage."22

So let's get this straight. According to Lipstadt and a large segment of the
Western academic establishment, it is "extremist and evil" for European
gentiles to oppose the intermarriage and integration of whites with
non-whites, but it is "right, good, and moral" for Jews to oppose the
intermarriage and integration of Jews with non-Jews.

Two experts on political extremism, John George and Laird Wilcox, pointed
out that one characteristic of an extremist is that she promotes double
standards and feels no guilt for so doing.23 Lipstadt apparently feels no
guilt for openly promoting a racial double standard.

German Nazism and political Zionism are akin in another way. Their
respective leaders believed they had a "right" to forcibly deport ethnic
minorities. The Nazi hierarchy's advocacy of brutal and immoral population
transfers is well known and need not be documented here. Yet, has anyone in
the mass media or halls of Congress ever publicly condemned David
Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, for claiming: "I am for
compulsory transfer [of Arab people from areas under Israeli control]; I don
't see anything immoral in it."24

The practical implications of the Zionist goal to transform Palestine into a
Jewish state were made perfectly clear by one of the architects of Zionist
settlement, Joseph Weitz, a former Deputy chairman of the Board of Directors
of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an organization which controls much land
in Israel. "Among ourselves it must be clear that there is no place in the
country for both peoples together [Jews and Arabs].there is no other way but
to transfer the Arabs from here [Israel] to the neighboring countries,
transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain, and the
transfer must aim at Iraq, Syria and even Transjordan. For this purpose
money will be found, much money; and only with this transfer could the
country absorb millions of our brothers. There is no other alternative."25

Some years ago Rabbi Avahram Toledano, head of the Jewish-supremacist "Kach"
movement founded by the late Meir Kahane, conducted a lecture tour in the
U.S. and Canada. Toledano advocates the forcible mass expulsion of Arabs
from "greater Israel." He told a Heights Jewish Center (Cleveland, OH)
meeting on November 14, 1991, that Arabs would be forced out of Israel. In
response to the question, "What would the nations of the world say to Israel
's expulsion of Arabs?, " Toledano said: "I don't know and I don't care. We
are proud to be Jews and to have a Jewish state."26

In spite of his intolerant views, Toledano was given a respectful public
forum in prominent Jewish synagogues throughout North America. In Cleveland,
for example, his lecture was announced beforehand in the city's main Jewish
community paper, CLEVELAND JEWISH NEWS.27 This is nothing new. While still
alive, this same paper also routinely announced the lecture appearances of
Kahane, who also promoted an anti-Arab program.

Niether the ADL, which is so alert to every expression of real and imagined
racism, nor the mainstream Cleveland media publicly protested the
appearances of Toledano and Kahane. Nor did these pro-Zionist groups ever
make a high profile condemnation of Rabbi Toledano's message of hate, which
they would have done if, for example, a right-wing Christian minister who
advocates a similar policy of forced deportation of Jews would have been
scheduled to speak at mainstream Christian churches.

In Toronto, Toledano told an enthusiastic crowd of more than 300 at the
Shaarii Tefilah synagogue: "The Jewish state, the Jewish land, belongs only
to the Jewish people. There is no room for a people that doesn't recognize
Jewish sovereignty."28 Imagine the outcry if, for example, a white Christian
minister would have told a mainstream Canadian church: "The Canadian state,
Canadian land, belongs only to white Canadians. There is no room for a
people that doesn't recognize white sovereignty." The very church that
sponsored his speech would have been ostracized and castigated to this day.

Furthermore, Toronto is the same city where German-born publisher Ernst
Zundel was put on trial for publishing a booklet that questions the
Holocaust extermination story. Consider the utter hypocrisy here. It was
legal in Canada for a militant Rabbi to openly call for the expulsion of
Arabs from Israel, an action that would cause horrible hardship and
suffering for millions of people. Yet, it was a crime for a Gentile to
present valid evidence showing that the "Holocaust" is not all it's cracked
up to be.

