Zionism its Role in World Politics

Şenay Yeğin

Tuesday , 24 April 2007

Author: Hyman Lumer. New York: International Publishers, 1973. 152 pages. ISBN 0-7118-0383-X

In the 8th Century, after the exile of Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans, the word “Zion” has been uttered by the Jews to emphasize their longing for the Promised Land: Palestine. Today, the word Zion is being used as a modern term, Zionism which is the name given to the movement of the Jews who are in Diaspora to gather on the land of Palestine again. Zion has become an ideology as Zionism; but it did not serve to the civilization development in the Middle East. Instead Middle East came out to be a deadlock. Is it a deadlock because of pure Zionist intentions or imperialist missions? The American Marxist Hyman Lumer in his book “Zionism Its Role in World Politics” answered this question by defining Zionism as a nationalist movement serving to imperialism and US aims over the oil territories.

It is easy to understand the message that Lumer tries to give from the cover of the book on which there is a shape of world circled by “Zionism”. Lumer’s thesis in his book is that Zionism is not only gathering of Jews in the Promised Land but its support to imperialism which is a big actor in world politics. In the first part of his book, Lumer introduces Zionism by explaining its roots and nature, its contribution to the establishment of Israel, and its socialist side. In the second part, his emphasis is on the purpose of Zionism which is being in the service of imperialism. He supports his arguments by questioning how Zionism got support from imperialist powers, what kind of an expansionist policy it had and its imperialist policies over Africa. In the third part, Lumer elaborates on the Zionist organizations in the US and on the role of monopoly capital. In the next part, he emphasizes that Zionism was a nationalist movement and he explains that Zionism’s reaction was the formation of a fascist organization, the Jewish Defense League. In the fifth part, he points to the Soviet Jews in Israel and in the last part; he emphasizes the reaction of Jews in the US and in Israel to Zionism.

In the first part, Lumer defines political Zionism by the creation and perpetuation of a Jewish state and makes a distinction with its religious definition which is the belief in an eventual return to the Holy Land upon the coming of the Messiah. The two most important forerunners of Zionism were Leon Pinsker and Theodor Herzl who wrote books about it after the development of anti-semitism with the upsurge of imperialism and racism in the 19th Century. According to Lumer, as a political ideology Zionism was based on two points which were that the Jews throughout the world form a nation and that anti-semitism is eternal. He emphasized that Zionism is not only an ideology, but it is also an organized movement which is based on the principle of the establishment of a state which is purely Jewish to escape anti-semitism. However while escaping anti-semitism; Lumer emphasizes that Jews treated Israeli Arabs as second-class citizens.

In the first part, Lumer emphasizes that there were also socialist trends in a nationalist movement like Zionism in the beginning of 1900s. The supporters of socialist Zionists in the tsarist Russia had gathered under organizations like Workers of Zion which supported a socialist Jewish state in Palestine. Moreover Lumer emphasizes that today; there are socialist developments in Israel like kibbutz, which is the communal enterprise whose members in return provided only by the necessities of life. He emphasizes that 58.5 percent of Israel’s economy is private sector which belongs mostly to foreign capital.

In the second part of the book, Lumer is supporting his argument that, Zionism is serving to imperialism because of Israel’s will of all of Palestine, its expansionist policies and its relations with Africa. Israel willed not only to possess their homeland but all of Palestine. Herzl wanted Jews to be backed by imperialist countries such as the Ottoman Empire, Germany, Russia and France for possessing the land of Palestine. Other than these countries Britain and the USA supported Jews for their mission, too. By the Balfour Declaration in 1917, with the invasion of Palestine by Britain, Jews were assisted by Britain. Besides Britain a committee in the USA, American Emergency Committee for Zionist Affairs, was founded for the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth.

