A Letter from an American Rabbi to an Arab Ambassador
by: Rabbi Elmer Berger
December - December
1975
The Link - Volume 8, Issue 5
Nov. 14, 1975
Excellency,
As an American Jew—and a long-time anti-Zionist—I welcome your invitation to attempt to clarify the meaning of Zionism in the context of the recent United Nations debate. It is, in my opinion, unfortunate that the problem was not addressed more precisely in the course of the debate.
MESSIANIC ZIONISM: It should be made clear, first of all, that there are a number of varieties of Zionism. Many denominations of both Judaism and Christianity hold it as a tenet of the messianism of their faith that as some part of the millennial dream “Zion” will be restored through “justice” and “those who return to her in righteousness.”
The salient point of all these varieties of Zionism is that God—not the Israeli government, nor the Zionist movement, nor any Arab government, nor the United States, nor even the United Nations—could make the determination of when “the children of Israel” had so redeemed themselves as to merit this Divine reward. These are all matters of personal conscience and of different understandings of both the obligations and rewards of the moral covenant between “the children of Israel” and God.
Nothing in the United Nation debate suggests that any participant presumed to enter into these religious/theological imponderables.
NATIONAL ZIONISM: But there is another kind of Zionism. Its political/legal/territorial/military policies have been—for more than half a century—subject for debate in international political forums and within many of the governments of the world. It has “covenanted” not with God, but with governments of all kinds of secular states and it has played the “game of nations” much the same as many other national movements of governments.
The central, political/legal proposition of this Zionism is that “the Jewish people”—all Jews because they are Jews—are recognized in international law to be a national entity. This alleged national entity, according to this Zionism, possesses a system of nationality rights in and “obligations” to the State of Israel, often described in official Zionist instruments as “the Jewish state” but which, more precisely, should be identified as the “Zionist state.”
It is this Zionism to which—however imprecisely—the United Nations debate (or at least mass media reports of the debate) addressed itself. And since the determining criterion of membership in “the Jewish people” nationality is either active profession of Judaism or birth by a Jewish mother, the discriminatory, exclusivist character of Zionism is obvious, by definition.
UNITED STATES POSITION: In fact, despite the strenuous argumentation to the contrary by United States representatives to this General Assembly, the United States government itself is officially and authoritatively on record as rejecting the fundamental Zionist proposition that “the Jewish people” is a valid entity in international law. The rejection is codified in Digest of International Law, edited by Marjorie M. Whiteman, Assistant Legal Adviser to the Department of State, Volume 8, September, 1967, U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 34-35. It is contained in a letter, dated April 20, 1964, from the then-Assistant Secretary of State, Phillips Talbot, and addressed to me.
The letter states, inter alia, that the Department of State “does not recognize a legal-political relationship based upon religious identification of American citizens. It does not in any way discriminate among American citizens upon the basis of religion. Accordingly, it should be clear that the Department of State does not regard the “Jewish people” concept as a concept of international law.”
The broad context in which this fundamental, legal principle was handed down and inscribed in this official United States codification of international law is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. But the more precise context, clear on the face of Mr. Talbot’s letter, is exactly the discrimination and exclusivism of Zionism’s “Jewish people” nationality claims, based upon either religious belief or racial descent from a Jewish mother. And since Zionism is an international movement and since much Israeli Zionist legislation has had—and has—international legal and political implications it is regrettable that neither the United States delegation to the General Assembly nor the President of the United States took the initiative to look at their own official “Bible” of international law. For the principle which Mr. Talbot was constitutionally required to apply to Zionism in rejecting its “Jewish people” nationality claims is certainly applicable to the impact which Zionist “Jewish people” legislation, enacted by the Israeli Knesset, has had on Palestine’s non-“Jewish people” nationals and the Palestine problem as a whole.
ZIONIST/ISRAEL’S "CENTRAL TASK”: There is, first of all, the commitment of high principle in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel—a kind of Declaration of Independence proclaiming the emergence of the state in 1948. That solemn document declares that the state “will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of Exiles.” (Emphasis added.)
This declaration of high purpose was implemented in three specific legislative acts of the Knesset. “The Law of Return” is Israel’s basic immigration law. Every Jew, regardless of present citizenship, has the right to immigrate to Israel. The state is prohibited, except in individual and exceptional circumstances, from preventing Jewish immigration. The “Law of Nationality” grants citizenship automatically (unless it is rejected) to any Jew immigrating under the “Law of Return.” Neither the right to immigrate nor the automatic acquisition of citizenship is the prerogative of any but Jews.