One of the reasons that Jorge Haider was so widely condemned is because some
of his beliefs bear similarities to Nazi beliefs. But lo and behold, the
racial double standard strikes again! This writer can find no mainstream
American media source that criticizes Jewish Zionists for adopting a
political ideology that bears similarities to Nazi ideology.

The pro-Israeli ADL ardently promotes the following beliefs. 1) "Modern
Israel is an open, democratic, multi-racial society."29 2) "In keeping with
Israel's democratic principles, the Arab citizens of Israel are afforded all
the rights and privileges of Israeli citizenship."30 3) " Today, Israel's
Arab citizens are accorded full civil and political rights, entitled to
complete participation in Israeli society."31

As we shall soon see, this is false propaganda, designed to mask the
profound anti-Arab discrimination that exists in the Zionist state. Israel
is not a democracy in the ADL's sense of the term. Where different ethnic
groups coexist in the same area or nation, ADL is a strong advocate of an
integrated society in which all ethnic groups function as social and
political equals. ADL promotes racial integration, racial equality and
multiculturalism-everywhere outside Israel of course.

Dr. Oren Yiftachel, an Israeli professor at Ben-Gurion University, pointed
out that Israel is not a democracy in the sense in which it is currently
understood in the West. Rather, it is an "ethnocracy"-a land controlled and
allocated by ethnicity. In his own words: "The Israeli regime is ruled by
and and for one ethnic group in a multi-ethnic reality." Factors that make
Israel an "ethnocracy" include the facts that 1) immigration to the Jewish
state is restricted to Jews only. Some 2.5 million displaced Palestinians
who would like to return are not allowed to migrate to Israel; 2) military
service is according to ethnicity; 3) economic control is based on race,
religion, and ethnicity; 4) The country's land regime entails transfer of
land ownership in one direction, from Arab to Jewish control, but never back
again.32

Dr. Uri Davis is a Jewish scholar and activist who has written extensively
on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has developed the foregoing ideas in
great detail. The title of one of his thorough studies says it all; ISRAEL:
AN APARTHEID STATE.

All factions of the Zionist movement-socialist Zionism, religious Zionism
and right-wing Zionism-share a common goal; a commitment to the
establishment and continued existence in Palestine of a state for the
benefit of the world's Jewish communities. Ultimately, Israel's founders
transformed their beliefs in apartheidism into concrete reality. Israel was
established as a state that would benefit Jews only, not as a state that
would benefit all its citizens, Arab and Jew alike.33

The UN Partition Plan For Palestine of 1947 stated that each proposed state,
Arab and Jewish, would be required to draft a democratic constitution which
would guarantee equal human rights for all, Jew and non-Jew. Because Israel
never fulfilled the requirement for a democratic constitution, its
government was able to act without constitutional legal restriction; they
enacted apartheid legislation that favors Jews and discriminates against
Arabs on a grand scale. Indeed, apartheid in Israel-applied under the
categories of "Jew" vs. "non-Jew"-is an overarching legal reality that
determines the quality of everyday existence for everyone who resides in the
Zionist state.34

In Israel, racial discrimination begins at birth. The law is set up in such
a manner that a Jewish infant is registered as having Israeli citizenship at
birth, whereas an Arab newborn is stateless at birth, his citizenship status
being indefinite.35

In order to comprehend the racist import of Israeli apartheid laws, one must
first realize that as a result of the 1948 armed conflict in Palestine, the
majority of the Arab population that resided within the areas coming under
Israeli rule and occupation either fled during the hostilities, or were
forcibly expelled by the Israeli army. Israel has never allowed these people
to return to their homeland.36

The Law of Return is one of the fundamental laws of Israel. It legalizes an
alleged right that is inherent by virtue of being a Jew. Davis notes one of
its consequences: ".under Israeli law, any Jew throughout the world has the
right of immediate immigration into, settlement in and citizenship of the
state of Israel after an alleged forced absence of 2,000 years. On the other
hand, the displaced Palestinian Arab refugees of 1948 and their
descendants-some two million people-are denied the same right in violation
of international law and United Nations resolutions, although their forced
absence is less than forty years."37

