7 jan 2020
Yitzhak Yosef clarifies comments, saying he didn't mean all Israelis from former USSR, but 'minority of non-Jewish immigrants,' but refuses to walk back original statement despite backlash from across political spectrum
Israel's Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef on Tuesday refused to apologize for an attack on the country's Russian-speaking Jewish community, despite political and public uproar.
"There are many, many gentiles here, some are communists, hostile to religion, haters, of religion," Yosef says in a video made Monday. "They're not even Jewish, they're gentiles."
He doubled down on the comments on Tuesday, declaring in a new video: "I said it clearly and I'll say it again."
He did, however, attempt to qualify his remarks.
"Along with the blessed immigration of Jews from the former USSR, who gave their lives for the protection of Judaism – there is a minority of immigrants who are not Jewish according to halacha, who migrated here on the back of the 'grandson clause' in the Law of Return," he said, referring to the law that allows anyone with a Jewish grandparent to gain Israeli nationality.
"Anyone who lets these gentiles come here works out of superfluous considerations, and chiefly acts in a dishonest manner towards them," he added.
He also again criticized the Law of Return, stating that an amendment to the law was a chief priority.
In the original video obtained by Ynet, Yosef was heard describing the post-Soviet Jewish community as "complete gentiles," whom he said were brought to Israel to influence the social balance in the nation.
The rabbi's statements garnered furious criticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum.
Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, who himself immigrated from Ukraine 1987, called the immigration from former USSR an "integral part of Israeli society."
"We fulfilled our dream of returning to Zion and it's impossible to imagine the State of Israel without the Soviet immigration's major contributions," he said.
"Even during the election campaign, there is no room for such invalid discourse of hatred and division."
Moldovan-born Yisrael Beytenu Chairman Avigdor Liberman, whose party was founded to cater to the Russian-speaking community, branded Yosef's statements as "racist and bluntly anti-Semitic."
Former head of the left-wing Meretz party, Democratic Union MK Tamar Zandberg, called for Yosef to be investigated by police for inciteful comments.
Israel's Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef on Tuesday refused to apologize for an attack on the country's Russian-speaking Jewish community, despite political and public uproar.
"There are many, many gentiles here, some are communists, hostile to religion, haters, of religion," Yosef says in a video made Monday. "They're not even Jewish, they're gentiles."
He doubled down on the comments on Tuesday, declaring in a new video: "I said it clearly and I'll say it again."
He did, however, attempt to qualify his remarks.
"Along with the blessed immigration of Jews from the former USSR, who gave their lives for the protection of Judaism – there is a minority of immigrants who are not Jewish according to halacha, who migrated here on the back of the 'grandson clause' in the Law of Return," he said, referring to the law that allows anyone with a Jewish grandparent to gain Israeli nationality.
"Anyone who lets these gentiles come here works out of superfluous considerations, and chiefly acts in a dishonest manner towards them," he added.
He also again criticized the Law of Return, stating that an amendment to the law was a chief priority.
In the original video obtained by Ynet, Yosef was heard describing the post-Soviet Jewish community as "complete gentiles," whom he said were brought to Israel to influence the social balance in the nation.
The rabbi's statements garnered furious criticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum.
Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, who himself immigrated from Ukraine 1987, called the immigration from former USSR an "integral part of Israeli society."
"We fulfilled our dream of returning to Zion and it's impossible to imagine the State of Israel without the Soviet immigration's major contributions," he said.
"Even during the election campaign, there is no room for such invalid discourse of hatred and division."
Moldovan-born Yisrael Beytenu Chairman Avigdor Liberman, whose party was founded to cater to the Russian-speaking community, branded Yosef's statements as "racist and bluntly anti-Semitic."
Former head of the left-wing Meretz party, Democratic Union MK Tamar Zandberg, called for Yosef to be investigated by police for inciteful comments.
Yitzhak Yosef
Liberman, Edelstein, both immigrants from former Soviet states, and Netanyahu blast Yitzhak Yosef for referring to Russian-speaking immigrants as 'communists' who are 'hostile to religion'; Litzman backs divisive comments
Israel's chief rabbi came under fire on Monday after footage emerged showing him labeling immigrants from the former Soviet Union as "religion hating gentiles."
