James Wall, once a respected journalist and editor of the Christian Century, has in recent years taken to associating with a variety of Internet anti-Semites, and in fact seems to have become quite comfortable in their company. He shows himself a suitable pal of theirs, as well as offering up a classic case of projection, in his most recent column, He starts off talking about U.S efforts to head off the Palestinian drive for statehood at the U.N., and ends up here:

Why does the US Congress, the US President, the mainstream media, and the leaders of the American religious communities, tolerate this violation of this country’s standards of fairness and compassion?

The answer is simple: The decision makers in these US institutions have been manipulated into sanctioning the racial bigotry that has allowed the Zionist leaders of the state of Israel to corrupt American foreign policy.

That there are bigots in Israel, and maybe even in the Knesset, I have no doubt. But Wall is suggesting here that Zionism–the desire for a national home for the Jewish people–is itself a form of racial bigotry. I wonder what that makes the Palestinian drive for such a home?

To be sure, there was much indigenous material to work with in this corruption project. Descendants of the European settlers who invaded what became the United States of America, have long been in the grip of racial bigotry. The enemy “out there” in the untamed wilderness were natives of this land who resisted the presence of white settlers when it became apparent that their intention was to conquer, not to share, the land.

The settler-pioneers who formed the United States had to live with what they had done. They justified their conduct  by lying to themselves.  They did this by declaring the Big Lie, that they were superior to the people whose land they conquered.

The modern state of Israel was born in the grip of this same Big Lie. The new state was created in the aftermath of the horrors of the Holocaust, and mixed with a “divine right” found in only one interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures which offers a specific way of reading the scriptures to manipulate a religious mythic history into a bigoted ethnic cleansing and  the subsequent military occupation of the Palestinian people.

So now Zionism is a form of racism that says that Jews are superior to others (and specifically to Arabs), akin to the racial ideology that drove the slaughter of American Indians and the enslavement of Africans. Makes it kind of hard to believe that the father of the Israeli nation, David ben-Gurion, was able to say the following with a straight face on the day of Israel’s independence:

Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.

We extend the hand of peace and good-neighborliness to all the States around us and to their people, and we call upon them to cooperate in mutual helpfulness with the independent Jewish nation in its Land. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution in a concerted effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

Of course, he did ask the Arabs to stay and “play their part in building” the new nation. He obviously had slavery in mind.

And “ethnic cleansing”? That suggests that the Jews expelled the Arabs. I know of someone who disputes that:

The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemned to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable.

Who wrote that? Why, it was Abu Mazen, better known in the West as Mahmoud Abbas, now the President of the Palestinian Authority, in the official journal of the PLO, in March of 1976. I’m sure he was even then a highly paid Mossad mole.

A “religious mythic history”? That’s an interesting phrase. I wonder where he’s going with that? Oh, here it is:

In his dramatic speech delivered to the US Congress on May 24, 2011, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, confirmed his control over the US Congress as he repeated the myth of “his” ancient people as validation for a modern land grab.

The Big Lie of racial superiority in the speech evoked 29 standing ovations from the combined US House and Senate membership, a shameful moment in American history.

The unvarnished truth is that shared racial bigotry, hidden and/or embraced,  and ignorance of the audience, shaped the speech delivered by Netanyahu and cheered by the US Congress. Here is a sample from the Prime Minister’s speech:

“This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland. In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.

“This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.”

These words from Netanyahu are easily refuted. [Pity the linked article doesn’t mention them!-DF] They are also rooted in the Big Lie, which grants nonexistent rights to a people who declare themselves to be superior on racial and/or religious grounds.

Wall puts the word “his” in quotation marks because, in the linked article, Netanyahu is revealed to be part of a family that emigrated to the Holy Land in the 1920s from Poland. You know, one of those Slavic, Eastern European countries. That means that he’s not really connected to the Jews of ancient Israel. It means he’s actually a Khazar, and not even a Semite at all. That means, no matter how many times he says the Shema Yisrael, he still has no business setting foot in Palestinian territory, like Tel Aviv.

See where this is going? If not, this should make it clearer:

It is hard to imagine that a majority of the congressional members who cheered Netanyahu’s speech believe in, or even understand, the biblical literalism that stands behind his biblical shaping of an ancient history. Let us be gracious for a moment: Netanyahu has every right to believe his version of the Hebrew scriptures.

He does not have a right to impose this belief on those of us who do not believe in his brand of biblical literalism used for political purposes.

“Biblical literalism.” Since I’m fairly sure Wall isn’t accusing Netanyahu of being a Christian Zionist dispensationalist, and there’s no such thing as a Jewish inerrantist, I can only conclude that he’s implying (with less subtlety than he thinks) that he doesn’t believe the Old Testament’s claim that ancient Israel actually inhabited the Holy Land. Presumably it was occupied by the precursors of Japanese tourists, since history is unequivocal that the Arabs didn’t get there until they conquered it in the mid-7th century AD. In fact, it is hardly on the basis of “biblical literalism” that the Jewish people’s connection to the Holy Land is established, but history and archaeology that is unquestioned by all but the most politically blinded and/or anti-Semitic. You decide which better suits Wall.