Israeli law divides non-Jewish potential applicants for residency and
citizenship into two broad categories: applicants who, in view of the law,
exist and are "present," versus applicants who, in view of the law, DO NOT
EXIST, that is, are "absentees." As a consequence of this legal artifice,
all of the Palestinian Arabs (and their descendants) who fled or were
forcibly expelled in 1948 are simply denied Israeli citizenship. So declares
Israeli law: since they are "absent and do not exist," there is no need to
grant them citizenship. This law does not apply to numerous Palestinian
Jewish families who also fled during the hostilities. Their citizenship is
guaranteed through the Law of Return.38

The Absentee Property Law (1950) was passed before the Law of Return (1950).
In essence, this enabled Zionist legislators (1) to define the displaced
Palestinian Arab out of legal existence as an "absentee," and (2) to
guarantee every Jew throughout the world access to the land and property
which this hapless Arab refugee left behind. Once again, the effect of this
law does not apply to the Palestinian Jews who fled during the 1948 war, as
their property rights are guaranteed through an alleged Biblical title.39

The 1947 Partition plan for Palestine of the UN General Assembly stipulated
that all the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants are
constitutionally entitled without qualification to Israeli citizenship. In
violation of this agreement, the net effect of the Law of Return and the
Absentee Property Law is to literally denationalize millions of Palestinian
Arabs who are entitled to Israeli citizenship. Davis cogently observes: "The
Absentee Property Law (1950), having defined the mass of Palestinian Arab
refugees from the territories that came under Israeli rule and occupation in
1948-1949 out of existence as "absentees," not only denies them the right of
citizenship in the Jewish state as stipulated by the 1947 UN Resolution, but
at the same time denies them the right to their vast properties inside
Israel. It is important to note that the status of "absentee" is inherited.
Children of "absentees" whether born inside or outside the state of Israel,
are similarly classified as "absentees."40

For the Palestinian Arabs who, after the armed conflict of 1948, remained
within the borders of Israel, second-class citizenship is their lot.

The mechanics of land ownership in Israel is a complicated matter that is
beyond the scope of this article. What concerns us here are the apartheid
consequences of Zionist land policies. Non-Jews, first and foremost
Palestinian Arabs, were (until the March 2000 Supreme Court decision)
excluded by law from leasing or cultivating land in 92.6% of the territory
of Israel.41 In some localities, Arabs were confined to ghettoes, unable to
live in communities built solely for Jews.42

Regarding the allotment of agricultural land in Israel, Knesset Member
Shulamit Almi summed up the situation: ".any person who is non-Jewish, even
if he (or she) is the spouse of a Jew, cannot be a farmer here in this
country, even if he (or she) is a citizen."43 This is the reality that
remains hidden behind the ideological façade of "Zionist socialism," and it
still holds true, despite the aforementioned Israeli Supreme Court ruling of
March 8, 2000.

The Histadrut, in addition to being a federation of Zionist trade union
organizations, is the second largest employer in Israel (second to state
employment), controlling a good portion of Israel's economy: holding
corporations, companies, banks, industrial concerns, agro-industries, etc.
The kibbutzim and moshavim, which are mainly agricultural settlements, are
also under its auspices.44

Prior to 1960, membership in the Histadrut was restricted to Jews only. In
1960 legal provisions were made permitting membership in the Histadrut for
Palestinian Arab workers who hold Israeli citizenship. Subsequently, at the
Tenth Histadrut Convention in 1966, the name of the Histadrut Federation was
changed from "The General Federation of Hebrew Workers in the Land of
Israel" to the "The General Federation of Workers in the Land of Israel."
Presumably in the response to external pressure in the form of "what will
the world say?", other companies within the hierarchy of the Histadrut also
made changes that made them appear more racially inclusionary and
multicultural.45

As Davis shows however, these were merely cosmetic changes, designed to make
the public falsely believe the Histadrut is a democratic organization where
Arabs and Jews function as equals. The Zionists had to maintain effectively
the apartheid structure presented abroad as an advanced form of egalitarian
democracy.46

