The Anti-Zionist by Dima Shehadeh

In the heart of Zionist land, Brooklyn College, from which Meir Kahane and Barusch Goldstein graduated, Dima Shehadeh's response to the Angry Jew, a student perpetuating the usual Zionist myths, got published in the college paper Excelsior under the title of "The Anti-Zionist." At yet another college, we've managed to assert the Palestinian right to freedom. Dima's rebuttal is excellent ! Read below.

In order to respond to the Angry Jew and others writing in the Excelsior, I need to make one introductory point. When speaking of Zionism and Israel, I am not, repeat not, speaking of Judaism or those of the Jewish faith. I am speaking of an ideology and a movement and on that grounds, I am entitled to criticize it and take it apart with my words.

None of the following is Anti-Semitic, because I am myself a Semite, nor is it anti-Jewish. It is, however, unabashedly anti-Zionist. Zionism is a movement that began roughly in the 1800's by various Jewish intellectuals.

The primary message and aim was that Jews, being severely persecuted and marginalized in Europe needed a separate space to call their own. Furthermore, to speak in philosophical terms, Zionism asserted that the notion of 'Jewish-ness' was not as an identity manifested in the spiritual doctrines of Judaism, but rather a biological, or racial concept. In other words, what made one Jewish according to Hess, Pinsker, Herzl and others is not one's faith in God or Judaism, but being of particular parentage.

On this basis, Zionism felt, as a nation, in the ethnic and racial sense, that the Jewish people should be entitled to a physical state, to be safe from persecution and fulfill the requirements of being a nation. It is worth noting that at this time (mid to late 1800's), the secular as well as political, as opposed to the non-spiritual, nature of Zionism did not impress worldwide Jewry, and it was a relatively small movement.

However, due to rising anti-Jewish sentiments in Europe, the dedication of its founders and disciples and the enlisting of Great Britain as a strong supporter, Zionism soon became a full-fledged world movement. Suggestions as to where to locate this 'Jewish State' came about. Among the countries mentioned were Uganda, Cyprus and Argentina. All of these countries were under British dominion.

Palestine was mentioned as well, as it was expected to fall under British dominion with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It should be remembered at this point that Zionism was a secular movement, hence Palestine would have had no extreme significance. But the appeal that it would have for non-Zionist Jewry, Palestine was agreed upon in 1916 as the future sight for the Jewish State.

At this time and prior for many years, Palestine had an existing, living, breathing and functioning population. Zionists, then and now, would like the world to believe that either these people did not exist, or that they did not count as legitimate inhabitants.

Both are myths. Palestine was an established living zone. The Zionist movement was aware of this 'population problem', and if you do not believe me, I ask you to read Zionist literature. Transfer, expulsion and subjugation were all suggested methods of dealing with the existing population, as articulated by Chaim Weizmann, Vladimir Jabotinsky and David Ben-Gurion to name a few Zionist champions.

All involved in the implementation of Zionist aims and the creation of Israel were well aware of the Palestinian population and did not care for it. The incoming European population needed room. The only way to make room is to remove the Palestinians.

That is what happened. Plain and simple. In other words, a group of Europeans decided that they wanted a homeland in the homeland of another people, and created it without concern for the rights and fears of the indigenous people. Sound at all familiar, America? A two-thousand-year-old religious bond with a place does not supercede the rights of its current inhabitants, as dictated by world opinion of Native American history, South African history and the general history of colonialism and imperialism.

As a Muslim, I do not feel that I am entitled to conquer and enslave Spain. Furthermore, if the modern world has deemed the Crusades rude and offensive, why is Zionism legitimate? I understand that Jewry wants to feel safe. I agree that everyone has that right. But my question is how and why should one feel safe when one has imposed oneself on another ?

If the Palestinians did not contribute to persecution of Jewry in Europe, why should they be expected to provide the safety net ? As for the PLO covenant, let me explain one fundamental thing. As the Algerian with the French, and the Kenyans with the British, Palestinians feel invaded and exploited by the Zionism and its offspring, Israel.

This is why Zionism is deemed 'evil' and Israel must be dismantled, in the words of the PLO covenant. It is the source, plain and simple, of Palestinian dispossession and continued oppression. Do not overdramatize the Palestinian Arab reaction to Zionism. It is not an ethnic hatred, or an inherent Muslim, Arab, Palestinian hatred towards Jews. It is the hatred towards the occupier and the legitimizing ideology. As we have understood South Africans, Kenyans and other colonized peoples, we should understand the Palestinians. It is a reactionary resentment towards seizure, not a racist denial of Jewish people to exist. It is not, by any means, comparable to the Third Reich.

The 'Jewish problem' as Mr. Kaplan put it, does not exist in Palestine. It is the 'racist occupier' problem. This is the media bias; to deny the occupation of Palestine and to de-legitimize the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. To describe this as a war between equals, rather than a struggle between the colonized and the colonizer negates not only the history of Palestine, but also the true nature of Zionism.

Palestinians are not welcome in Israel because they are not Jewish. This is racism. Palestinians did not count when Zionists and Europeans decided that the Jewish homeland was in Palestine. This is racism. Palestinians want their land back. Believe me when I say the religion or race of he who took the land from them is not what makes being robbed of it painful. Being robbed of anything is enough to make anyone angry, why should the Palestinians be exempt from this human reaction ?

Dima Shehadeh
December 2000

Please address all site-related comments, questions and problems to webmaster@newyork.al-awda.org
All contents copyright © 2000 The Palestine Right To Return Coalition, P.O. Box 401, Hummelstown, PA 17036
This site was last Updated on August 26, 2001