Yitzhak Yosef launched his vituperative attack at a rabbinical conference held in Jerusalem last week, where he criticized the Law of Return, which makes millions of non-Jewish - according to halacha - descendants of full-blooded Jews, eligible for Israeli citizenship.
"Tens or hundreds of thousands of gentiles came to the country because of the law determining who's Jewish," said Rabbi Yosef. "There are many, many gentiles here, some are communists, hostile to religion, haters of religion. They're not even Jewish, they're gentiles."
The Sephardic rabbi went on to accuse the members of the Russian-speaking community of voting for political parties that "incite against the ultra-Orthodox and the religion."
Yosef also accused the state of deliberately inviting immigrants from the former Soviet Union to the country in an effort to weaken the political power of the ultra-Orthodox public. "They brought them here as leverage against the ultra-Orthodox," the chief rabbi said. "They brought these complete gentiles to weaken the ultra-Orthodox vote during elections. Unfortunately, we see the fruits of their incitement."
Yosef spoke in front of rabbis before their departure to Jewish communities in the Diaspora and advised them not to engage in conversion abroad because of the complexity and halachic sensitivity of the issue.
He then attacked other rabbis who, in his view, are too lenient in requirements for conversion to Judaism, and called to question the faith of those who converted in state rabbinical courts, which are supervised by Yosef himself.
One of the rabbis criticized by Yosef in his speech is a former MK from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, Rabbi Haim Amsalem, who condemned the chief rabbi's statements.
"It's a tragedy that at the top of the rabbinical pyramid in Israel sits a rabbi who does not know his place. All he does is slander and hurt anyone who comes to his mind under the pretext of sacredness," Amsalem said. "He thinks that he'll buy his place among the rabbinical elite by smearing and fighting against lenient conversion which brings people together, but his words show time and time again his lack of understanding in conversion rules."
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also denounced Yosef's statements and called the aliyah from the post-Soviet states a "huge blessing to the State of Israel and the Jewish people."
"This is an outrageous statement that has no place in the discourse," said Netanyahu. "My government will continue to facilitate immigration and integration into the country of our brothers and sisters from the former Soviet Union."
Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, who himself immigrated from Ukraine 1987, also condemned Yosef's statements and called the immigration from former USSR an "integral part of Israeli society."
"We fulfilled our dream of returning to Zion and it's impossible to imagine the State of Israel without the Soviet immigration's major contributions," he said. "Even during the election campaign there is no room for such invalid discourse of hatred and division."
Another lawmaker among the rabbi's critics was Yisrael Beytenu Chairman Avigdor Liberman, who immigrated from Moldova and whose party caters mainly to Israel's Russian-speaking community. He branded Yosef's statements as "racist and bluntly anti-Semitic."
"This must not be tolerated," said Liberman. "We demand [Yosef's] immediate suspension from office and we will campaign to elect a chief rabbi from the religious Zionism, who will know how to contain and embrace - and not separate and divide.
"Just a few days ago, Israel's chief rabbi mocked the secular public, advising them to go to Ashdod [a city with a large Russian-speaking community-ed] and eat pork and today he is inciting against the Russian-speaking public, who work, serve in the army in regular service and as reserves, pay taxes and contribute to the well-being of the state."
Liberman then called on leaders of other parties to strongly condemn Yosef's statements in order to prevent "a critical blow to the delicate fabric of Israeli society."
Liberman, Edelstein, both immigrants from former Soviet states, and Netanyahu blast Yitzhak Yosef for referring to Russian-speaking immigrants as 'communists' who are 'hostile to religion'; Litzman backs divisive comments
Israel's chief rabbi came under fire on Monday after footage emerged showing him labeling immigrants from the former Soviet Union as "religion hating gentiles."
Yitzhak Yosef launched his vituperative attack at a rabbinical conference held in Jerusalem last week, where he criticized the Law of Return, which makes millions of non-Jewish - according to halacha - descendants of full-blooded Jews, eligible for Israeli citizenship.
"Tens or hundreds of thousands of gentiles came to the country because of the law determining who's Jewish," said Rabbi Yosef. "There are many, many gentiles here, some are communists, hostile to religion, haters of religion. They're not even Jewish, they're gentiles."
The Sephardic rabbi went on to accuse the members of the Russian-speaking community of voting for political parties that "incite against the ultra-Orthodox and the religion."