Davis explains that the principle of legal exclusion of non-Jews is clearly
a constitutional unifying norm that pervades the hierarchy of Histadrut
institutions, corporations and enterprises. Non-Jewish membership in the
moshavim and kibbutzim (which are mainly agricultural settlements), for
example, is legally barred by two insurmountable obstacles. First, moshavim
and kibbutzim land is legally defined as land that is under the sole
ownership of the "Jewish people." Second, moshavim and kibbutzim membership
require endorsement of NIR: COOPERATIVE COMPANY FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF HEBREW
WORKERS LTD. All kibbutzim and moshavim agricultural settlements in Israel
are incorporated as daughter companies of NIR. NIR is constitutionally
restricted to the promotion of the settlement of Hebrew workers only.47

Jewish scholar Ian Lustick has pointed out that the Israeli military is, by
and large, a segregated institution. Most Muslim Arabs, who constitute the
overwhelming majority of Israeli Arab citizens, do not serve in the armed
forces-they are not conscripted, nor are they permitted to volunteer for
service. This has important social consequences. In Israel, participation in
the armed services is a prerequisite to social advancement and mobility. Cut
off from the military, they are cut off from access to one of the main
avenues of social advancement.48

The Labor party of Israel espouses an egalitarian socialist ideology. Yet,
never told to Western readers is its apartheid practice of separating
Israeli Jews and Arabs into different "sectors." Jews and non-Jews are thus
confined on an ethnic basis. As Jewish scholars Israel Shahak and Norton
Mezvinsky so rightly noted, such a proposal for operation of political
parties in the U.S. would be branded as "anti-Semitic."49

All of the Israeli apartheid laws and practices that discriminate against
Arabs violate the letter and spirit of the Balfour Declaration and UN
Partition Plan of 1947. Both documents made it perfectly clear that no law
should be passed or practice be established which would violate the civil,
political, economic and religious rights of non-Jewish communities of
Palestine.

Furthermore, all of the aforementioned discriminatory practices are part and
parcel of official Zionist policy, thus falsifying ADL claims which attempt
to downplay Israeli racism and apartheidism. On their website we read this
falsehood: "Israeli Arabs do face discrimination, not as a result of
official policy but in practice."50

In February 2000, President George W. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University, a
South Carolina institution that opposed interracial dating and marriage.
Widely criticized by those who consider such a practice as an example of
racial intolerance, Mr. Bush eventually expressed regret for not publicly
criticizing the college's policy.

Christians and Muslims cannot marry Jews in Israel, and if they are married
elsewhere, the marriage is not recognized by the rabbinical court in
Israel.51 Opposition to ethnic intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews is
common in pro-Zionist Jewish communities throughout the U.S. In a major
study of Judaism, California psychology professor Kevin MacDonald concluded:
"The organized Jewish community is the only ethnic or religious community in
the United States that continues to attempt to limit outmarriage or
discourage conversions and intermarriage [between Jews and non-Jews]."52 The
Conservative movement of Judaism, the largest branch of the faith, is on
record as being officially opposed to intermarriage between Jews and
non-Jews.53

This Jewish-Zionist opposition to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews
is, in many cases, racially motivated. According to the chief rabbi of
France (in 1987), Rene Samuel Sirat, ".the racial disappearance of French
Jews is the greatest threat to the community." Rabbit Sirat also claimed
that "there are two ways to exterminate the Jews: the radical method,
concentration camps and terrorist attacks, or the slow method through mixed
marriages." In keeping with his desire to preserve the racial makeup of
French Jews, Rabbit Sirat refuses the religious conversion of non-Jewish
spouses.54

But here is where our society's hypocritical double standard comes into
play. President Bush was widely criticized for speaking at a white Christian
college which opposes interracial dating and marriage, but what mainstream
media source or politician would dare castigate any public figure for
speaking in Israel (where intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews is not
recognized) or at a Conservative Jewish synagogue where it is official
policy to oppose intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews?

