Ex-Netanyahu Aide Aviv Bushinsky Calls US Ambassador ‘A Little Jew Boy’
Ex-Netanyahu Aide Aviv Bushinsky Calls US Ambassador ‘A Little Jew Boy’
Zionist anti-Semitism in the ‘Jewish’ State
Theodor Herzl – the original Jewish anti-Semite
It would be difficult to find a more anti-Semitic and derogatory remark
than ‘Jew Boy’. Possibly ‘kike’ and ‘yid’
might fit the bill. It was what the
fascists called Jews in the ‘30’s and it has all but gone out of fashion – even
for fascists. An equivalent term would
be ‘paki’ or ‘nigger’. You get the
Yet this was the term that a former aide to Netanyahu, Aviv Bushinsky, used against the
American Ambassador, Daniel Shapiro, who had issued a mild critique of Israel observing
that there were two standards of justice on the West Bank and that maybe Israeli
army investigations weren’t all that they were cracked up to be.
One might think that Shapiro was somewhat stating the obvious, since it
is a fact that there are two different legal systems operating on the West Bank
– one for Jews and another for Palestinians.
But Aviv Bushinsky wasn’t doing anything out of the
ordinary. Anti-Semitism and Zionism go
together like Jonathan and David, Lennon and McCartney. They are twins of a kind. Zionism started from the belief that Jews do
not belong in the diaspora. Strange as
it seems, anti-Semites also hold the same belief, viz. that Jews do not belong
other than in ‘their’ state.
Zionism however was more than a wacky belief. It was a movement intent on setting up a Jewish
state and to do that it had to ally itself with one or more colonial powers. One of its main tasks was in persuading Jews to
emigrate to Palestine. This was no easy
task. Between the middle of the 19th
Century and 1914 over 2 million Jews emigrated as refugees from Russia, because of
the anti-Semitism and pogroms there, but only about 50,000 emigrated to Palestine. The rest of the Jews emigrated to the United
States and Britain. In other words only
2% of Russia’s Jews wanted to go to the Promised Land.
Zionism began from the premise that the Jewish position
in the diaspora was ‘unnatural’. That anti-Semites
were entitled to their own anti-Jewish nationalism. That Jews were strangers in other peoples’
lands. They were guests, strangers who
had outlived their welcome. Indeed they went
further. Mapam/Hashomer Hatzair the ‘Marxist’
Zionists believed that the social structure of Jews in the diaspora resembled
an ‘inverted pyramid’ i.e. there were too many rich Jews and not enough working-class
Jews. In fact this was untrue. Jews in Russia (which then included Poland and
Lithuania) were overwhelmingly poor workers and they formed the General Jewish Workers
Union of Russia, Poland and Lithuania otherwise known as the Bund. The Zionists were a tiny minority.
The Zionists attitude was essentially that the anti-Semites
were right about the Jews. The founder
of Political Zionism Herzl made common cause with anti-Semites. Contrary to a popular myth, Herzl wasn’t at
all disturbed by the Dreyfus Affair, quite the contrary. He wrote that:
‘In Paris…, I achieved a freer
attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically
and to pardon. Above all, recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to
‘combat’ anti-Semitism. [Diaries of Theodore Herzl,
Gollancz, London 1958 p.6].
It was but a
short step from this to believing that ‘the
anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic
countries our allies. We want to emigrate as respected people’ [Diaries pp. 83/4]
Herzl kept company
with non-Jews like Daudet who were opponents of Jewish emancipation and anti-Dreyfussards. Herzl went out of his way to obtain a
favourable review of his pamphlet, The Jewish State, from Eduord Drumont, the
leader of the anti-Dreyfussards.
Nor was Herzl alone. Jacob Klatzkin, editor of the Zionist paper Die Welt and later the founder of
Encyclopedia Judaica, wrote that
are in a. word naturally foreigners. We are an alien nation in your midst and
we want to remain one. An unbridgeable chasm yawns between you and us. A loyal
Jew can never be other than a Jewish patriot… We recognise a national unity
of Diaspora Jews no matter in which land they may reside… no boundaries can
restrain us in… pursuing our own Jewish policy. J Klatzkin, ‘Krisis und
Entscheidung in Judentum’, Berlin 1921, p118
The logic was impeccable. Klatzkin was convinced that it wasn’t the anti-Semites
but the opponents of anti-Semitism who were the enemy:
The contribution of our enemies is in the continuance of Jewry
in Eastern Europe. One ought- to appreciate the national service which the Pale
of Settlement performed for us… we ought to be thankful to our oppressors
that they closed the gates of assimilation to us and took care that our people
were concentrated and not dispersed. [‘Crisis’ Decision! p.62 cited
in Hermann op. cit. p. 205].