Yosef also accused the state of deliberately inviting immigrants from the former Soviet Union to the country in an effort to weaken the political power of the ultra-Orthodox public. "They brought them here as leverage against the ultra-Orthodox," the chief rabbi said. "They brought these complete gentiles to weaken the ultra-Orthodox vote during elections. Unfortunately, we see the fruits of their incitement."
Yosef spoke in front of rabbis before their departure to Jewish communities in the Diaspora and advised them not to engage in conversion abroad because of the complexity and halachic sensitivity of the issue.
He then attacked other rabbis who, in his view, are too lenient in requirements for conversion to Judaism, and called to question the faith of those who converted in state rabbinical courts, which are supervised by Yosef himself.
One of the rabbis criticized by Yosef in his speech is a former MK from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, Rabbi Haim Amsalem, who condemned the chief rabbi's statements.
"It's a tragedy that at the top of the rabbinical pyramid in Israel sits a rabbi who does not know his place. All he does is slander and hurt anyone who comes to his mind under the pretext of sacredness," Amsalem said. "He thinks that he'll buy his place among the rabbinical elite by smearing and fighting against lenient conversion which brings people together, but his words show time and time again his lack of understanding in conversion rules."
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also denounced Yosef's statements and called the aliyah from the post-Soviet states a "huge blessing to the State of Israel and the Jewish people."
"This is an outrageous statement that has no place in the discourse," said Netanyahu. "My government will continue to facilitate immigration and integration into the country of our brothers and sisters from the former Soviet Union."
Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, who himself immigrated from Ukraine 1987, also condemned Yosef's statements and called the immigration from former USSR an "integral part of Israeli society."
"We fulfilled our dream of returning to Zion and it's impossible to imagine the State of Israel without the Soviet immigration's major contributions," he said. "Even during the election campaign there is no room for such invalid discourse of hatred and division."
Another lawmaker among the rabbi's critics was Yisrael Beytenu Chairman Avigdor Liberman, who immigrated from Moldova and whose party caters mainly to Israel's Russian-speaking community. He branded Yosef's statements as "racist and bluntly anti-Semitic."
"This must not be tolerated," said Liberman. "We demand [Yosef's] immediate suspension from office and we will campaign to elect a chief rabbi from the religious Zionism, who will know how to contain and embrace - and not separate and divide.
"Just a few days ago, Israel's chief rabbi mocked the secular public, advising them to go to Ashdod [a city with a large Russian-speaking community-ed] and eat pork and today he is inciting against the Russian-speaking public, who work, serve in the army in regular service and as reserves, pay taxes and contribute to the well-being of the state."
Liberman then called on leaders of other parties to strongly condemn Yosef's statements in order to prevent "a critical blow to the delicate fabric of Israeli society."
Yaakov Litzman
Health Minister Yaakov Litzman, however, defended the rabbi and tongue-lashed at Liberman instead. "We fully support Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef in the face of the political attacks against him," said Litzman.
"The last person who can preach to others about incitement is Avigdor Liberman - a person who can't stop stoking the flames between different sectors in society and acts maliciously, without any public responsibility in order to divide and damage the delicate fabric of the various sectors in Israel."
Litzman has been heavily criticized for his alleged involvement in allowing a former Melbourne principal evade sexual abuse charges.
The Israel Police has recommended that Litzman be charged with fraud and breach of trust for suspicions that, as deputy health minister, he pressured ministry employees to skew Leifer's psychiatric evaluations to say that she was not fit to stand trial.
Health Minister Yaakov Litzman, however, defended the rabbi and tongue-lashed at Liberman instead. "We fully support Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef in the face of the political attacks against him," said Litzman.
"The last person who can preach to others about incitement is Avigdor Liberman - a person who can't stop stoking the flames between different sectors in society and acts maliciously, without any public responsibility in order to divide and damage the delicate fabric of the various sectors in Israel."
Litzman has been heavily criticized for his alleged involvement in allowing a former Melbourne principal evade sexual abuse charges.
The Israel Police has recommended that Litzman be charged with fraud and breach of trust for suspicions that, as deputy health minister, he pressured ministry employees to skew Leifer's psychiatric evaluations to say that she was not fit to stand trial.