Perhaps even more prejudicial, however, to non-”Jewish people” Palestinians—and even to non-“Jewish people” citizens of the Zionist state—is the “central” commitment of the state to “The Ingathering of the Exiles.” In 1952 the Knesset enacted “The World Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency Status Law.” The “Status” law grants the Zionist organization a special status in Israel for “immigration,” “absorption,” and “settlement” projects.
Paragraph 5, consistent with the Declaration of Establishment, states “the mission of gathering in the exiles is the central task of the State of Israel and the Zionist Movement in our days and requires constant efforts by the Jewish people in the Diaspora...” (ALL emphases added.) “Exiles” and “Diaspora” are Zionist terms describing Jews who live outside the State of Israel. In 1954 this Knesset legislation was made operative when the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Israeli government signed a “Covenant” embodying the substance of the 1952 law. The Covenant provides for the establishment of a “Coordination Board.” This body, composed of members of the Zionist organization and the government, allocates what would be functions of a normal state between the various departments of the Zionist movement and the counterpart departments of the government. The division of responsibilities is consistent with the conception of Israel as a Zionist state, or as the highest courts of the state described it in the Judgment handed down in the trial of Adolph Eichmann, “the sovereign state of the Jewish people.”
“MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”: It is clear, therefore, that the process of building a state for “the Jewish people” —identified either by religion or maternal descent—continues within this “democracy.” Since “Ingathering the Exiles” —recruiting Jews for immigration—is defined by law as the “central task” of the state it is not surprising that privileging Jews governs most Israeli policy. This affects the structuring of the economy, educational opportunities, rights of political organization, public subsidies for activities such as agriculture, provisions of public services such as roads, utilities and housing, among others. Old Zionist prohibitions against non-“Jewish people” Palestinians, long ante-dating the present configurations of the Arab/Israeli conflict, still obtain. For example, only Jews may be employed on Jewish National Fund lands. The lands belong in perpetuity to “the Jewish people” and the Jewish National Fund is a major instrument for present Israeli occupation policies.
Israel is a state, therefore, in which if apartheid is not as blatant or as territorially visible as South Africa. “Jews” are nevertheless “more equal than others.”
BEYOND SEMANTICS: All of this is public law. The application of these Zionist laws makes discrimination a matter of national politics and of demographic fact. This being so, it is an abandonment of democratic principle to accuse those who oppose these public policies of malevolent or “obscene” motivations. To Americans, the effort to do so is reminiscent of the effort to label opponents of the Vietnam war as “traitors.”
I am unsure of what “racism” may mean to all those who participated in the debate or have been witness to it or some of the side-shows. But if “racism” is a form of government or a structure of society in which national rights and responsibilities are officially legislated upon the basis of creed, color or ethnic derivation, then the Zionist character of much “Basic” Israeli law qualifies.
ANTI-ZIONISM UNINTIMIDATED: Because the facts—and the relevant law—speak for themselves, many of us have long been anti-Zionists. Articulating our anti-Zionism as opposition to these Zionist practices, we believe we are articulating our deepest commitment to humanistic, liberal, democratic values. The inequities which Zionism has inflicted on Palestine and Palestinians and the violence Zionism does to the moral and ethical values of Judaism (and Christianity) continue. We anti-Zionists will therefore continue our opposition to Zionism. We are neither confused by the orchestrated hysteria nor stampeded. We will hope that now—since Zionism has been vividly called to the attention of a world which has, for too long, accepted it with uninformed innocence—the authentic character of its national/political substance will become clear. In the process of civil and disciplined discussion, no legitimate religious sensibilities will be bruised and the State of Israel need not be “destroyed.” In fact, there are increasing numbers of Israelis who advocate either de-Zionizing the state or, at least, containing its Zionist character to the pre-1967 “borders” and agreeing to the establishment of a Palestinian state precisely for those non-“Jewish people” Palestinian nationals, who, because of Zionism’s discriminatory and exclusivist policies, cannot now find satisfaction for their legitimate rights in the Zionist state.
I hope that as the debate continues you and your associates will help the American people—and others—first to see and examine and then to make responsible value judgments of Zionism as it operated in Palestine. If you will do this it is my conviction you will perform an appreciated and needed service which will contribute eventually to a just and enduring peace in the Middle East.
Very sincerely yours,
Elmer Berger, President
- Rabbi Elmer Berger is the leading Jewish anti-Zionist spokesman in the United States. He was a founder of the American Council for Judaism and served as executive vice-president of that organization from 1955 until 1968. In January 1969 he and a number of members of the Council organized “American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism, Inc.,” and elected Dr. Berger president, a position which he still holds.