"Light unto the Nations."

Lecture delivered by: Oussama El-Mohtar* during the

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The 50th Anniversary of the establishment of Israel is also the 50th anniversary of the destruction of Palestine. In the west, Israel is often portrayed as a "Light unto the Nations"; a beacon of justice, democracy and human rights; a safe haven for Jews who have to escape persecution; a small country fighting to survive against Arab aggression and Palestinian terrorism

On the other side, the record shows that Israel has invaded four other countries and occupied and annexed parts of their lands. It bombed a nuclear power station in a sovereign state without fear of reprimand. It is a nuclear power that refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty. It ignores hundreds of UN resolutions condemning its policies without fear of invasion or sanctions. On another level, its High Court has legalized kidnapping of citizens and using them as "bargaining cards." (Jerusalem Post March 5, 1998.) It has also legalized torturing of prisoners. Despite all this, Israel is still perceived, as a moral state, and a "Light unto the Nations."

However, and on its 50th birthday, Israel's past is coming back to haunt it. Some Israelis are looking at themselves and not liking what they see. Others are doubting the morality of their cause and its sense of justice. The dark side of the "Light unto the Nations" is finally coming to light.

Three recent statements in the Israeli press are worth noting. On March 6, Haaretz quoted Ehud Barak, the Israeli opposition leader as saying: "If I were a Palestinian and of appropriate age, I'd also join a terrorist organization."

Around the same time, (Haaretz, March 13) reserve Major-General Shlomo Gazit, ex-chief of military intelligence, had to apologize publicly for referring to Israeli religious soldiers, those wearing the Kippa, as Nazis. In that same issue of Haaretz, a verse by the renowned Israeli poet Dahlia Ravikowitch was quoted: "There is no longer any reason to hide the fact/we are an unsuccessful experiment/a plan that has gone awry/and is connected with too much murder."

The anguish carried by those three statements finds its summation and expression in a question asked by the Associated Press (AP) on December 21, 1997: "Was Israel born in sin"? Ilan Pappe, one of the most outspoken of Israel's historians answered with a resounding "yes." When asked why he said: "Jews came and took, by means of uprooting and expulsion, a land that was Arab. We wanted to be a colonialist occupier, and yet to come across as moral at the same time!''

Is Israel an unsuccessful experiment born in sin and connected with so much murder? Why would an ex-chief of staff say that if he were a Palestinian he would have joined a terrorist group? And why would an ex head of Israel's military intelligence describe his fellow soldiers as Nazis?

Gideon Levy, an Haaretz editorial writer might have the answer. In analyzing the severe backlash to Mr. Barak's statement, he wrote in the March 15 issue of Haaretz: "These reactions are an unprecedented testimony to our insecurities about our own sense of justice, 50 years after the country was founded....The opposition leader drew attention to a question that should already have penetrated the Israeli skull: Is our definition of justice the only legitimate, exhaustive one? Don't the Palestinians also possess their own sense of justice? Could they be at least partly right?"

"If I were a Palestinian and of appropriate age, I'd also join a terrorist organization." With this statement, the opposition leader finally recognized the legitimacy of the whole Palestinian struggle. Barak's statement shatters so many myths beginning with the infamous, "A land without a people to a people without a land," to Golda Mayer's denial that the Palestinians ever existed, to the continuos reference to the Palestinians as terrorists. Mr. Barak admitted, albeit in his own twisted way, that the Palestinian cause is a just cause.

Mr. Gazit's statement is more revealing and provocative, especially in light of Jewish feelings towards the Nazis. The fact that Mr. Gazit later apologized for this statement does not take away from the strong sentiments that provoked it. In fact, Mr. Gazit was only echoing similar statements made by previous Israeli Prime Ministers. For instance, Ben Gurion used to tease his opponents in the right wing Herut opposition by saying, "there are those among you who admired the Nazis." Yitzhak Rabin once called the Israeli settlers, "a cancer in the body of Israeli democracy." (Haaretz, Friday, March 13, 1998 Sebastia has risen to power. By Orit Shohat)

But are the settlers a new phenomenon to the Israeli society? Are they a right wing aberration to the norm? In order to grasp the complexity of this topic, let us go to another controversy that rocked Israel lately.