Between 1958 and 1966, Israel implemented expansionist policies; forming ties with 39 countries in Africa, 23 in Latin America, 11 in Asia and 8 in Mediterranean. Israel supported French imperialism against the independence movements of Algerians and it joined to Britain’s and France’s invasion of Egypt in 1956. In 1958, after the leadership of an anti-imperialist regime in Iraq, Israel supported Britain and US when their troops landed to protect Jordan and Lebanon from the regime. In 1967, Israel used its expansionist policies by invading Egypt. However its expansionist policies were not only for Arab countries but also for African countries. Israel was basically an associate of South Africa which had an apartheid regime. However, it gave military aid to national liberation fronts in Africa for presenting Israel as a socialist but not communist and more acceptable than imperialist powers.

In the third part, Lumer emphasizes that Zionism is in association with the US by explaining Zionist organizational movements there, US aid to Israel and its dependence on US capital. In the US, Zionism did not have many followers in the beginning of the 19th Century, because the ones who did not support it thought the return to the homeland could only occur by the upcoming of the Messiah. However after the Holocaust and the upsurge of Jewish nationalism, organizations were founded some of which were Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Zionist Organization of America and United Labor Organization of America. Moreover, the US Jews aided Israel’s political parties and the institutions that support their policies since the establishment of Israel, under the umbrella organization called The United Jewish Appeal. Furthermore, Lumer emphasizes that US imperialism shows itself in the Israeli economy, by saying that a vast part of investments are owned by Ford, Motorola and other US companies. Eighty percent of Israel’s foreign debt is also owned by US government which makes Israel dependent on the foreign capital of the US imperialism. Moreover, the main point of the book is given in this part which is that US is trying to use Israel as a weapon against Arab liberation movement and its threat to US oil investments by making it dependent on its capital. Especially after the 1967 war with Egypt Israel became highly dependent on US.

Besides, Lumer’s emphasize on Israel’s dependence on the US capital, in the fourth chapter, he raises the point that Zionism became a reactionary movement and that it supported racism by forming an ultra-racist organization which tried to combat Soviet Russia, blacks and Arabs. According to Lumer, if a country is capitalist it uses racial or nationalist oppression to prevail its exploitation. For the Jewish question, there are Marxist and Zionist views. According to the Marxist point of view Jewish question is based on the recognition of the class roots of anti-semitism and working class unity. On the other hand, the Zionists view anti-semitism as everlasting and a distinctive form of repression. Moreover, he gives the example of the Soviet Russia which resolved the Jewish question by eliminating the capitalist roots of racism. According to Lumer, the incline of Jewish nationalism after the 1967 war caused the establishment of Jewish Defense League (JDL) in 1968. The shift to right among Zionists is being criticized by Lumer. He says that racism fosters the exploitation of workers and anti-semitism only occurs in the societies of class exploitation. According to Lumer, it was a reactionary movement that was founded for protecting Jews from blacks in New York. JDL was found guilty because of the bomb attacks. Some of the targets of the attack were against Soviet News Agency, Soviet Embassy, and Palestinian Liberalization Organization. Moreover, Lumer emphasizes that JDL was used as a tool for CIA’s anti-Soviet operations.

In the fifth part, Lumer singles out the point that the difficulties that Jews came across in the Soviet Union are only lies. The Jews in the Soviet Russia came across with Zionist hostility especially after the 1967 war. The Soviets were accused by implementing discriminatory laws to the Jews like not allowing them leave the country or by forcing them to carry domestic passports to expose Jews to discrimination. In the Soviet Russia, Jews’ religious freedom was restricted, too. However, Lumer emphasizes that the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights invoked the Soviet Jews to immigrate to Israel. However after the immigration Jews wanted to return to Soviet Russia, because it was hard to live in a capitalist system. Moreover, he points out that there is a big lie which claims that the Jews in the Soviet Russia were treated intolerably by the Russians.

In the last part, Lumer is making emphasize on the point that there is a rising opposition to Zionism in the USA and Israeli policies in Israel. There is an incline of peace movements in Israel which are usually against Israeli imperialist policies. The opposition in the US is generally among the young Jews who have leftist political views. It is not only among Jews but also among non-jews, too.

