A protest that I organized in 1985 against Israel's ties to apartheid South Africa, and its role as a US surrogate in Central America, provides a clear example of the problem. When I approached board members of the Nicaraguan Information Center (NIC) in San Francisco and asked for the group's endorsement of the protest, I received no support. NIC was the main group in solidarity with the Sandinistas and, despite Israel's long and ugly history, first in aiding Somoza and, at the time of the protest, the contras, the board voted· well, they couldn't vote not to endorse, so they voted to make "no more endorsements,"a position they reversed soon after our rally. NIC's board was almost entirely Jewish.

I fared better with GNIB, the Guatemalan News and Information Bureau, but only after a considerable struggle. At the time, Israel was supplying 98% of the weaponry and all of the training to one of the most murderous regimes in modern times. One would think that an organization that claimed to be working in solidarity with the people of Guatemala would not only endorse the rally but be eager to participate.

Apparently, the GNIB board was deeply divided on the issue. Unwilling to accept another refusal, I harassed the board with phone calls until it voted to endorse. Oakland CISPES (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) endorsed. The San Francisco chapter declined. (A year earlier, when I had been quoted in the San Francisco Weekly criticizing the influence of the Israel lobby on the Democratic Party, officials from the chapter wrote a letter to the editor claiming that I was provoking "anti-Semitism.") The leading anti-apartheid organizations endorsed the protest but, again, after lengthy internal debate.

The protest had been organized in response to the refusal of the San Francisco-based Mobilization for Peace, Jobs and Justice, (Mobe), a coalition of movement organizations, to include any mention of the Middle East among the demands that it was issuing for a march opposing South African apartheid and US intervention in Central America.

At an organizing meeting for the event, a handful of us asked that a plank calling for "No US Intervention in the Middle East" be added to the demands that had previously been decided. The vote was overwhelmingly against it. A Jewish trade unionist told us that "we could do more for the Palestinians by not mentioning them, than by mentioning them, "a strange response which mirrored what President Reagan was then saying about ending apartheid in South Africa. I was privately told later that if the Middle East was mentioned, "the unions would walk, "recognition of the strong support for Israel that exists among the labor bureaucracy, as well as the willingness of the movement to defer to it.

The timing of the Mobe's refusal was significant. Two and a half years earlier, Israel had invaded Lebanon and its troops still remained there as we met that evening. And yet, the leaders of the Mobe would not let Tina Naccache, a programmer for Berkeley's KPFA, the only Lebanese in the large union hall, speak in behalf of the demand.

Three years later, the Mobe scheduled another mass march. The Palestinians were in the first full year of their intifada, and it seemed appropriate that a statement calling for an end to Israeli occupation be added to the demands. The organizers, the same ones from 1985, had already decided on what they would be behind closed doors: "No US Intervention in Central America or the Caribbean; End US Support for South African Apartheid; Freeze and Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race; Jobs and Justice, Not War."

This time the Mobe took no chances and canceled a public meeting where our demand could be debated and voted on. An Emergency Coalition for Palestinian Rights was formed in response. A petition was drawn up and circulated supporting the demand. Close to 3,000 people signed it, including hundreds from the Palestinian community. The Mobe leadership finally agreed to one concession. On the back of its official flyer, where it would be invisible when posted on a wall or tree, was the following sentence, "Give peace a chance everywhere: The plight of the Palestinian people, as shown by the recent events in the West Bank and Gaza, remind us that we must support human rights everywhere. Let the nations of our world turn from building armies and death machines to spending their energy and resources on improving the quality of life - Peace, Jobs and Justice."

There was no mention of Israel or the atrocities its soldiers were committing. The flyer, put out by the unions ignored the subject completely.

The national movement to oppose the extension of the Iraq war has been no different. As in 1991, at the time of the Gulf War, there were competing large marches, separately organized but with overlapping participants. Despite their other political differences, what the organizers of both marches agreed on was that there would be no mention of the Israel-Palestine conflict in any of the protest literature, even though its connections to the situation in Iraq were being made at virtually every other demonstration taking place throughout the world. The movement's fear of alienating American Jews still takes precedence over defending the rights of Palestinians.

Last September, the slogan of "No War on Iraq - Justice for Palestine! "drew close to a half-million protesters to Trafalgar Square. The difference had been presciently expressed by a Native American leader during the first Intifada. "The problem with the movement,"he told me, "is that there are too many liberal Zionists."

And what was the response that day in New York? In recognition of the suffering then taking place in his homeland, a Lebanese man was allowed to sit on the stage, but he would not be introduced; not allowed to say a word. Nor was the subject mentioned by any of the speakers. Israel and its lobby couldn't have asked for anything more.