3 jan 2020
By Ramzy Baroud for Middle East Monitor
At a talk I delivered in Northern England in March 2018, I proposed that the best response to falsified accusations of antisemitism, which are often lobbed against pro-Palestinian communities and intellectuals everywhere, is to draw even closer to the Palestinian narrative.
In fact, my proposal was not meant to be a sentimental response in any way.
“Reclaiming the Palestinian narrative” has been the main theme in most of my public speeches and writings in recent years. All of my books, much of my academic studies and research have largely focused on positioning the Palestinian people – their rights, their history, their culture, and their political aspirations – at the very core of any genuine understanding of the Palestinian struggle, against Israeli colonialism and apartheid.
Ture, there was nothing particularly special about my talk in Northern England. I had already delivered a version of that speech in other parts of the UK, Europe and elsewhere. But what made that event memorable is a conversation I had with a passionate activist, who introduced himself as an advisor to the office of the head of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.
Although the activist agreed with me regarding the need to embrace the Palestinian narrative, he insisted that the best way for Corbyn to deflect anti-Semitic accusations, which have dogged his leadership since day one, is for Labour to issue a sweeping and decisive condemnation of antisemitism, so that Corbyn may silence his critics and he is finally able to focus on the pressing subject of Palestinian rights.
I was doubtful. I explained to the animated and self-assured activist that Zionist manipulation and misuse of antisemitism is a phenomenon that has preceded Corbyn by many decades, and will always be there as long as the Israeli government finds the need to distract from its war crimes against Palestinians and to crush pro-Palestinian solidarity worldwide.
I explained to him that while anti-Jewish racism is a real phenomenon that must be confronted, “antisemitism” as defined by Israel and its Zionist allies is not a moral question that is meant to be solved by a press release, no matter how strongly-worded. Rather, it is a smokescreen, with the ultimate aim is of distracting from the real conversation, that being the crimes of military occupation, racism, and apartheid in Palestine.
In other words, no amount of talking, debating or defending oneself can possibly convince the Zionists that demanding an end to the Israeli military occupation in Palestine or the dismantling of the Israeli apartheid regime, or genuine criticism of the policies of Israel’s right-wing government are not, in fact, acts of antisemitism.
Alas, the activist insisted that a strong statement that would clarify Labour’s position on antisemitism would finally absolve Corbyn and protect his legacy against the undeserved smearing.
The rest is history. Labour went into a witch-hunt, to catch the “true” anti-Semites among its members. The unprecedented purge has reached many good people who have dedicated years in serving their communities and defending human rights in Palestine and elsewhere.
The statement to end all statements was followed by many others. Numerous articles and arguments were written and made in defense of Corbyn. To no avail. Only few days before Labour lost the general election in December, the Simon Wiesenthal Center named Corbyn, one of Britain’s most sincere and well-intentioned leaders in the modern era, as the “top anti-Semite of 2019”. So much for engaging the Zionists.
It doesn’t matter whether Corbyn’s party lost the elections in part because of Zionist smearing and unfounded anti-Semitic accusations. What, for me, as a Palestinian intellectual who has hoped that Corbyn’s leadership will constitute a paradigm shift regarding the country’s attitude towards Israel and Palestine truly matters, is the fact that the Zionists have indeed succeeded in keeping the conversation focused on Israeli priorities and Zionist sensibilities.
It saddens me that while Palestine should have occupied the center stage, at least during Corbyn’s leadership years, it was still marginalized as if solidarity with Palestine has become a political liability to anyone hoping to win an election, not just in the UK but anywhere in the West as well.
I find it puzzling, indeed disturbing, that Israel, directly or otherwise, is able to determine the nature of any discussion on Palestine in the West, not only within typical mainstream platforms but within pro-Palestinians circles as well. For example, I have heard repeatedly, activists questioning whether the one-state solution is at all possible because “Israel simply would never accept it”.
I often challenge my audiences to base their solidarity with Palestine on real love, support, and admiration for the Palestinian people, for their history, their anti-colonial struggle, and the thousands of heroes and heroines who have sacrificed their own lives so that their people may live in freedom.
How many of us can name Palestine’s top poets, artists, feminists, football players, singers, and historians? How familiar are we, really, with Palestinian geography, the intricacies of its politics, and the richness of its culture?