As far as Lumer has Marxist point of views and that he was one of the editors in the Political Affairs Magazine which is a publication of the Communist Party in the USA, it must be considered that a Marxist point of view can not be neutral for criticizing a nationalist movement of the Jews. It must be noted that this book was published in 1973, while the Soviet Union was still alive. So as a Marxist author in a capitalist country, the longing for a communist regime and also criticizing Zionism as a servant of imperialism are both inevitable. However, when the policies of Israel are compared with its current policies, it is noteworthy that Israel is still making attempts to invade its neighbors and it is still a major ally of the US.

Russia accuses U.S. of meddling, aiding radicals

By Christian Lowe 1 hour, 1 minute ago

Russia's parliament alleged on Friday that the United States was helping train radical political groups which threatened the country's stability in the run-up to parliamentary and presidential elections.

A coalition of Kremlin critics said the allegations were designed to discredit it on the eve of a protest against President Vladimir Putin's rule it is planning to stage in Moscow, in defiance of a police ban.

The State Duma, the lower house of parliament which is dominated by Kremlin supporters, unanimously passed a motion in which alleged U.S. officials took part in events "whose organizers include openly extremist forces."

"Under the guise of helping the conduct of a free and fair election ... U.S. taxpayers' money is being used to fund numerous training courses, surveys, seminars and other events which propagandize tendentious assessments that distort the situation ... in Russia," said the motion.

The "Other Russia" opposition coalition has said it expects about 5,000 supporters to gather in central Moscow on Saturday for a rally to protest at what it calls the crushing of democratic freedoms under Putin.

Police have warned they will act decisively to prevent any illegal action. The protest organizers have said they fear police actions could lead to violence.

SABOTAGE

"Other Russia" -- led by chess champion Garry Kasparov and former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov -- has marginal influence in a country where the vast majority back Putin and credit him with bringing economic growth and political stability.

But the Kremlin and its supporters say the group is trying to sabotage that stability in the run-up to a parliamentary election in December and a 2008 presidential vote when Putin will step down.

The allegations of U.S. meddling "provide a pretext to accuse the democratic opposition of being agents of the West, fifth columnists, and that we live and work on the money of the State Department," said opposition politician Vladimir Ryzhkov.

"This is the Kremlin's theme number one on the eve of tomorrow's march. It is in their interest to paint the whole opposition as U.S. agents," Ryzhkov, one of the leaders of "Other Russia," told Reuters.

A statement by Russian multi-millionaire Boris Berezovsky, made in an interview published on Friday, that he wanted to topple Putin in a revolution, is also likely to discredit legitimate opposition forces, said Ryzhkov.

Earlier on Friday, the Federation Council, or upper house of parliament, passed a motion of its own censuring the U.S. State Department for a report last month that was critical of Russia's record on human rights and democratic freedoms.

On Thursday, the Foreign Ministry accused the United States of meddling in domestic politics and a pro-Kremlin youth organization staged a protest outside the U.S. embassy in Moscow.

In the front line of Putin's secret war

By Adrian Blomfield in Tazan Kala

Last Updated: 2:27am BST 27/03/2007

In pictures: Chechnya's secret war Crouching behind bushes left bare by the winter, the camouflaged fighters waited in tense expectation on the bleak Caucasian mountain side. Casually flicking his cigarette into the mud, the Chechen loyalist commander raised his radio towards his mouth and barked an order. On the ridge above us a modified anti-aircraft gun opened fire, directing its staccato bursts towards Tazan Kala, a tiny settlement and rebel stronghold nestled in the isolated foothills of southern Chechnya. Seconds later, automatic gunfire punctuated by the crunch of mortars echoed through the mountains. From their positions across the valley, the rebels sporadically began to return fire but, outnumbered and outgunned, theirs seems a hopeless cause. Drawn up against them were members of the Eastern Battalion, a Chechen special forces unit that once fought alongside the separatists, but now pledges allegiance to Moscow. For these hardened fighters, this was just another battle. In the past few years they have become the vanguard of President Vladimir Putin's war in Chechnya, a campaign so secret it is officially no longer being fought. Last month, Mr Putin named a former rebel, Ramzan Kadyrov, as the Chechen republic's new president. The appointment was accompanied by a flurry of declarations from the Kremlin that the war was over and the last of the rebels had surrendered. advertisement But after witnessing the battle for Tazan Kala, The Daily Telegraph can reveal compelling evidence that a secret war is underway, and could last for years. Sitting in his heavily fortified base in Chechnya's second city of Gudermes on the eve of the battle, the tracksuit-clad commander of the Eastern Battalion claimed there were well over 1,000 separatist rebels and foreign Islamic militants entrenched in the mountains. "The war is not over," said Colonel Sulim Yamadayev, Chechnya's second most powerful loyalist warlord after Ramzan Kadyrov. "The war is far from being over. What we are facing now is basically a classic partisan war and my prognosis is that it will last two, three, maybe even five more years." In an attempt to stem the steady trickle of Russian casualties, 11,000 of whom are estimated to have died since the second Chechen war erupted in 1999, Mr Putin has made Yamadayev his main battlefield commander. That in itself seems odd. Yamadayev and the vast majority of his men, known in Chechnya as Yamadayevtsi, fought alongside the rebels in the first Chechen war, waged between 1994 and 1996. In that campaign, Yamadayev was even a close ally of Shamil Basayev, Russia's most wanted terrorist, who claimed responsibility for the Beslan school siege in 2004 among numerous atrocities. He was killed in an explosion last year. Now a close Kremlin ally, personally decorated by Mr Putin, Yamadayev says he changed sides after Islamic extremists infiltrated and, despite being a small minority, then began to dominate the rebel movement. Critics say he defected after being offered large financial inducements. Whatever is the case, Mr Putin has got what he wants. The rebels have been stripped of much of their support base, while the president now sends in Chechen proxies to fight his war for him. Their faces wizened from over a decade in the battlefield, the Eastern Battalion fighters are a much tougher proposition for the rebels than the poorly equipped, unmotivated and corrupt Russian soldiers - who often used to sell their weapons to the enemy - that they fight alongside. The battle plan at Tazan Kala was meticulously executed. The rebels, taken by surprise, found themselves surrounded on three sides. "The artillery will smoke them out of their base," said Magomet, commander of the Eastern Battalion company in the notoriously volatile town of nearby Vedeno. "Now we will lure them towards us. They are walking into a trap." A bus wound its way slowly through the hills nearby. We paused briefly to watch the faces of its mostly female passengers, pressed against the windows in terror, and then moved on. It is civilians who have made up the vast majority of casualties in the two Chechen wars, which have claimed some 200,000 lives according to conservative estimates. "Allahu Akhbar [God is great]," shouted Magomet as his radio crackled into life. "We are coming under fire in this area all the time. There are a lot of bad guys around here - this is Wahabi Central," he said, referring to the Islamists who have long fought in the conflict and follow the puritanical Wahabi strain of Sunni Islam. We reached a bend in the river and before us lay the first signs of success: the corpses of four rebels scattered across the river bank. Two appeared to have been finished off with a bullet to the back of the head. A third had blown himself up with his own grenade in an attempt to avoid capture. The Yamadayevtsi, who often like to severe the heads of their dead victims, have a brutal reputation when it comes to prisoners. Human rights activists say captive rebels, as well as innocent civilians who run foul of the Eastern Battalion, are frequently sexually abused and then tortured to death. Yamadayev insists that the rebels have to be dealt with uncompromisingly. But as the fighters strip the corpses of ammunition, gunfire suddenly erupts around us. I watched as a rebel in black blazed away with his gun from behind a tree. But 15 minutes later it was all over - the rebels had retreated. Four had been killed, but unlike Mr Putin, apparently, the special forces know there are plenty more rebels lurking in southern Chechnya's sinister mountains.

Play ball with Russia

Editor's note: I am moving over to post at another blog(also see new articles below).
---
The Kremlin softened its position on Iran; now it rightfully expects the U.S. to listen up on Kosovo.

By Dimitri K. Simes, DIMITRI K. SIMES is president of the Nixon Center and publisher of the National Interest magazine.

