situations THE ENDS OF ZIONISM Racism and the Palestinian Struggle Joseph Massad Columbia University, USA Zionism as a colonial movement is constituted the following will illustrate, by a religio-racial in ideology and practice by a religio-racial epistemology of supremacy over the Palestin- epistemology through which it apprehends ian Arabs, not unlike that used by European itself and the world around it. This religio- colonialism with its ideology of white suprem- racial grid informs and is informed by its acy over the natives. More recent debates colonial-settler venture. The colonial model about a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli remains the best model through which ‘conflict’ rarely, if ever, discuss the question of Zionism should be analyzed, but it is impor- racial supremacy. As I have discussed Zion- tant also to analyze the racial dimension of ism’s colonial pedigree elsewhere (Massad Zionism in its current manifestation, which is 2000a), in this article I will focus on this su- often elided. While Zionism in its early history premacist grid, an analysis of which, I believe, presented itself unashamedly as a colonial- is a prerequisite of the victory of the Palestin- settler movement, it later insisted that it was ian struggle. nothing less than a Jewish national liberation It is no longer contested, even among many movement which could even be viewed as Israelis, that the impact of Zionism on the ‘anticolonial’. What Zionism remained un- Palestinian people in the last one hundred ashamed about throughout its history, however, years includes: the expulsion of a majority of was its commitment to building a demo- Palestinians from their lands and homes, the graphically exclusive Jewish state modeled prevention of their return, and the subsequent after Christian Europe – a notion pervaded, as confiscation of their property for the exclusive interventions Vol. 5(3) 440–451 (ISSN 1369-801X print/1469-929X online) Copyright © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1369801032000113021 THE ENDS OF ZIONISM 441 Joseph Massad use of Jews; the military apartheid system Pragmatism or racialism? imposed on those Palestinians who remained in Israel from 1948 until 1966, which since Is the return of the Palestinian refugees not then has been relaxed to a civilian Jewish pragmatic because Israel is too small geo- supremacist system of discrimination; and the graphically? This does not seem to be the case military occupation and apartheid system as Israel continues to market itself as a final imposed on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip destination for millions of diaspora Jews in the and their population for the last thirty-five Americas and in Russia whose interest in years, as well as continued colonization of moving there, despite valiant Zionist efforts, is these occupied territories. Can there be a less than enthusiastic (those who moved from solution to the conflict that Zionism brought Russia between 1990 and 2000 – many of from Europe and imposed on a mostly peasant whom turned out not to be Jewish at all – are population? excepted). In November 2001, as Israel’s Ever since the Oslo ‘peace process’ began in military continued to kill, strafe, and assassi- 1993, most debates among official Israelis, nate the resisting Palestinians of the occupied Americans, and Palestinians about how to territories, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon vowed ‘end’ the conflict between Zionism and the to bring one million more Jews to Israel. Since Palestinians stress the question of pragmatism the Russian Jewish well has almost dried up, as opposed to idealism. The logic runs as it is said that Sharon may opt to encourage the follows: it is not pragmatic to give the refugees half-million Argentine Jews to come and the right of return; it is not pragmatic to give colonially settle in the Jewish state (Brockes them back their property; it is not pragmatic and MacAskill 2001). American Jews have to dismantle the colonial settlements in the overwhelmingly opted not to be ‘redeemed’ in occupied territories; it is not pragmatic to Israel, making it up to Israeli Jews through the return all the territories to Palestinian control; financial and political support that they give it is not pragmatic to end all aspects of the to the Jewish supremacist state while remain- occupation. Moreover, although Israel’s ing in their American ‘exile’. Jewish character was never part of the negoti- Surely, if Israel can accommodate more ations, it has always been made explicit that millions of Jews in its small territory, it could transforming Israel into a non-Jewish (read conceivably do the same for the Palestinian non-racist) state is not pragmatic. refugees whom it expelled and whose land it On the pragmatic side, the arguments run as invites these Jews to colonize. Yet all solutions follows: it is pragmatic for Palestinians to give that have been advanced by official and non- up the right of return; it is pragmatic for official