Even in platforms that are sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle, there is an inherent fear that such sympathy could be misconstrued as antisemitism to the extent that Palestinian voices are often neglected, if not at all supplanted with anti-Zionist Jewish voices. I see this happening quite often, and it is becoming a common occurrence even within Middle Eastern media that supposedly champions the Palestinian cause.
This phenomenon is largely linked to Palestine and Palestine only. While the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and the civil rights struggle in the United States – as was the case of many genuine anti-colonial liberation movements around the world – have strategically used intersectionality to link with other groups, locally, nationally or internationally, the movements themselves relied on black voices as true representatives of their peoples’ struggles.
Historically, Palestinians haven’t always been marginalized within their own discourse. Once upon a time, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), despite of its many shortcomings and mistakes, provided unified Palestinian political discourse which served as a litmus test for any individual, group or government regarding their position on Palestinian rights and freedom.
The Oslo accords ended all of that; it fragmented the Palestinian discourse, as it has also divided the Palestinian people. Since then, the message emanating from Palestine has become muddled, factionalised and often self-defeating. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) has done a tremendous job in bringing some clarity by attempting to articulate a universal Palestinian discourse.
However, BDS is yet to yield a centralised political strategy that communicated through a democratically elected Palestinian body. As long as the PLO persists in its inertia, and without a truly democratic alternative, the crisis of the Palestinian political discourse is likely to continue.
Concurrently, the Zionists must not be allowed to determine the nature of our solidarity with the Palestinian people. While true Palestinian solidarity requires the complete rejection of all forms of racism, including antisemitism, the pro-Israel camp must be sidelined entirely from any conversation pertaining to the values and morality of what it means to be “pro-Palestine”.
To be anti-Zionist is not the same as being pro-Palestine, the former emanating from the rejection of racist, Zionist ideas and the latter indicating real connection and bond with Palestine and her people.
To be pro-Palestine is also to respect the centrality of the Palestinian voice, because without the Palestinian narrative there can be no real or meaningful solidarity, and because, ultimately it will be the Palestinian people who will liberate themselves.
“I am not a liberator,” the iconic South American revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara, once said. “Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves”.
Author: Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. He has authored a number of books on the Palestinian struggle including ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’ (Pluto Press, London). Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Centre for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.
At a talk I delivered in Northern England in March 2018, I proposed that the best response to falsified accusations of antisemitism, which are often lobbed against pro-Palestinian communities and intellectuals everywhere, is to draw even closer to the Palestinian narrative.
In fact, my proposal was not meant to be a sentimental response in any way.
“Reclaiming the Palestinian narrative” has been the main theme in most of my public speeches and writings in recent years. All of my books, much of my academic studies and research have largely focused on positioning the Palestinian people – their rights, their history, their culture, and their political aspirations – at the very core of any genuine understanding of the Palestinian struggle, against Israeli colonialism and apartheid.
Ture, there was nothing particularly special about my talk in Northern England. I had already delivered a version of that speech in other parts of the UK, Europe and elsewhere. But what made that event memorable is a conversation I had with a passionate activist, who introduced himself as an advisor to the office of the head of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.
Although the activist agreed with me regarding the need to embrace the Palestinian narrative, he insisted that the best way for Corbyn to deflect anti-Semitic accusations, which have dogged his leadership since day one, is for Labour to issue a sweeping and decisive condemnation of antisemitism, so that Corbyn may silence his critics and he is finally able to focus on the pressing subject of Palestinian rights.
I was doubtful. I explained to the animated and self-assured activist that Zionist manipulation and misuse of antisemitism is a phenomenon that has preceded Corbyn by many decades, and will always be there as long as the Israeli government finds the need to distract from its war crimes against Palestinians and to crush pro-Palestinian solidarity worldwide.
I explained to him that while anti-Jewish racism is a real phenomenon that must be confronted, “antisemitism” as defined by Israel and its Zionist allies is not a moral question that is meant to be solved by a press release, no matter how strongly-worded. Rather, it is a smokescreen, with the ultimate aim is of distracting from the real conversation, that being the crimes of military occupation, racism, and apartheid in Palestine.
In other words, no amount of talking, debating or defending oneself can possibly convince the Zionists that demanding an end to the Israeli military occupation in Palestine or the dismantling of the Israeli apartheid regime, or genuine criticism of the policies of Israel’s right-wing government are not, in fact, acts of antisemitism.