Amos Oz, the famous Israeli writer has been awarded this year's Israel Prize for Literature. According to the March 13 issue of Haaretz, "Member of Knesset Zvi Hendel (National Religious Party) unearthed a speech given by Amos Oz in 1989 that attacked Jewish settlers (and which, in Hendel's view, disqualifies the author from receiving the award.)" Defending his position, Oz stated that, "he had referred not to the entire body of settlers but rather to the followers of the late right-wing extremist and founder of the Kach movement, Rabbi Meir Kahane."

Haaretz disputed Oz's disclaimer and pointed to the fact that Oz, "was referring to a constantly expanding camp, which began in 1975,... and which brought Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to his knees and forced him to establish a settlement in the middle of the occupied territories." Haaretz described this camp as " the moral, political and ideological nucleus of the entire right-wing camp" from which the "Jewish terrorist underground" sprang out. (Haaretz, Friday, March 13, 1998)

Did this camp start in 1975? No. The above statements, - and other admissions including one by Moshe Dayan who regretted not opposing the kibbutz settlers who, "pressed the government to take the Golan Heights ... less for security than for the farm land." (New York Times, May 11, 1997,) - lead one to believe that every generation in Israel tries to distance itself from the crimes of the previous generation. However, they all adhere to the same Zionist doctrine of occupation and expulsion laid down by Herzl himself. He wrote in his diaries on June 12, 1895: "The removal of Arabs bodily from Palestine is part of the Zionist plan ... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." The only difference between then and now is that now it is done openly and violently.

Encroachment, occupation, forcible eviction and colonizing have been the pattern back to the very early days of the British mandate over Palestine. The whole of the Israeli population, excluding the original inhabitants of pre-mandate Palestine, are colonial settlers or descendants thereof. They include Ben Gurion, Shlomo Gazit, Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin down to the last wave of Ethiopian and Russian Jews. The distinction between the pre and post 1967 settlers is a fictitious one; so is the distinction between Palestinian land occupied prior 1948 or thereafter.

This camp is not restricted to the right wing in Israel. I will illustrate with one example that gives Shlomo Gazit's statement its historical depth while exposing the Nazi like practices of both Likud and Labour.

On December 3, 1981, the Canadian Jewish News (CJN), published an article titled "Desecrating the Torah, Demolition Policy Criticized." According to the CJN, Abba Eban, criticized the right wing government of then Prime Minister Mencham Begin for, "blowing up Arab homes belonging to families whose children were involved in minor disturbances of the peace." In his speech, Mr. Eban described those demolitions as "desecrating the Torah, violating the cultural, legal and social codes, trampling on human rights and breeding enmity between Arabs and Jews."

According to CJN, Mr. Begin refused to take the accusations lying down. His office published a statement describing both Eban and Perez as "hypocritical preachers of morality," noting that "in the 10-year period of Labor rule after 1967, 1,224 [houses] were demolished in the territories whereas, since Likud took over in 1977, only 41 homes had been destroyed."

Israel's apologists often contend that Palestinians have to be expelled from their homes to make room for the "in-gathered exiles" and other Jews who need to be saved from religious persecution else where. Notwithstanding the twisted logic, moral depravity and historical inaccuracy behind this statement, it has been sold to, and accepted by, the West. Let us, for a moment take it at face value and examine it in light of new revelations from Israel.

In an article titled "The Need to Apologize" (Jerusalem Post November 28, 1997), the author, Jonathan Rosenblum, discusses Ehud Barak's apology for the "pain and suffering caused [Jewish] immigrants from Arab lands by the Labour party in the 50s" This was in reference to "the systematic attempt to destroy the religious beliefs of the newcomers to Israel," a practice conducted by the "Zionist elite," and which, according to Rosenblum, "did not discriminate between Ashkenazim and Sephardim in this regard."

Mr. Rosenblum describes how Jewish children from Poland were prevented, in Israel, from saying Kadish, and forced to eat non-kosher food. When some refused, the government representative in charge said: "Let one or two die of starvation and they will soon forget about kosher food."

He details the official policy of "adaptation of the child to the mode of living expressed in the community at large," a euphemism, according to him, for uprooting the religious identity of Yemenite Jews. He goes through a long list of practices such as shaving of sidelocks, barring the religious from refugee camps, killing protesters, forcing kids to work on the Sabbath, and stealing Yemenite children from their families or hospitals because, "they have such big families anyway."

According to him, all this was possible because, "the Yemenite Jews were subhuman primitives in the eyes of those charged with their absorption. Their fervent religious belief was simply one more proof. The absorption authorities considered it an act of mercy to remove the children from their parents." He concludes by saying: "It is that paternalistic contempt for our own religion for which Ehud Barak should be apologizing."