Often, if you didn’t know
the person was Jewish you could be mistaken for believing that the statement had
been issued by an out and out anti-Semite.
For example Pinhas Rosenbluth, Israel’s first Justice Minister was of
the opinion that Palestine was ‘an institute for the
fumigation of Jewish vermin’ [Joachim Doron, p.169. Classic Zionism and modern
anti-Semitism: parallels and influences’ (1883-1914), Studies in Zionism 8,
All this was
encapsulated in the foundational Zionist axiom called ‘the Negation of the Diaspora’. The Jewish Diaspora was something that should
be wound up. Jews belonged in their ‘homeland’,
Israel not in the countries they’d lived in for generations.
All this meant that
Zionists viewed Diaspora Jews with contempt if not hatred. Hence the description of a Jewish Ambassador
using the most anti-Semitic word that one can conjure up. Nor was Bushinsky alone.
Attacks against Jewish anti-Zionists
and supporters of the Palestinians in Israel is often anti-Semitic. To support the Palestinians means that you
would have deserved the attentions of Adolph Hitler. Jews who care about others have a ‘diaspora mentality’. When Israeli Jews in Sheikh Jarrar in Jerusalem
protested at yet more confiscation of Palestinian civilians’ homes, Jewish right-wingers
demonstrated against them chanting ‘Hitler was right’
Zionism is and always has
been a Jewish form of anti-Semitism and Bushinsky’s comments were therefore
completely in line with what Zionists have previously said.
US State Department has moved to back America’s ambassador to Israel in a
febrile and escalating row over his remarks on Monday that Israel applied law in the
occupied West Bank differently to Palestinians and Israelis.
Daniel Shapiro’s unusually critical comments drew harsh criticism from
ministers in Israel’s rightwing government – including from the Israeli prime
was also publicly lambasted on Israeli television on Tuesday by a former aide
to Netanyahu who used
the deeply offensive Hebrew word “yehudon” – which translates as “little Jew boy” – to disparage the
ambassador. The term is used by rightwing Israelis against other Jews –
particularly those in the diaspora – whom they regard as not being sufficiently
Jewish or pro-Israel.
“We are being
subjected to a terrorist onslaught that is simply unfamiliar to the United
States, and to pass judgment on us in such a one-sided manner is wrong,” Shaked told Army Radio. “It would be appropriate if he corrected himself, and I hope he does
the row continued into a third day, US State Department spokesman John Kirby
insisted the ambassador was reiterating US policy on Israeli settlement
construction. Kirby was speaking after a private meeting between Shapiro and
Netanyahu to attempt to paper over the differences.
“Our long-standing position on settlements is clear.
We view Israeli settlements activity as illegitimate and counterproductive to
the cause of peace. We remain deeply concerned about Israel’s current policy on
settlements including construction, planning and retroactive legalisations,” he said.
latest row comes against a backdrop of escalating tensions between Israel and
various countries and international political groupings.
year, Netanyahu’s government reduced diplomatic contacts with EU officials
following a decision to recommend that member states label products produced in
illegal Israeli settlements.
finds itself facing renewed criticism from the European Union for the continued
expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a
complaint that Shapiro echoed.
remarks at a security conference on Monday – regarded as a showcase event for
Israeli politicians and senior security officials – Shapiro said: “Too many attacks on Palestinians lack a
vigorous investigation or response by Israeli authorities, too much vigilantism
goes unchecked, and at times there seem to be two standards of adherence to the
rule of law: one for Israelis and another for Palestinians.”
explicitly rejected Israeli claims that EU labelling of settlement products
amounted to a boycott of Israel. “We do
not view labelling the origin of products as being from the settlements a
boycott of Israel. We also do not believe that labelling the origin of products
is equivalent to a boycott.”
“Nobody was standing there with a hammer forcing him
[Shapiro] to say it,” he said on the programme.
“I see a Jew, Dan Shapiro, saying this. I see it as a
pattern – it was the same thing with [former US Middle East envoy] Dennis Ross
and now with [former US ambassador to Israel] Martin Indyk saying his nonsense.
It’s the behaviour of Jews who are trying to show that they are extra leftwing,
more liberal and more balanced.”
Israeli commentators saw it as no coincidence that Shapiro’s remarks were made
so soon after the lifting of sanctions against Iran and at such a high-profile
Writing in the
Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Shimon Shiffer said: “Shapiro’s comments … are significant in that
they suggest the Obama administration will no longer tolerate human rights
violations by our decision-makers against Palestinians in the West Bank. From
the perspective of the White House, ‘enough is enough’.”