Alas, the activist insisted that a strong statement that would clarify Labour’s position on antisemitism would finally absolve Corbyn and protect his legacy against the undeserved smearing.
The rest is history. Labour went into a witch-hunt, to catch the “true” anti-Semites among its members. The unprecedented purge has reached many good people who have dedicated years in serving their communities and defending human rights in Palestine and elsewhere.
The statement to end all statements was followed by many others. Numerous articles and arguments were written and made in defense of Corbyn. To no avail. Only few days before Labour lost the general election in December, the Simon Wiesenthal Center named Corbyn, one of Britain’s most sincere and well-intentioned leaders in the modern era, as the “top anti-Semite of 2019”. So much for engaging the Zionists.
It doesn’t matter whether Corbyn’s party lost the elections in part because of Zionist smearing and unfounded anti-Semitic accusations. What, for me, as a Palestinian intellectual who has hoped that Corbyn’s leadership will constitute a paradigm shift regarding the country’s attitude towards Israel and Palestine truly matters, is the fact that the Zionists have indeed succeeded in keeping the conversation focused on Israeli priorities and Zionist sensibilities.
It saddens me that while Palestine should have occupied the center stage, at least during Corbyn’s leadership years, it was still marginalized as if solidarity with Palestine has become a political liability to anyone hoping to win an election, not just in the UK but anywhere in the West as well.
I find it puzzling, indeed disturbing, that Israel, directly or otherwise, is able to determine the nature of any discussion on Palestine in the West, not only within typical mainstream platforms but within pro-Palestinians circles as well. For example, I have heard repeatedly, activists questioning whether the one-state solution is at all possible because “Israel simply would never accept it”.
I often challenge my audiences to base their solidarity with Palestine on real love, support, and admiration for the Palestinian people, for their history, their anti-colonial struggle, and the thousands of heroes and heroines who have sacrificed their own lives so that their people may live in freedom.
How many of us can name Palestine’s top poets, artists, feminists, football players, singers, and historians? How familiar are we, really, with Palestinian geography, the intricacies of its politics, and the richness of its culture?
Even in platforms that are sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle, there is an inherent fear that such sympathy could be misconstrued as antisemitism to the extent that Palestinian voices are often neglected, if not at all supplanted with anti-Zionist Jewish voices. I see this happening quite often, and it is becoming a common occurrence even within Middle Eastern media that supposedly champions the Palestinian cause.
This phenomenon is largely linked to Palestine and Palestine only. While the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and the civil rights struggle in the United States – as was the case of many genuine anti-colonial liberation movements around the world – have strategically used intersectionality to link with other groups, locally, nationally or internationally, the movements themselves relied on black voices as true representatives of their peoples’ struggles.
Historically, Palestinians haven’t always been marginalized within their own discourse. Once upon a time, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), despite of its many shortcomings and mistakes, provided unified Palestinian political discourse which served as a litmus test for any individual, group or government regarding their position on Palestinian rights and freedom.
The Oslo accords ended all of that; it fragmented the Palestinian discourse, as it has also divided the Palestinian people. Since then, the message emanating from Palestine has become muddled, factionalised and often self-defeating. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) has done a tremendous job in bringing some clarity by attempting to articulate a universal Palestinian discourse.
However, BDS is yet to yield a centralised political strategy that communicated through a democratically elected Palestinian body. As long as the PLO persists in its inertia, and without a truly democratic alternative, the crisis of the Palestinian political discourse is likely to continue.
Concurrently, the Zionists must not be allowed to determine the nature of our solidarity with the Palestinian people. While true Palestinian solidarity requires the complete rejection of all forms of racism, including antisemitism, the pro-Israel camp must be sidelined entirely from any conversation pertaining to the values and morality of what it means to be “pro-Palestine”.
To be anti-Zionist is not the same as being pro-Palestine, the former emanating from the rejection of racist, Zionist ideas and the latter indicating real connection and bond with Palestine and her people.
To be pro-Palestine is also to respect the centrality of the Palestinian voice, because without the Palestinian narrative there can be no real or meaningful solidarity, and because, ultimately it will be the Palestinian people who will liberate themselves.
“I am not a liberator,” the iconic South American revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara, once said. “Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves”.
Author: Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. He has authored a number of books on the Palestinian struggle including ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’ (Pluto Press, London). Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Centre for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.
Page: 2 - 1