March 22, 2007

HERE'S SOME good news: Russia is moving toward cooperating with the United States when it comes to Iran. This week at a Senate hearing, a State Department representative indicated that Russia could be expected to press Iran on the matter of nuclear proliferation. It's also becoming clear that the Kremlin would support further sanctions against Iran and would withhold nuclear fuel from the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But that good news could change.

The Kremlin's movement toward the U.S. position on Iran comes in part from a reluctance to see a nuclear-armed Iran, concern over Ahmadinejad's unpredictability, eagerness to avoid a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and frustration over contractual disputes with Tehran. But it is also a gesture toward the Bush administration and European powers that Moscow wants to be viewed as a responsible player in the world arena.

Now Russia is waiting for the U.S. response on issues important to the Kremlin. First up is the question of independence for the Serbian region of Kosovo. Populated by ethnic Albanians, Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia until 1999, when a U.S.-orchestrated NATO intervention — without a U.N. Security Council mandate — seized the territory and established what is essentially a U.N. protectorate under de facto administration by NATO.

Now, with billions of dollars spent, NATO wants to end its mission. On March 26, the United Nations is expected to consider gradual independence for Kosovo. The Kosovo government has embraced the proposal, but Serbia, which wants to regain control of Kosovo, rejects it. Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica complains that by granting Kosovo independence, the United Nations would for the first time formally break up a sovereign member state without its consent.

But much more than the rights of the Serbs and the Kosovars is at stake, and this is where things get complicated. Moscow, which has a veto on the Security Council, has made clear that it will oppose any plan opposed by Serbia. Except, possibly, under one set of circumstances: Moscow could theoretically be persuaded to abstain on the condition that independence would also be granted to pro-Russian separatist enclaves in the country of Georgia.

Like Kosovo vis-a-vis Serbia, those Georgian enclaves — Abkhazia and South Ossetia — have enjoyed effective independence for years, and their populations have lists of grievances against Georgians. Georgia, however, considers them its territory, and Georgia is quickly becoming the No. 1 U.S. client state in the Caucasus.

A reasonable solution would be to find a compromise that would win Serbia's support by either falling short of complete independence or by allowing a few areas of Kosovo to remain in Serbia, thus setting a middle-of-the-road precedent for Georgia's regions as well.

But for an influential group of neoconservatives and liberal interventionists inside and outside the Bush administration, compromise is unacceptable. For them, foreign policy is a morality play; the Russians are the bad guys and should be taught a lesson rather than being "rewarded" with a deal.



Thus, for example, Richard Holbrooke — an architect of the U.S.-led attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 — accuses Russia of daring to "defy" the U.S. and its allies on Kosovo and says the issue is "a key test of Russia's relationship with the West." Holbrooke likewise urges that inviting Georgia to join NATO, with South Ossetia and Abkhazia included, should become a "test case of the Western relationship with Russia." It is easy to predict Moscow's reaction.

Meanwhile, Holbrooke has an ally inside the Bush administration — Dan Fried, assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs. Fried maintains that whether Moscow likes it or not, Kosovo will not be a precedent for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "It just isn't, and it won't be," he declared at a State Department briefing.

The only problem is that although Russia cannot stop Kosovo from becoming independent, it can prevent a Georgian takeover of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Russian military has contingency plans not only to block any possible Georgian offensive into the two territories but to strike back at Georgia proper. For its part, the Georgian parliament has passed a resolution supporting NATO membership, and its parliament speaker, Nino Burjanadze, explained that membership was important because it would help "to restore the territorial sovereignty of Georgia."

It is easy to see where the hard-line American path will lead: a major dispute with Russia over the independence of remote regions that have little to do with U.S. interests. But the dispute itself will have an effect on very important American interests, by undermining efforts to have Russia onboard with American policy toward Iran and as a responsible partner on other issues.

U.S.-Russian relations cannot exist on two parallel tracks: one in which we demand the Kremlin's cooperation on such things as nonproliferation and terrorism, and another in which Russian perspectives are contemptuously dismissed. It's clear which track is best for U.S. interests.