Zionism is anti-semitism, and Palestine

← Back to all essays | Author's essays Zionism is anti-semitism, and Palestine

by CriticalResist
Published: 2023-10-20 (last update: 2023-10-20)
1-5 minutes

More and more people are saying the situation in Palestine is "complicated". That we have to deplore the amount of deaths on "both sides". That Hamas is "illegitimate" or "terrorists". Even worse, they are now compared to ISIS! What an insult.

Starting from the origins of Zionism through the colonisation of Palestine to the recent Flood of Al-Aqsa operation in October 2023, we aim to set the record straight and debunk Zionist propaganda that aims to retain its cushy privilege in Palestine by any means necessary -- including psychological warfare against the world population.

Read more

For a thorough understanding of this topic, we urge you to click on internal links to other pages when they appear as blue links.

“ "At the end of the blind alley that is Europe, I mean the Europe of Adenauer, Schuman, Bidault, and a few others, there is Hitler." Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism

More and more people are saying the situation in Palestine is "complicated". That we have to deplore the amount of deaths on "both sides". That Hamas is "illegitimate" or "terrorists". Even worse, they are now compared to ISIS! What an insult.

First, we must understand that the "conflict" (really a genocide against Palestinians) is not "complicated". You don't need to be an archeologist or historian to understand it. A nation is being displaced to make way for an occupier. Under UN law, "Israel" is an occupier. This is a fact.

Let's begin with some history. Zionism is not ancient, it's pretty new. It's attributed to Theodor Herzl who, while himself Jewish, was an antisemite: he thought that Jews were foreign to Europe, despite being Ashkenazi. Read this Twitter thread first: https://twitter.com/not_ghuf/status/1711097649619681621 for a primer on Ashkenazi identity and the roots of Zionism.

In short: Ashkenazi Jews are European. To deny that is antisemitism, because when it comes from a European it implies there are "acceptable" Europeans and "unacceptable" Europeans. "European" becomes a conditional identity. Whereas if it comes from a Jewish person, it implies that Jews can never fully be emancipated in Europe and that despite this continent being their ancestral homeland (when it comes to Ashkenazim at least), it isn't really their home. That there is some amount of "foreignness" in them as well, inherent to their identity as Jewish persons.

If you get to go to your "promised land" because it's your "ancestral home", why stop there? Are Europeans allowed to colonize Iraq because we came from Mesopotamia? Should I get a bunch of people together, take up weapons, and go steal homes in Iraq? And if Iraqis decide to defend against their forcible displacement, they are considered terrorists which gives me and my friends the right to kill them?

The irony of course is that this is exactly what happened in 2003, albeit under the guise of a military intervention. We see here the premises of a major driver in the existence of "Israel": its existence serves the exact same interests that the invasion if Iraq served in 2003.

But here's the thing -- it doesn't matter if you can trace your lineage back to a place some thousand years ago (nobody can, but imagine they can). People are living in what you call your ancestral homeland. To displace them, steal their property and claim their territory as your own is literally colonialism. It is genocide.

A free Palestine

This brings us to Palestine. Why is Israel in Palestine specifically? Why not somewhere else? Well, Herzl, the first Zionist, actually proposed various other places. But after WW2 Europe wanted to finish what Hitler started and get rid of their Jewish population. Why didn't we give them Bavaria, since Germany was divided either way? Because we didn't want them in Europe.

"At the end of the blind alley that is Europe, I mean the Europe of Adenauer, Schuman, Bidault, and a few others, there is Hitler." -- Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism.

It took the European powers almost ten years until they decided to act against Hitler, when they saw the writing on the wall after he invaded Poland and realized they were going to be next. During those ten years, they happily let Hitler displace Jews in ghettos, ramp up antisemitic propaganda, conduct the Kristallnacht, slowly dehumanizing German Jews and revoking their citizenship.

Hell, Hitler even had official support abroad! Virtually all European countries harboured their very own, local Nazi sympathisers and gave them positions in government. Churchill himself spoke highly of Hitler, saying:

To feel deep concern about the armed power of Germany is in no way derogatory to Germany. On the contrary, it is a tribute to the wonderful and terrible strength which Germany exerted in the Great War, when almost single-handed she fought nearly all the world and nearly beat them... One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations. I have on more than one occasion made my appeal in public that the Führer of Germany should now become the Hitler of peace.

Antisemitism is not new in Europe, it is a multi-millenary tradition. Expelling Jews was the basis for the existence of Israel at the time. Let us remind the reader that Palestinians never had a say in how their land was to be used. Palestine was an Ottoman territory until the British seized it after World War I. From then, it became a "mandate" under British rule. In 1948, it was decided for them that their country would be divided in two and to make way for survivors of the Holocaust -- thereby once and for all, the British hoped, finishing what Hitler had started.

