Friday, June 4, 2010

Fisking Ahmed Moor's "Zionism Is Not Judaism"

Now that I have tackled Ahmed Moor's completely ridiculous accusation that Israel is in fact a "Zionist state" and not a Jewish one, let's move on with the rest of his article. We'll start with this completely misleading sentence about what Israel "represents."
"Israel represents people who believe that Jewish people should have a state in Palestine/Israel to the exclusion of the Palestinians. Those people are Zionists. Many Zionists are Jewish, but not all of them."
Like I said the last time I wrote about this, Moor is misleading his audience by implying that Israel is the only state that does this. Yes, Israel is created for Jews. That means that not every single Palestinian who wants to live there will be allowed to, though there are a million and half Arabs who do live there currently. By the same token, a Palestinian state will be created for Palestinian Arabs. That means that not every single Jew (or non-Muslim) who wants to live there will be allowed to. And so on and so forth. Moor is implying that it is somehow discriminatory for Jews to have their own state and be allowed to protect that state's sovereignty. Notice further that this is the closest he comes to actually defining "Zionism" and "Zionists."

Moor continues with references to Zionists who are Jewish, Christian and Muslim, all the while implying that to be a Zionist is to be a terrible human being. He points to people like John Hagee, Shmuely Boteach and Alan Dershowitz as examples of Zionists, as well as AIPAC. What he doesn't mention is the ordinary people of Israel who are Zionists (obviously) as well as larger groups like Christians United for Israel. In some ways this is dishonesty as well: Moor is implying that most people are anti-Zionist like him, when that isn't true (at least not in America). Moving on, let's check out this paragraph:
"And while it is true that Israel automatically grants citizenship to any Jewish person in the world who desires it, many Jewish people don't desire it. In fact, polls have shown that more and more American Jewish people are finding it hard to identify with Israel at all."
 At this point I'm going to focus on that first sentence: Anyone with a basic understanding of Israeli law knows that they don't "automatically" do anything, let alone grant citizenship. Jews do have a distinct advantage in gaining Israeli citizenship, but they still need to apply and be considered (and possibly rejected). For instance criminals who tried to flee to Israel were stopped. Again, this is hardly unique to Israel. I further think it's interesting that Moor needs to rely on the extremely anti-Israel website "Electronic Intifada" for his information. Certainly tells us something about where he is coming from, doesn't it?

Moor continues with his mistakes and biases. Check out this rewrite of history:
"Furthermore, there is a long and vibrant tradition of American Jewish people speaking out against Zionism. For instance, when on April 9, 1948 Zionist terrorist groups -- the Irgun and Lehi -- infiltrated a Palestinian village near Jerusalem and massacred some 240 villagers, American Jewish leaders spoke out."
Wow! So much to say about one little paragraph!
1) The Irgun and Lehi's actions are not "Zionism" any more than Hamas suicide bombers are "Islam." Henceforth, American Jewish leaders criticizing what I&L did does not make them "anti-Zionist." For Ahmed Moor to imply that the actions of people who identify as "Zionist" is the same thing as "Zionism" will open up a huge can of worms: I don't think he intended to do that.
2) I don't mind so much that he called Irgun and Lehi "terrorist groups," because they are (though it would be interesting to see if he would refer to Fatah and Hams the same way). What I find interesting is the qualifier "Zionist." Yeah, they probably would be considered Zionist in the sense that they wanted a Jewish state. But the Haganah was "Zionist" too, and they weren't terrorists. Nor do they appear in the article. It sounds like again Moor is omitting key points of history to try and convince his audience that "Zionist" equals "bad."
3) Finally, although American Jews do criticize actions that Israeli Jews take (which is not Zionism see #1), there is also a great and strong history of American Zionism. American Jews have supported the Zionist cause and Israel more than any other international group. Yet again Moor is implying that many if not most American Jews are critics of Zionism and are anti-Zionist, but that isn't true. He is misleading his audience. What a surprise.

Moor continues with a laundry list of other anti-Zionist Jews who either disagree with what Israel does or with what Israel is, all the while implying that they are not the extreme minority that they are. I'm not going to get too much into the details, but I did want to share this final paragraph:
"The forces for justice in Palestine/Israel are growing. Moral Jewish leaders like Naomi Klein have joined with Palestinians under the banner of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement led by Omar Barghouti to work for justice. It's true that a sustained and principled Palestinian and Jewish focus on the right of return for the refugees of 1948 and 1967 and their descendents threatens to undo the Jewish-only state. But in its place, many Palestinians and Jews hope to see a democratic state for all of her people emerge. Only then will Palestine/Israel truly be an equal and responsible member of the world community, maybe even a light unto nations. And it all begins with the understanding that Zionism is not Judaism, and that justice-loving people exist everywhere."
 Dissecting this one paragraph could probably take a whole new article altogether, but I'll summarize with noting how many Palsbara cliches Moor hits in a few short sentences:
1) Claiming his side is the side for "justice." Justice for what, he can't say, nor how much punishment of Jews would be "just" for him.
2) Advocating the collective punishment of Israelis in the form of BDS.
3) Claiming that people who agree with him are "moral" simply because they agree with him.
4) Strawmanning with the claim that Israel is "Jewish-only" when anyone with an encyclopedia would know that it isn't.
5) Pushing of the destruction of Israel with a Jewish state, but covering up this clearly racist and destructive agenda with promises of happiness and rainbows.
6) Implying that anyone who disagrees with him hates "justice" and "freedom" and is basically loathsome human beings.

Welcome to the Huffington Post.

1 comment:

  1. The reason the anti-Zios have to argue the way they do is they are miserable when Jews are happy. And they're happy only when the Jews get put in their place. For them, life is a zero sum game. It can be won only at someone else's expense and that means Israel at least has to pay the price with more concessions or preferably, disappear altogether. The Ahmed Moors of the world do not believe in co-existing with Jews who are their moral and political equals, which is what Zionism and a Jewish State essentially represents.