There are similar practices facing other settler communities who were recently lured to Israel. The Ethiopian Jews suffer from the highest rate of suicide in the Israeli army. A few years ago a scandal broke out in Israel when blood donated from Ethiopian Jews was thrown away as unfit. The Soviet Jews, although faring better, have their own dilemma. Among the 800,000 Soviet Jews that arrived in Israel in the past 9 years, there are so many whose Jewishness is in doubt. Again, taking the Zionist slogan of "Ingathering the Exiles" at face value, one cannot help but ask: why should a Palestinian be evicted from his land in order to make room for a Russian who is non-Jewish anyway. The same question applies to the "Falasha Murah": Ethiopian Jews who converted to Christianity hundreds of years ago.

For all those whose Jewishness is in doubt, conversion is a must. Israeli citizenship, without the stamp of Jew, is not enough. Many privileges are denied non-Jewish citizens of Israel including the right to buy land. An Haaretz article titled: "Only Jews Need Apply" (March 27, 1998.) It discusses the denial of Israeli Arabs the right to buy lands intended "for Jews only."

This discrimination does not apply only to non-Jews, it affects non-Orthodox Jews as well. In a public rally, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader Shas said: "The non-Orthodox groups must return to the path of righteousness to be accepted in Israel." His son, addressing the same rally said: "Reform and Conservative Jews have set up another religion for themselves which has nothing in common with Judaism.'' (AP, October 17, 1997) This is happening while the Jewish Agency is trying to lure wealthy American Jews, most of them conservative and reform, to Israel.

Let us recap and examine this picture. In order to save them from religious persecution, Israel "gathers" Polish and Yemenite "Jewish exiles", but forces them to give up their Jewish traditions that they had been free to practice in their exile! Israel "saves" Soviet and Ethiopians non-Jews provided they convert, in order to become full fledged Jews! And now they want to bring American conservative and reform Jews from the USA while telling them that theirs is a non-Jewish religion!

All this would have been non of our business had Palestine not been the theater, and Palestinians not the innocent victims of this strange experiment.

The foregoing begs this question: what is the moral code that gives a Jewish or non Jewish person the "right" to move to occupied Palestine, knowingly dispossessing a Palestinian and forcing him to build Jewish settlements, on his own confiscated land, as the only means of feeding his children? Could this be truly "God's Covenant"? Is this the Israeli/Zionist interpretation of Hillel, the great Jewish sage who, when asked by a non-Jew to define the whole Jewish law in one sentence said: "Do not unto others that which you would not have them do unto you. This is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary."?

This injustice seems to have caught up with Ehud Barak and forced him to acknowledge, the justice of the Palestinian cause. This is the moral dilemma that prompted Ilan Pape to scream "Yes, Israel "was born in sin." This is the moral dilemma that exposed the "failed experiment" that is so immersed in blood. This is the failed experiment that needs to be stopped before it is too late.

Israel is living under a false sense of security based on its superior weaponry and nuclear deterrent. However, the Israelis are starting to learn that nuclear capability does not shield them form the moral bankruptcy of their position. You cannot dispossess innocent people and claim it is for a moral cause; this is moral fraud. You cannot build a Jewish state-while one fifth of your population is non Jewish- and call it a democracy; this is political fraud. Your High Court cannot sanction confiscation, torture and kidnapping and claim to be a just society; this is judicial fraud. You cannot, in order to gather your "exiles", send into exile a whole innocent population; this is worse than fraud. This is ethnic cleansing; an internationally recognized war crime.

This experiment has brought about the Palestinian struggle because violence begets violence. How could this cycle be stopped? Not through the dying Oslo accords. This is another fraudulent enterprise that has been exposed. In my opinion, there is a moral psychological and social prerequisite which the Israelis and their apologists must undertake: the acknowledgment of and bearing responsibility for the crimes committed throughout this century by the Zionist establishment. Some Israelis are starting to acknowledge them, the majority still don't.

It would help if the western media were to take queue from the Israeli media and start covering the real debate going on in Israel instead of perpetuating the myth of the "Light unto the Nations." It would help if the Israeli apologists -and some are will meaning- will start thinking critically instead of sheepishly echoing Israeli propaganda. It definitely would help if the world community would apply uniform standards when dealing with Israel's non-compliance with UN resolutions. But the first step must be to acknowledge the initial crime: a "failed experiment" called Israel, "born in sin and with too much murder."