Therefore we see that Zionism is antisemitic, and it cannot be anything else. It is impossible to take a Jewish person who has lived their entire life in, say, Toronto Canada and move them halfway across the world to a place they have never been, their family has never been, their grandparents have never been, and say that is actually their homeland.

In 21st century, Israel serves a very important purpose to the imperial core: it is a staging ground for further incursions into the Middle East/West Asia. Iran, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria (which Israel bombs every so often, including bombing the civilian Damascus Airport in October 2023 during the Flood of Al-Aqsa operation!)... "Israel" is essentially a glorified US military base, and that is why they receive 10 billion USD in "aid" every year.

Does Israel have "a right to exist"? (No)

It's as simple as that. Zionism has always been a colonial and antisemitic project. The area is important to all three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Should Christians be allowed to colonize Israel because Jesus was born in Bethlehem? This is what Zionists believe, if we follow their logic.

It's not an issue of "religion", like some naively believe, or an issue of "race", or anything complicated. It's an issue of an occupier colonizing a territory. And Palestinians are resisting this occupation.

The reason it's "complicated" is because people have an interest in making it seem difficult or complex. Pasty white Zionists who converted to Judaism a month ago are interested in getting their free house in "Israel". So they invent stuff to justify their occupation and hope you won't look into it. Because any reading beyond surface-level of the situation in Palestine will show this is exactly what it is: colonialism.

That's how it works in "Israel", by the way. All Jews are guaranteed citizenship. Israel steals houses from Palestinians, displacing them into refugee camps (Gaza was first built as such a camp), and putting their own people in. This is illegal under Occupation law -- the occupier cannot move its population into the territory it occupies.

"Israel" cabinet for the year 2023. Only 5 POC are counted amongst the many members. The rest would not look out of place in Long Island, New York.

Although, this process only applies if one is white. While Zionists needed to legitimize their made-up movement, "Israel" called Jews from Morocco, Africa, Iraq and elsewhere to come live in occupied Palestine. A "homeland" for all Jews. This was in the 60s and 70s. Now that "Israel" is well-established, they don't need to worry about undesirables (non-White people) anymore. They are undesirable.

Ethiopian Jews are being sterilized (which falls under the definition of genocide). Isarel set up a double-citizenship system where POC Jews do not get the same rights Whites do. POC Jews trying to gain citizenship in Israel from Morocco or elsewhere are being denied entry. They are not needed anymore.

The "Jewish state" is a laughable idea from the start.

We're not even going into why there must be such a thing as a Jewish state. The best argument Zionists have for it is that "the French have France, the English have England". But Judaism is a religion. Is there a Christian state for all Christians? No. Is there an Islamic state for all Muslims? No. A Buddhist state for all Buddhists? No.

A Christian cannot waltz into the Vatican and get citizenship. But this is normal in Israel.

ISIS is fighting for a caliphate, yes, but not for all Muslims. Only their branch. And the world rightly condemns them. We're thus right back where we started: under this logic, Christians are allowed to colonize and seize Bethlehem from Israel. If you disagree, you're bigoted.

This obviously makes no sense.

But now Palestinians are deemed "terrorists" because they dared take up weapons to try and match their colonizer's weapons! Palestinians have rocks and small arms. Their rockets are glorified fireworks. Israel has tanks, a navy and airforce and missiles -- all paid for by the US military-industrial complex.

Suffice to say, nowadays Palestinians are displaced from their own homes. The world rightly stands with them. But some people stay on the fence, deploring the deaths on "both sides" or think Hamas are terrorists. We aim to set the record straight. First of all, Hamas was elected in 2006 in Gaza. Virtually all Palestinians in the world love Hamas. Yes, even in the West Bank. The reason they are considered "terrorists" is because our imperialist countries only recognize the "Palestinian Authority", or Fatah, now only located in the West Bank. Fatah's crime is akin to collaborating with the Nazis in its day. It's the same situation. They happily surrender to their occupier. Their own police put down, for example, pro-Gaza protests in the West Bank!

It's funny that Biden, with his measly 28% approval rating, is considered the legitimate President over the entire United States and nobody disputes that. But Hamas, with their 57% approval rating in Gaza (and 52 in the West Bank) are apparently not. The reason we think Palestinians don't support Hamas is twofold.

1. we think what we're told. The media uses words like "terrorists", "the group that rules Gaza" (as opposed to a party that governs), etc. This language tries to create an "us vs them" mentality, trying to pit the undefined, nebulous "Palestinians" (which ones?) as being separate from Hamas. Thus making Hamas a justified target of retaliations and aggression, and hoping to lower support for Hamas abroad.
2. we think with our Western sensibilities and would like to see a peaceful solution, thinking it's even possible. We, as Europeans or North Americans living in peace, want nothing more than for things to be solved peacefully. But for Palestinians, that's not an option. They tried peace. It didn't work. In the West Bank, you can be kidnapped by the IOF and never seen again at any time.