The racial double standard even plagues one of the holiest shrines of
contemporary American society, the U.S. Memorial Holocaust Museum in
Washington, D.C. Director of the Research Institute of the Museum, Michael
Berenbaum, affirmed that one of the museum's purposes is to highlight the
evolution of absolute Nazi evil, "from the infamous Nuremberg laws to the
introduction of segregation, economic confiscation and apartheid."-Stop
here!55

Previously, we saw that such practices as segregation of Jews and Arabs,
economic confiscation of Arab property and apartheid practices are an
integral part of Israel's past and present. Nevertheless, the Holocaust
Museum hails Israel as a "great triumph." In this vein, Berenbaum writes:
"The birth of the state of Israel was the most significant positive
consequence of the Holocaust."56

Part III

We return to the original question of this article. Why the racial double
standard in regard to Zionism and Israel?

Prominent Jewish writer I.F. Stone acknowledged the hypocritical double
standard which plagues contemporary Jewish values: "For Israel is creating a
kind of moral schizophrenia in world Jewry. In the outside world, the
welfare of Jewry depends on the maintenance of secular, non-racial,
pluralistic societies. In Israel, Jewry finds itself defending a society in
which mixed marriages cannot be legalized, in which non-Jews have a lesser
status than Jews, and in which the ideal is racist and exclusionist. Jews
might fight elsewhere for their very security and existence against
principles and practices they find themselves defending in Israel."57

In his classic work on the sociology of knowledge, IDEOLOGY AND UTOPIA, Karl
Mannheim noted that in any society a large part of the prevailing
ideologies, world-view, and "moral" judgments reflect the sociopolitical
interests of that society's power elites and controlling elements.58 One of
the most powerful and influential of these elements in American society is
the Jewish political and cultural establishment.59

Definite forms of social consciousness derive from the fact that the
Jewish-Zionist elite possesses the power and authority to impose its
values-inclusive of the racial double standard in regard to Zionism-upon the
American people. Most people never think to question these preformed
patterns of thought, and thus, remain locked in a dogmatic slumber.

But why has the Jewish-Zionist power elite been so successful in imposing
the racial double standard on American society? Why don't Americans realize
and reject this hypocrisy? The reasons are many and complicated, too
numerous and complex to discuss in this brief essay. Nevertheless, ISRAEL:
AN APARTHEID STATE does provide us with one of the reasons.

Israeli civil rights activist Davis has pointed out: ".the Jewish state
avoided [directly copying the former South Africa's apartheid structure] and
took a different route so as not to lose international support and sympathy
and not to flaunt the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. The ideological
predisposition of the Zionist leadership was to pursue rights for Jews
only.but it needed to appear democratic while making sure discrimination was
not immediately visible on the surface."60

Indeed, since Israel's welfare is dependent upon how it is viewed in the
West, Davis explains it was never possible for Zionist legislators to pass
openly explicit apartheid legislation. It was necessary to present Israel to
the world as an advanced form of democracy and social progress. Thus,
duplicitous legal structures were devised which effectively mask the racial
discrimination and apartheid.61

By implication then, U.S. society is generally silent about Israeli racism
and apartheidism because the majority of people aren't aware it exists. They
have been fooled into believing that racial equality exists in the Jewish
state.

This explanation-which holds true when applied to certain segments of
society-is only part of the answer to our question. It breaks down when
applied to "people in the know," such as political figures and news media
executives.

A study of Israeli and South African apartheid published in the 1980s made
the observation that "The parallels between South Africa's system of
legalized racism and that of Israel are well-known in academic circles but
rarely discussed in the mainstream media, peace community or halls of
Congress."62

Former Congressman George W. Crockett, Jr. noted back in 1985 that the U.S.
Congress turns a blind eye to apartheid in Israeli-occupied territories. He
observed that "Here in Congress we are fighting against South Africa's
repressive measures, and yet closing our eyes to the institutional
repression and the brutality that is daily being conducted against the
Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied Arab territories."63

