[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> . Can anti-Zionism be equated with
> anti-Semitism? It is my experience that almost invariably it does. And
> anti-Zionism is a totally different phenomenon among Jews vs non-Jews, with
> different agendae. Many well-educated non-Jews who consider anti-Semitism to
> be socially inappropriate have found that they can mask it (consciously or
> unconsciously) by expressions against Zionism or against Israel.

Well, my response is that there is a valid anti-zionist position.  It is
the same position that I would have on any religion-based state.
Namely, all states should be secular, so a Jewish state is no more
ethical than an Islamic state or a Christian state.  For some reason,
the world has coined a term for advocating a Jewish state, zionism, but
there is no corresponding term for any of the other religions, is
there?  Anyway, based on the claim that all states should be secular,
and only on that claim, it is possible to be anti-zionist without being
anti-semitic.  Note also that claiming that all states should be secular
is not a claim that Israel should not exist.  It's just a claim that
Israel should be a secular state.  Then calling Israel a Jewish state
would be nothing more than a recognition that most of the people who
live there are Jewish.  If Israel is already a secular state, then there
is no valid anti-zionist position.  I don't know if Israel is
technically secular or not, but if it is, then I would say that secular
means less there than it does in the US, which is to say the US needs to
clean up its own separation of church and state act, before it can start
"preaching" separation of church and state to the world.

But if George Bush really means to lead the world the way Reagan did (I
never thought I would defend Ronald Reagan), then I think that is the
way he should do it.  Reagan said, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall,"
and this wasn't a message to the Soviet government so much as it was a
message to the people of East Germany and the other Soviet satellites.
The message was, basically, "Tear down the wall, people, because you
deserve to be free and the world is on your side."  It is never this
simple, of course, but I think that message really was inspirational to
those people.  It took them a couple of years before they actually came
to tear the wall down, but they eventually did, and I think that
Reagan's speech was an important ingrediant in raising the consciousness
of the people.  And it *was* the people who tore down the wall, not the
government.

I think the same would be true if Bush tried to start a secularization
movement in Iran, for example.  Instead of demonizing Iran as evil, Bush
should show leadership the way Reagan did.  He should "show" them the
way.  Iran is mostly young people now, and as the hollywood hyphenates
are fond of saying, "Ya gotta reach the kids."  Plant the idea and let
them know the world is on their side and will provide whatever support
it can.  Of course, Bush will sort of have to clean up the US act in
secular terms, which would imply shedding the religious fascists he has
surrounded himself with and stop delivering major policy speeches at
Catholic churcesh, that sort of thing.

That's what I would do anyway.

martin

--
Martin Smith               email: [log in to unmask]
Vollsveien 9               tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482               mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway