Posts
since Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:04:17.
Stop and think: 'two states for two peoples' is patent racism
Dave Kersting - dakersting@earthlink.net
First of all, `two states for two peoples' or the `two-state peace plan' is quite obviously an expression of racist segregation, entirely based on making dubious ethnic distinctions. Second, a `Jewish' state forced into Palestine is violent state-racism as obvious as it can ever get. Since the `two-state peace' concept serves, right on the face of it, to perpetuate Jewish supremacy in most of Palestine, it is an openly racist and expressly Zionist position.
Those who recall that violent racism is not a viable path to justice or peace are aware that the `two-state' notion cannot possibly work – and some thought regarding the realities of this particular situation shows that it supports the general rejection of racism as a political doctrine and particularly as a path to `peace.' The ethnic-cleansing of Palestine has been lubricated and Jewish-supremacist conquest facilitated, since the early years of the Twentieth Century, by the pretense of maintaining or restoring peace through one or another racist `two-state' or `partition' plan. The actual details that would have to be negotiated if `two-state' could ever get to serious negotiation are astronomically unrealistic, in themselves.
The infinite complexities of this particular case of segregation, including zones and corridors, and even split-level segregation, all of which would have to be negotiated at length, would provide the ideal Zionist set-up for `breakdowns,' `over-reactions,' and more ethnic-cleansing in `self-defense.' But the absurd complexity of `two-state' is seen well before that point in the fact that no such plan can even get to the negotiation stage, as the ethnic-cleansing of Palestine proceeds on schedule. Zionist `two-state' peace is the distracting carrot dangled in front of peace activists and intended to prevent them from looking toward the ordinary principles of peace, which require human equality. When Zionists say `two-state' peace is `realistic' or `practical,' what they mean is that it's approved by Zionist racists.
The real purpose of explicitly Zionist `two state peace' is to keep `peace activism' boondoggled deep in the corral of the Zionist, Jewish-supremacist world-view – to prevent any real understanding of the obvious and necessary course to peace: a simple refusal to continue our unconstitutional tax-support for any ethnic or religious prejudice by anyone involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict – the same as everywhere else.
The actual truth – that `two-state peace' is a sham intended to prevent real peace and to perpetuate violent Jewish supremacy – is demonstrated whenever anyone presents the time-honored case for human equality at an MPJC or other meeting when Gershon Baskin is present.
He is well-known to physically assault people who dare to violate the code of discretion which his `two-state peace' requires among progressives. If Mr. Baskin is not within lunging or punching range of the equal-rights activists who present the equality-argument, he disrupts it by shouting obscenities in classic Zionist style. Among Marin progressives there is a constant awareness that frankness about the Jewish state expanding in Palestine would be a grossly uncongenial indiscretion; actual use of the term `racism,' by those who try to show how plainly it does in fact apply, is sub-rationally `felt' as so unusual and thus so rude as to justify the violent Zionist reactions which people normally avoid by eschewing the ordinary arguments for human equality in the special case of Jewish supremacy.
This is exactly why the horrors keep spreading through the Middle East, and it's the best proof that Zionists control this situation: as they are actually able to prevent viable talk about equality and peace even in the `antiwar' organizations. The policies of Bush, Obama, and all the `capitalists' and `imperialists' are inevitable of course, when even the `peace movement' must kowtow to an openly racist `peace-plan' which gets away with open violence, to suppress ordinary speech about equality, right in the midst of its organizational meetings.
Of course, much that I've said here cannot be `proven' for those who would not take the time to see and hear the proof, but the primary facts stand by themselves: a Jewish state forced into Palestine is violent racism, as plain as it ever gets – and `two-state peace' openly demands an old-fashioned, immeasurably complex, openly racist system of segregation – and this plan is considered `realistic' only because it is acceptable to those who demand a Jewish-supremacist `identity' for Israel – and the obvious solution and absolute moral imperative is to audibly and even-handedly protest our own unconstitutional tax-support for any and all policies of ethnic and/or religious prejudice, by anyone, in Israel-Palestine.
It is really not hard to believe that a person who presents an openly racist alternative to that simple egalitarian solution is in fact a genuine racist, quite ready to use the violence that's always necessary to suppress ordinary calls for human equality.
It's also perfectly obvious that support for Zionist `two-state peace' is also a demand for continued racist violence against the ethnically-cleansed Palestinians, as it openly perpetuates ethnic-cleansing, denying the victims their incontrovertible human right to return to the places from which their families were violently expelled. Racist violence has never been more blatant: if a person is `Jewish' he may enter the ethnically-cleansed regions of Palestine, but if he is not Jewish, and he merely wishes to walk back to the place from which his still-living family was violently expelled, he is simply shot. The Zionist explanation for this demand is also openly racist: the return of `displaced' Palestinian families, they say, would end `the Jewish identity' of Israel – an undisguised demand for a Jewish-supremacist definition of Israel and a gross insult to Jews who do not agree that `the Jewish identity' is a Jewish-supremacist identity.
In October 2000, attempts by local peace activists to explain this to leaders of the `Social Justice Center' of Marin – in the proper time and place, in a meeting called for the purpose of discussing it – drew extremely obscene and violent reactions from Bill Rothman and Norman Carlin, while David Glick, thoroughly livid, storming to confront the equal-rights activist, and clenching his fists, used the most impassioned threats to make sure that the incontrovertible points would not be uttered. Witnessing all this, Barbara Sykes was horrified and promised that another meeting would be arranged, in which crucial discussion would be allowed – but this assurance was belied by unreturned phone-calls and unanswered emails. When finally asked to explain why the issue of prejudice and racism could not even be DISCUSSED, Ms. Sykes – hardly aware of the significance of what she was saying – answered `A lot of people have a hard time letting go of the idea of a Jewish State.' Exactly: plain discussion of the situation and a plain review of elementary anti-racist principles could not be allowed because it would reveal the inadmissibility of a Jewish-supremacist Israel.
Incidentally, it's ironic that the phrase `zero tolerance' for racism is applied in the MPJC Bulletin to The Minutemen, but not to Gershon Baskin, TIKKUN, and other `two-state' racist-supremacist Zionists. For many years, I have been saying and writing that the progressives must show `zero tolerance and primary emphasis' against the openly-declared racism of creating and perpetuating Jewish supremacy in Palestine. Applying this principle to one instance of ethnic-supremacy but not to another is, itself, openly racist.
Sphere: Related Content