Indeed, the former editor-in-chief of the RAND DAILY MAIL (the Johannesburg
newspaper that fought against South African apartheid), Raymond Louw,
claimed that the situation in the Israeli occupied territories is worse than
the way things were under the South African apartheid regime. He was quoted
as saying: "It's depressing. This is a city [Avraham Avinu area] under
military occupation without any rights for the occupied. There was never a
situation like this with apartheid [in South Africa]. The control in the
black areas was not so forceful. I don't think you can compare the two
situations. Under apartheid, there was a recognition that the blacks would
continue to live in these areas. Here the impression is that the objective
is to push the Palestinians out."64

Clearly, the racial double standard in regard to Israel and Zionism is
evident most everywhere in American society, even among non-Jews who would
be in a position to know about Israeli racism. Take former President Clinton
for example. He warned Americans of "the dangers of racial separation and
pleaded with them not to give up on the idea of integration." He has
stressed that we must all "reject [racial] separation and isolation," and
that racial equality was a driving obsession of his life.65 Mr. Clinton's
driving obsession for racial equality ends where Israel begins, for he has
been the most pro-Zionist president in U.S. history, ardently supporting the
apartheid Israel at just about every turn. No one can say he doesn't know
about racial inequality in Israel.

We live in a society in which racial integration, multiculturalism, and
racial equality are looked upon as the "supreme good." One would think that
Uri Davis's vision of the future for the occupied Palestine/Israel would be
what Western governments and the mass media would want for the resolution of
Arab-Israeli conflict. It is desirable, he writes, "that all 1948
Palestinian Arab displaced persons (refugees) return to localities as close
as possible to their original places of residence, thereby transforming
almost every Jewish settlement, urban or rural, from an exclusively, or next
to exclusively, Jewish locality, into a mixed Jewish/Arab/Arab-Jewish
locality; and thereby transforming the exclusively Jewish state of Israel
into a binational Arab-Jewish/Jewish-Arab state as originally envisaged by
the United Nations in 1947 in the vote to adopt the Plan for Partition and
Economic Union."66

This type of plan is precisely what Western governments, Zionist groups and
the mass media work against.

Jewish-Zionist organizations generally promote racial integration and racial
equality in all societies outside Israel, where Jews are a minority, but
oppose it in Israel, where they are a majority. This strongly suggests they
push for racial equality and integration only when there are benefits to be
gained for themselves.67 It is highly likely that world Zionism in collusion
with Western governments will (at least for the foreseeable future) be able
to prevent Davis's vision from coming into being.

A more possible outcome is the "two-state" solution, a separate Jewish and
Palestinian state. But one should not indulge in self-deception, for even
this solution is plagued with the racial double standard. As leading
Palestinian Christian, Rev. Dr. Raim Ateek, has pointed out, the powers that
be would be forcing Jews and Arabs to live in pockets based on ethnic
identity, similar to the condemned South African apartheid policy of
separating blacks and whites into various homelands. In addition, the
"independent" Palestinian state would probably end up under the domination
of Israel.68

In other areas of the world the former Clinton administration fought against
the "separate-ethnic-states" solution because it bespeaks of racial
segregation. In regard to the Bosnian conflict, it was reported that
"heading off demands of ultra-nationalist politicians for ethnicity-based
independent states is a key goal of U.S. brokered Dayton peace accords that
ended the war."69

Yet, ethnicity-based independent states in the Middle East are exactly what
FORWARD, one of the premier Jewish newspapers in the U.S., has demanded.
They opined: "Two nations, Israel and Palestine must step apart. The notion
that one could claim the entire land and the other might acquiesce is now
utterly bankrupt. The two peoples must permit each other to live separate
national lives, separated by clearly marked boundaries."70

Western governments, the Western media and the world community in general
condemned the South African apartheid policy of separating blacks and whites
into separate homelands. The world community demanded that blacks and whites
live in a racially integrated state with black majority rule. Yet, Western
governments and the Western media in general seem to be more than willing to
separate Jews and Palestinians into separate, apartheid states.