Twenty-one years later, Ariel Sharon, the architect of that invasion, is Israel's Prime Minister, having been elected for the second time. As I write these lines, pro-Israel zealots within the Bush administration are about to savor their greatest triumph. After all, they have been the driving force for a war which they envision as the first stage in "redrawing the map of the Middle East, with the US-Israel alliance at its fore."

And the Left? Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a long-time activist with impeccable credentials, assured the Jewish weekly, Forward, that United for Peace and Justice, organizers of the February 15th anti-war rally in New York, "has done a great deal to make clear it is not involved in anti-Israel rhetoric. From the beginning there was nothing in United for Peace's statements that dealt at all with the Israel-Palestine issue." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004).

These so-called peace-loving, friends of the palestinians are really only friends to the extent that they can sabotage palestinian resistance to the jews-only state in palestine. The peace loving jews who oppose the boycott of the jews-only state are the same jews who believe that ariel sharon is a man of peace because he’s promised to withdraw from the gaza strip ­ a view which is tenable only by ignoring his continued promotion of the jews-only squatter movement in occupied palestine. You can tell how impartial and peace loving these jews are from the fact that, "Moreover, Israeli academics' organizations, such as university senates or professional associations, have been totally silent on the conduct of those academics who have contributed to the occupation regime either through direct service as advisors or as producers of "knowledge" useful to the project of control, oppression, and occupation. As far as we know, no racist or complicit academic has ever been publicly censured by representative bodies or associations of academics. Many of those Israelis who object to the academic boycott admit, quite freely, the complicity of the academy as a whole in the colonial project, both historically and in the present." (Omar Barghouti and Lisa Taraki, The Electronic Intifada ‘Academic Boycott and the Israeli Left’ http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3763.shtml April 15th 2005).

The most that could be expected from many lefties and peace groups as regards zionists’ total domination of the palestinians is neutrality, "Neutrality in any conflict in which there is a gross imbalance of power is probably an impossibility and certainly immoral. Treading a middle path between one utterly powerless party and another party with total power, effectively removes all restraints on behavior by the powerful party. Yet this is the posture of those American peace groups that put themselves forward as advocates for Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation. They take no position between the Palestinians and Israel, but only promote peace plans such as the unofficial Geneva Accord, without also taking action or even speaking out forcefully against Israel's occupation. The consequence is that these groups have given Israel the time and the license to devastate the land, begin its ethnic cleansing, and destroy any prospect for Palestinian independence. Their refusal to take a clear stand against Israel's oppressive policies is a statement that might makes right, that oppressive policies are acceptable, and most particularly that justice for Palestinians is less important than power for Israel. " (Kathleen Christison ‘The Problem with Neutrality Between Palestinians and Israel’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/ July 10 / 12, 2004).

As kathleen christison has argued, "The immorality of the center is that this middle path has helped create a deathly silence about the destruction of lives and property that goes on every day in the occupied territories. Because they refuse to see realities on the ground, centrists cannot even imagine the scale of the oppression that Palestinians face at Israel's hands. They cannot imagine the grotesque miscarriage of justice represented by taking a middle position between the oppressor and the oppressed. The checkpoints, the roadblocks, the sniper shootings, the aerial bombardments, the assassinations, the settlements and Israeli-only bypass roads, the land confiscations, the bulldozing of olive groves, the demolition of homes and entire residential neighborhoods, the foul labyrinth of walls and fences that have imprisoned entire Palestinian villages, halted all movement, separated farmers from farmland, children from schools, the sick from hospitals, brothers from brothers: all of these separate aspects of Israel's oppressive system, and the magnitude of their totality, have escaped the rosy view of those who only follow a middle way. Their silence and averted gaze grease the wheels of oppression and are in no way balanced by the occasional suicide bombing." (Kathleen Christison ‘The Problem with Neutrality Between Palestinians and Israel’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/ July 10-12, 2004).

There is little doubt that christians have a huge clout in american elections and that they wish to abolish the separation of church and state but whether they have greater control over the republican party, congress, and the presidency, than the zionist lobby is an entirely different matter. What makes this situation so amusing is that it was the zionist lobby, and specifically the neocons, who did so much to bring christians into politics and yet it is now american jews who could suffer considerably at the hands of these born again christian political activists.

