But for the Zionist state, the occupation is merely a God-given right to populate land. The lie was proved when Israeli officials, leaders and dutiful Zionist lobbyists in the West spent decades claiming the occupation was temporary and arguing that Palestinian land and natural resources for Israeli use were solely motivated by security concerns.
The occupation can apparently be ignored forever. Soon enough, a person like Levy will be found to create a legal fiction and legitimise what the whole world knows to be illegal. The US issues muted criticism, while Australia doesn’t have an independent foreign policy when it comes to Israel, meekly following American and Israeli dictates, and colonisation continues apace.
What remains fascinating about the Levy findings – American Zionist organisations still can’t bring themselves to speak clearly and honestly about Jewish housing in the West Bank – is what it implies for Palestinian rights under occupation. If there is no occupation, then there should be no problem granting full voting and civil rights to all citizens of the West Bank and Gaza. If that happened today, Jews would soon find themselves a minority. It’s called democracy and it’s something Zionist leadership fears.
Mitt Romney compounded these lies with his comments about Jerusalem. But peace isn’t served when politicians don’t have their own views on the Middle East issue.
Romney’s gaffes in London a few days earlier were embarrassing enough for his campaign staffers and supporters. Criticizing the British for their lack of preparedness for the Olympics and making public his meeting with the head of MI-6 were quite distressing for those who follow European affairs (though for many in the Republican base a poke at what Donald Rumsfeld once referred to as ‘Old Europe’ might be a welcome thrust).
But Romney’s remarks about Jewish superiority were of a different order, and it’s not only the Palestinian leadership that should be aghast at his remarks. Essentially, what the GOP’s candidate for president was saying is that “Jews are good with money.”
While the wealthy businessmen and investors at the breakfast might have taken that as a compliment (though some in attendance might very well have flinched), students of Jewish history, and of Christian-Jewish relations, can’t help but being horrified by the tone-deafness of such language. The myth of Jewish financial acumen—and dishonesty—has been at the core of anti-Semitic discourse throughout the centuries. It was present in the writings of Church fathers, in the dramas of the Elizabethan period, and in the screeds of the Nazi propagandists.