If the world community accepts the two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they are granting to Jewish-Zionists the right
to racially segregate themselves from others, something that has been denied
to other non-Jewish ethnic groups. The racial double standard will be alive
and well.



FOOTNOTES

1. THE PLAIN DEALER, 19 January 1989, p.3-E.
2. THE PLAIN DEALER, 23 October 1999, p.6-A.
3. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, 7 February 2001, p.A26.
4. See WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS, July/Aug. 1999, pp.14, 20.
5. THE NEW YORK TIMES, 9 March 2000, p. 3-A; THE PLAIN DEALER, 9 March 2000,
p.4-A.
6. THE NEW YORK TIMES, 17 April 2000, p.24-A.
7. For the exchange of letters between Abraham Foxman and Paul Grubach, see
the WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS, April 2000, pp.73-74.
8. Roselle Tekiner, Samir Abed-Rabbo, Norton Mezvinsky, eds., ANTI-ZIONISM:
ANALYTIC REFLECTIONS (Amana Books, 1988); Uri Davis, ISRAEL: AN APARTHEID
STATE (Zed Books, LTD, 1987); THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, ZIONISM AND RACISM (North
American, 1979); Francis R. Nicosia, THE THIRD REICH AND THE PALESTINE
QUESTION (University of Texas Press, 1985); Lenni Brenner, ZIONISM IN THE
AGE OF THE DICTATORS (Lawrence Hill, 1983); Regina Sharif, NON-JEWISH
ZIONISM: ITS ROOTS IN WESTERN HISTORY (Zed Press, 1983).
9. Quoted in Dr. Robert John, BEHIND THE BALFOUR DECLARATION: THE HIDDEN
ORIGIN OF TODAY'S MIDEAST CRISIS (Institute for Historical Review, 1988),
p.35.
10. Arthur Hertzberg, THE ZIONIST IDEA (Greenwood Press, 1959), pp.219-220.
11. Francis R. Nicosia, THE THIRD REICH AND THE PALESTINE QUESTION,
pp.16-21.
12. Quoted in Uri Davis, ISRAEL: AN APARTHEID STATE, pp.1-2.
13. NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE, 13 June 1938, p.12.
14. NATURE, 21 March 1985, p.208; See the PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 9 May 2000, as reported on in Nicholas Wade, "Y
Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora," NEW YORK TIMES, 9
May 2000.
15. Tekiner, Abed-Rabbo, Mezvinsky, pp.63-89.
16. See NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, 13 April 2000, p.61.
17. NATURAL HISTORY, November 1993, p.12.
18. See Robert Vexler's GERMANY: A CHRONOLOGY AND FACT BOOK: 1415-1972,
p.129.
19. Nicholas Wade, "Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish
Diaspora, " NEW YORK TIMES, 9 May 2000.
20. Ibid.
21. D.D. Guttenplan, THE HOLOCAUST ON TRIAL (W.W. Norton & Company, 2001),
p.209.
22. Deborah Lipstadt, DENYING THE HOLOCAUST: THE GROWING ASSAULT ON TRUTH
AND MEMORY (The Free Press, 1993), p.106.
23. See Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, DENYING HISTORY: WHO SAYS THE
HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED AND WHY DO THEY SAY IT? (University of California
Press, 2000), p.88.
24. Quoted in Simha Flapan, THE BIRTH OF ISRAEL: MYTHS AND REALITIES
(Pantheon Books, 1987), p.103.
25. Quoted in Uri Davis, ISRAEL: AN APARTHEID STATE, p.5.
26. CLEVELAND JEWISH NEWS, 22 November 1991.
27. CLEVELAND JEWISH NEWS, 8 November 1991, p.12.
28. WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS, July 1991, p.58.
29. "Israeli Society," www.adl.org/Israel/Record/society.html
30. "Minorities in Israel," www.adl.org/Israel/Record/minorities.html
31. Ibid. 32. THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS, July/August
1999, p.120.
33. Uri Davis, ISRAEL: AN APARTHEID STATE, p. 9.