In order to understand what is at stake, it is necessary to appreciate the recent, fundamental changes in american christian theology. Over the last couple of decades, christian fundamentalists have morphed into christian evangelists. There is a huge theological gulf between these two types of christianity - even though the vast majority of christians themselves seem to have failed to appreciate that such changes have taken place. But, then again, the wsws editorial board seems just as ignorant of such changes because it continues to use the word "fundamentalist" throughout their article even though most christians these days are referred to as "evangelicals". This name change concerning american christians is not insignificant. Christian fundamentalists are people who believe in a literal translation of the bible. On the other hand, christian evangelists have become convinced by the theory of dispensationalism which, concocted in the 1840s, has only the most tenuous biblical foundations. In other words, christian evangelists are people who still think of themselves as fundamentalists but have failed to appreciate that they are no longer fundamentalists because there is no bibilical basis to their belief in dispensationalism. Dispensationalism had been wallowing around in the christian backwaters for nearly a century and a half until the mid 1970s when jewish neocons spotted its huge political potential for the jews-only state in palestine and set out to popularize the theory amongst christians. Jewish neocons coaxed christian fundamentalist leaders into supporting dispensationalism and, in turn, these leaders converted christian fundamentalists into what eventually is now known as christian evangelism.

The phrase ‘christian evangelism’, however, is far from being an accurate description of this religious phenomenon. Such christians are much more accurately defined as dechristianized zionists. This is because firstly, christian evangelism would never have become so popular without the financial, political, and media, assistance of the zionist neocons. Secondly, in converting from a literal translation of the bible to a fictitious view of the return of the so-called messiah, christians have adopted a different theological understanding of god. In effect, they have renounced the traditional christian god of love and forgiveness for all people in favour of the judaic god of revenge and exclusivity. In their sermons, christian evangelical leaders spew out the anger, racism, and wroth of the old testament, jews-only god.

In other words, the neocons have zionized christian fundamentalists into dechristianized zionists and have used their political support to push america into supporting the jews-only state in palestine thereby making themselves collaborators in jews-only racism. The zionists have turned christians into their political puppets. For the last couple of decades, the zionists have been reaping huge political rewards from the increasingly extreme support which dechristianized zionists have given to the jews-only state in palestine.

In any top-down political emancipation, however, there is always the danger that the puppets will turn on their puppet masters. This is a fear highlighted by the wsws editorial, "the political marriage of the White House, the Republican congressional leadership and the Christian fundamentalist groups represents a growing danger to democratic rights. It is a new stage in the development of an incipient fascist movement in the United States, based on religious hysteria, racism and anti-Semitism. It demonstrates the potential for an escalation of political conflict within the United States to the point of civil warfare." (Editorial Board ‘The Republican Party and the Christian right: sowing the seeds of an American fascist movement’ World Socialist Web Site April 28th 2005).

It is highly likely that over the next decade or so, the zionist inspired, and zionist funded, christian evangelicals are going to fight for the abolition of the separation of church and state which most jews and zionists have publicly supported for many generations. It is possible, however, that extreme right wing, likud loving, neocons whilst publicly opposing such an abolition are privately encouraging such an outcome even though those most affected will be american jews. These jewish racists who believe in a jews-only state in palestine, are likely to regard such a development as being extremely beneficial to the jews-only state.

Dechristianized zionists believe that in order to provoke the premature return of the messiah, that all jews must be in palestine whilst all palestinians must be ousted from the sacred land of the jews-only god. In order to bring this about zionists, and their zionized christian muppets, have firstly got to push american jews back to the jews-only state in palestine and, secondly, carry out the ethnic cleansing of palestinians from their homeland. Over the next decade or so, if dechristianized zionists become more and more powerful, then american jews are going to face the increasing prospect of being exiled to the jews-only state in palestine.

Over the previous decade or two, the big debate over the jews-only state in palestine, has been the possibility of pushing palestinians out of palestine. Various jewish leaders, almost invariably former terrorists and war criminals, have attempted to make life so intolerable for the palestinians that they will be forced to leave their own country. Many american jews have said nothing about palestinians being treated so badly for fear that their protests might hinder or stop such a policy. But now the american jewish lovers of jews-only terrorism against the palestinians face the prospect of suffering the same fate as those they despised so much. The rise of dechristianized zionists has brought the expulsion of the palestinians from palestine ever closer but it is also increasing the threat of expelling american jews to palestine.

So why is it that the wsws editorial board complains about the dominance of christians in the republican party, the congress, and the presidency and says nothing whatsoever about the influence of zionists? It is zionists who dominate both main political parties, congress, the media, and the presidency. Surely the wsws can’t be so political naïve as to believe that zionists do not play any role on modern politics or that zionists weren’t critically involved in mobilizing christians over the last couple of decades? Perhaps the wsws are just chomskyites ­ jews pretending to oppose racism whilst doing everything they could to undermine any political action to abolish the racism of the jews-only state in palestine.