Hamas is popular in Gaza though. They brought order and some semblance of normal life to Gaza. They got popular by driving out the occupier and its collaborationist arm, Fatah, in 2007. They defend Gaza against incursions from Israel. Generally, Gazans understand the need for resistance, whether it comes from Hamas or another group (we should not forget the resistance is also the PFLP and PIJ and smaller groups).

If Hamas are terrorists, then what is Biden? What is Sunak? What is Macron?

Operation Flood of al-Aqsa

This brings us to the al-Aqsa Flood operation. People are talking of a "massacre" committed by Hamas, and then in the same breath talk about the "disproportionate" response from the occupier ("Israel") and don't see the contradiction!

This is the contradiction: The joint resistance (all groups, not just Hamas) killed and destroyed military targets during the weekend of 7 October. This is important. The resistance does not target civilians like ISIS does. This is further compounded by UN occupation law, and by the fact that Israel decided all citizens must serve in the IOF. Therefore they become military targets as well.

Hamas and the Palestinian resistance (PLO before them for example) have never once summarily executed anyone or beheaded anyone, contrary to ISIS.

"Israel" has been trying very hard on social media to compare Hamas to ISIS, even starting the hashtag #HamasIsis and talking about beheadings (which Hamas has never done) to essentially say that Isis = Hamas = Islam = barbarians. In other words, all Muslims form a monolith and want nothing more than to behead infidels. Lovely propaganda from the "only democracy in the Middle East".

Are Hamas terrorists? Let's look at the facts. First, the Palestinian incursion into the occupied territories was legal. In 1982, the UN reaffirmed that Palestine had the right to use arms, unconditionally, to resist.

Before that, the UN agreed in 1967 that Israel formed an occupying power and therefore Occupation law applied to both parties.

The incursion, which lasted 3 to 4 days, led to the capture of over 150 prisoners of war. This is legal and a normal course of warfare. Since all "Israelis" serve in the military, they are recognized as prisoners of war. Therefore, these are not "kidnappings" like the media says, as that word implies civilians were targetted.

Furthermore, the occupying power is not allowed, under international law, to move its population to the territory it occupies. This makes all settlers, civilian or not, legitimate targets of the resistance. There is precedent for that: an accountant for Nazi Germany stationed in France was just as dangerous as a soldier. If that accountant was French and therefore a collaborator, should he still be considered a "neutral" third-party to this conflict? Is he untouchable, free to send thousands to extermination camps, because he is only a collaborator and not a soldier? Are soldiers incorporated in the Wehrmacht but on clerical or mechanical duty not legitimate targets because they don't carry weapons? This is the basis for occupation law.

There is a very simple solution to settlers if they do not want to be targetted: they can leave. Their passport offers them access to most of the world, as Israel is integrated -- by design, as we discussed -- into imperial core politics. And indeed, as soon as the Operation started, thousands were seen rushing to the airports to board the first flights out. Israel has 30-days visa-free agreements with most of the imperial core. Palestinians, on the other hand, are either stuck in the concentration camp that is Gaza or second-class citizens with no freedom of movement (again a breach of their human rights, but who's even counting except us?). They cannot leave. They cannot go anywhere.

A proportionate response?

The operation led to the deaths of 500 settlers when all was said and done, and lasted only 4 days, after which the resistance drove back to Gaza. Immediately, the occupier responded by attacking Gaza -- a war crime, as they are not allowed to retaliate like this under international law (Israel can "defend itself" only against direct attacks, they cannot target something else as a "defense"). The resistance retaliated, which led to the deaths of 500 more settlers, up to a total of 1000.

Meanwhile, Israel has been bombing and besieging Gaza for almost two weeks. They have cut off water and electricity (which they are obligated to provide under Occupation law, again a crime!). They are preventing aid from entering Gaza. Their actions have led to more than 4000 deaths in Gaza -- killed by the regime -- and more are being added every hour of the day.

When does the "proportionate response" begin?

Many are washing their hands clean, condemning both Hamas and Israel. But it is clear there is a disproportionate power imbalance at play here. Blaming the colonized for resisting against colonisation is essentially whitewashing the occupation. It's saying "1000 dead Israelis is exactly the same as 4000 dead Palestinians". They may not intend this phrasing, but this is what people are saying when they condemn the attack by Hamas.

The situation is as simple as this: Palestine was divided without their consultation. Next, it was rapidly colonized by the made-up state of "Israel" so as to gain a foothold for imperialist actions in West Asia. Today, Palestinians are displaced -- a form of genocide. Everything else is a distraction.