34. Ibid., p.22.
35. Ibid., p.27-30.
36. Ibid., p.17; Simha Flapan, THE BIRTH OF ISRAEL: MYTHS AND REALITIES,
pp.81-118.
37. Uri Davis, ISRAEL: AN APARTHEID STATE, p. 34.
38. Ibid., pp.34-36.
39. Ibid., pp.34, 36.
40. Ibid., pp.25, 35.
41. Ibid., pp.39-40.
42. Ibid., p.17.
43. Ibid., p.49.
44. Ibid., p.50.
45. Ibid., pp.50-51.
46. Ibid., p.53.
47. Ibid., p.55.
48. Ian Lustick, ARABS IN THE JEWISH STATE: ISRAEL'S CONTROL OF A NATIONAL
MINORITY, pp.93-94.
49. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, JEWISH FUNDAMENTALISM IN ISRAEL
(Pluto Press, 1999), pp.151-152.
50. "Minorities in Israel," www.adl.org/Israel/Record/minorities.html
51. WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS, June 1993, p.75; Roselle
Tekiner, Samir Abed-Raboo, Norton Mezvinsky, eds., ANTI-ZIONISM: ANALYTICAL
REFLECTIONS, pp.86-87, note 21.
52. Kevin MacDonald, SEPARATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS: TOWARD AN EVOLUTIONARY
THEORY OF ANTI-SEMITISM (Praeger, 1988), p.266.
53. Religious News Service Press Release, 3 December 1991, printed in
CHRISTIAN NEWS, 16 December 1991, p.15.
54. THE PLAIN DEALER, 26 October 1987, p.9-A.
55. Michael Berenbaum, "The Growing Assault on the Truth of Absolute Evil,
LOS ANGELES TIMES, 28 January 2000.
56. Michael Berenbaum, THE HISTORY OF THE HOLOCAUST AS TOLD IN THE UNITED
STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM: THE WORLD MUST KNOW (Little, Brown and
Company, 1993), p.214.
57. Quoted in Moshe Menuhin, THE DECADENCE OF JUDAISM IN OUR TIME (Beruit:
Institute for Palestine Studies, 1969), p.210.
58. IDEOLOGY AND UTOPIA (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1936), p.10,
passim.
59. The following is a small sample of the many works that document the
power and influence of the Jewish political and cultural establishment. J.J.
Goldberg, J.J. Goldberg, JEWISH POWER: INSIDE THE AMERICAN JEWISH
ESTABLISHMENT (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1996); Andrew Hurley, ONE
NATION UNDER ISRAEL; Kevin MacDonald, THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE: AN
EVOLUTIONARY ANALYSIS OF JEWISH INVOLVEMENT IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY
INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1998);
Neal Gabler, AN EMPIRE OF THEIR OWN: HOW THE JEWS INVENTED HOLLYWOOD (New
York: Crown Publishers, 1988); Paul Findley, THEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT: PEOPLE
AND INSTITUTIONS CONFRONT ISRAEL'S LOBBY (Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill &
Co., 1985).
60. Quoted in WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS (July/Aug. 1999),
p.14.
61. Uri Davis, ISRAEL: AN APARTHEID STATE, pp.4, 25, 44,49,53, 55, 58, 60.
62. Louise Cainkar, ed., SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL: THE DYNAMICS OF SOUTH AFRICAN
AND ISRAELI RULE (Chicago: Palestine Human Rights Campaign, 1985), see
Preface.
63. Ibid., p.49.
64. Quoted in Ha'aretz (Israel), 24 May 2001.
65. THE PLAIN DEALER, 26 September 1997, pp.1-A, 10-A.
66. Uri Davis, ISRAEL: AN APARTHEID STATE, pp.78-79.
67. For a discussion of this phenomenon, see the works of California
psychologist Kevin MacDonald, SEPARATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS: AN
EVOLUTIONARY ANALYSIS OF ANTI-SEMITISM (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998).
68. WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS (Jan./Feb. 2000), p.52.
69. THE PLAIN DEALER, September 1, 1998.
70. FORWARD, 6 October 2000, p.8.