Palestinians and Israeli Jews to resolve Palestinians to accept to live in a Jewish the refugee ‘problem’ seem to agree on the supremacist state as third-class citizens; it is non-pragmatism of the return of the refugees pragmatic for Palestinians to live in Israeli- to their lands. Recent examples of such pro- controlled and -besieged bantustans rather posals include Donna Arzt’s book Refugees than opt for independence; and it is pragmatic Into Citizens: Palestinians and the End of the for Israel to remain a Jewish supremacist state. Arab-Israeli Conflict (1997), and the proposal Identifying the criteria by which these solutions advanced by Harvard University’s Program on are judged as pragmatic or non-pragmatic is International Conflict Analysis and Resolution then the question that poses itself insistently. which was debated by a group of Palestinians interventions – 5:3 442 and Israelis and written by Khalil Shikaki and right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right Joseph Alpher (1998).1 What is at stake for the guaranteed under international law and authors of these proposals, and of many United Nations Resolution 194, must be others, is Israel’s maintenance of its Jewish implemented in a way that takes into account supremacist character (dubbed its ‘Jewish such concerns’ (Arafat 2002). He proceeded to character’). Indeed, in November 2001 even state that he is looking to negotiate with Israel Yasser Arafat, in his continued attempts to on ‘creative solutions to the plight of the maintain power at the expense of his people’s refugees while respecting Israel’s demographic lives and rights, delegated one of his lieuten- concerns’ – i.e., ‘respecting’ its Jewish ants, Sari Nusaybah, who is the Palestinian supremacist concerns. However, what makes Authority representative in East Jerusalem, to the return of Palestinian refugees whom Israel concede the Palestinian refugees’ right of expelled and whose land it stole and steals return. Nusaybah also asserted to a group of non-pragmatic is not some geographic or Knesset members, representing the leftist ‘demographic’ consideration, not some Meretz party, that ‘if Palestinians want a environmental or logistical obstacle; what solution, we must take Israel’s refusal [of makes their return non-pragmatic is that they allowing the Palestinians to return] into are not Jews.2 consideration’ – a concession immediately It is further argued that Israel cannot become welcomed by the Knesset members, who a state of its citizens because to do so means thought it worthy of ‘study’ (Talhami 2001). that it would no longer remain a Jewish state Indeed the liberal Israeli newspaper Ha’Aretz but would become an Israeli state of all its welcomed the concession immediately as did citizens. Indeed, racist views about the demo- one of its leading journalists, Danny Rubin- graphic ‘threat’ that the Palestinians constitute stein (usually seen as sympathetic to the for a Jewish supremacist Israel are not confined Palestinians), who praised Nusaybah’s con- to Ariel Sharon and the Israeli Jewish right cession but lamented that the latter did not wing (which is anyway a majority in Jewish represent the majority opinion among Pales- Israel), but are also voiced by liberal and leftist tinians (ibid.). Nothing came of this, however, Israeli Jews. In December 2000, the Institute of at the official level. Concerned that Israel may Policy and Strategy at the Herzlia Interdiscipli- not take Nusaybah’s concession seriously, nary Center in Israel held its first of a projected Arafat himself frankly expressed his ‘under- series of annual conferences dealing with the standing’ and ‘respect’ of the Israeli need to strength and security of Israel, especially with maintain Jewish supremacy in an editorial he regards to maintaining its Jewish supremacist published in the New York Times. He shame- character. One of the ‘Main Points’ identified lessly asserted: ‘We understand Israel’s demo- in the 52-page conference report is the concern graphic concerns and understand that the over the numbers needed to maintain the Jewish supremacy of Israel: 1 Of the Palestinian group, which, in addition to Shikaki, included other Palestinian pragmatists, namely Ghassan Khatib, Ibrahim Dakkak, Yezid Sayigh, Nadim Rouhana, and The high birthrate [of Israeli Arabs] brings into Nabeel Kassis, only Kassis did not partake of the final drafting question the future of Israel as a Jewish state . of the report (see Alpher and Shikaki 1998: x). Israeli and US Jewish participants included Joseph Alpher, Gabriel Ben-Dor, Yossi Katz, Moshe Ma’oz, Ze’ev Schiff, Shimon Shamir, and 2 For a detailed discussion of all proposed solutions to the Herbert Kelman. refugee problem, see Massad (2001). THE ENDS OF ZIONISM 443 Joseph Massad The present demographic trends, should they ethno-racial supremacy through demographic continue, challenge the future of Israel as a supremacy. He soberly states: Jewish state. Israel has two alternative strate- gies: adaptation or containment.