After a lengthybreak from making interviews, I am finally returning to this aspect ofmy work with what I consider one of the most interesting interviews Iever made. One of my readers (thanks RC!) pointed me to the website andwork of Roger Tucker, truly an immensely interesting and courageousperson whom I consider to be the living proof of the fact that noamount of propaganda and indoctrination can overcome the human desirefor truth, freedom and justice. Roger, who was born as a American Jew(usually the most indoctrinated Jews anywhere on the planet, at leastin my experience) simply says that "we are defined by our choices" yetthese six simple words contain within themselves the assumption that weare *not* just defined by our environment or genetic makeup, a basictruth which both nationalists and racists have totally forgotten. Ibelieve that being defined by our choices is a core element of ourcommon humanity, that this freedom to choose is likewise a core elementof our essence as human beings and that what I would call the"brotherhood of choices" is far more important in our lives than ourethnic origins (just recall the Parable of the Good Samaritan).

Itis always a joy for me when any person breaks free from the ideologicalshackles he/she was born into and bursts into a life of true freedom ofthe spirit. This is a painful process which can only be completedthrough a great deal of suffering and anguish, but one which eventuallyleads to peace. I hope that Roger's example will inspire many others.

The Saker

---

The Saker:Please introduce yourself, tell us about the various organizations orwebsites you are associated with and what considerations brought you toget active in "Internet-based politics" (for lack of a better word)?

Roger Tucker:I think that I am a fairly typical product of my time, place andantecedents. I was born and brought up in Newton, one of the largelyJewish suburbs of Boston, populated then as now with a lot ofprofessional and business types, particularly faculty of the majorschools, like Harvard and MIT, doctors, lawyers, accountants et al.I rebelled against the whole shtick, heavily influenced by my mother, Ithink, who was a woman way ahead of her time but made the mistake ofentering into a conventional marriage, one which suffocated her. Well,we are defined by our choices and inexorably reap the consequences.

Iam part of two worlds that I have chosen. The first, following anevolution starting in my early teens, is the rather vast arena ofBuddhism. At first it was Zen, and then in the early 70's I became astudent of Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche, a Tibetan meditation master. Theassociated organization is Shambhala International, which acts as acontainer and transmitter of the teachings of this particular lineage.The second, which dates back only about five years, is the world ofpolitical activism. This is in stark contrast to my attitude andactivities when I was a student in San Francisco in the 60's. I wasvery much a part of the local counter culture, which was involved inthat remarkable spiritual revolution that was prologue to so much ofwhat we take for granted these days, in spite of the fact that thecounter-revolution was so emphatically successful. However, across theBay in Berkeley, there was a political revolution of sorts going on,the Free Speech Movement, robust antiwar activity, heavy support forthe Civil Rights movement, People's Park, and so forth. Well,identifying much more with the flower children, I dismissed most ofthat as the realm of the "politicals," as we called them, and wentabout my business.

Aboutfive years ago I found myself suddenly aware that I had been, like mostpeople, in something like a state of hypnosis regarding the State ofIsrael and the profoundly malevolent influence its existence andactivities were having on both international affairs as well asdomestic realities back here in River City. So I kind of woke up,snapped out of it, and almost immediately concluded that there was one,and only one way out of the mess - and that is what is known as the OneState Solution. Having come to this conclusion, one thing just followedanother and I found myself setting up a website as a source of information, education and advocacy. That led (I won't go into the technical reasons why) to my current website.

Whatwere the circumstances which brought you, a Jew, to turn to Buddhism?What about Christianity, Islam or Hinduism, have you ever consideredthese?

First of all, even as a youngster I never felt theslightest inclination to believe in God any more than I bought into thetooth fairy or Santa Claus. To me they were all childish productions ofthe mind that were best categorized by Freud as "infantilewish-fulfillment fantasies." But, atheism, of course, is not verysatisfying spiritually - it is merely a negation of theism. So I setabout actively searching for answers to the age old elemental questionsthat can best be summed up as "who am I - and what is That?" I feltsure that there must be, or must have been someone, somewhere, who hadat least the slightest idea of what was actually what, but for a longtime didn't feel that I could even be sure of that. I read The Way, by Lao-Tze, the Bhagavad Gita(and gave a talk on it to other young people), looked into Sufism andeven joined a Quaker Meeting, and while a student at the Army LanguageSchool took a course in the history of Islam, but it wasn't until afterI returned from a three year stint in the Army that I settled onBuddhism. This was precipitated by a lecture at Brandeis by D.T. Suzukiof Tokyo University. I came out of that talk with two distinctfeelings. One was that I hadn't really understood a word that he hadsaid. The other was that for the first time I had listened to someonewho was privy to the truth about the nature of existence. Such is Zen.I remember the sense as I was walking out of the auditorium that I wastwo feet off the ground. I had the feeling that I was, finally, notalone. I have since come to the conclusion that there are religions andthere are wisdom traditions, and the former are by-products of thelatter, sort of like ossified husks that preserve the form but havediscarded the essence. Among the wisdom traditions I happen to findBuddhism to be the clearest and most useful.

I don’t want togive the impression that I consider all religion to be detrimental tohuman understanding and development – that would be inaccurate and fartoo simplistic. On the contrary, all religions, as I said, contain theoriginal, genuine spiritual inspiration and wisdom within them.Otherwise they would just dry up and blow away, offering nothing tosustain them. One could say that religious beliefs and practices couldbe graphed as a spectrum that ranges from hopelessly ignorant, dogmaticfundamentalism (the products of the back country madrassas inAfghanistan and Pakistan or those of the Saudi Wahhabists, the pineywoods Assemblies of God and Bible Colleges in the southern U.S., theHindu fanatics in the rank-and-file of the BJP of India, and the fetidOrthodox precincts of Brooklyn that send forth the genocidalsettler-colonists in the West Bank).

At the other end of thespectrum are the saints and mystics, and ordinary people possessed oftranscendental common sense, who may or may not identify as believersin one of the traditional theistic traditions, but who can’t really bedistinguished from the practitioners of the wisdom traditions in theirbasic understanding. It would turn out to be a bell curve, no doubt,with the majority in the muddled middle, basically confused and kind ofinwardly agnostic but going along to get along. People will expresstheir natural yearning for spiritual understanding one way or another,and the gulf between belief in God and reliance on science and reasonis not as wide as is popularly thought.

To a large extent thedifference lies in the confusion between absolute and relative truth.Language itself evolved as a way of expressing relative truth, in orderto distinguish between this and that, good to eat or not good to eat,threatening as opposed to harmless and so forth. In order to expressabsolute truth, that which goes beyond polarities and concepts andpoints directly to things as they are, art is born and language becomesmetaphor, poetry, song and the voice of the spirit.

Iam going to repeat an old question here: what/who is a Jew? Do youstill consider yourself as a Jew and, if yes, what meaning do you giveto your "Jewishness".

The first part has a simpleanswer, though it's not the only answer. Like being human, or male orfemale, one is born that way. I was brought up to understand that oneis a Jew if one's mother was a Jew, and my parents and their parentswere Ashkenazim. The Nazis elaborated on that to include any forebearsgoing back even three generations. The Israelis, likewise, due to their"demographic problem," have loosened the definition considerably, sothat nowadays - if you're of the "right" nationality or ethnicity, youmerely have to make some vague claim to being Jewish. You're a shoo-inif you're a white European, which accounts for the hefty number ofrecent Russian immigrants. The same thing happened in South Africa,under the Afrikaner regime, and for the same reasons.

Whenone looks at Jewish history, though, the whole picture becomes quitemuddled. It appears that, contrary to popular belief (even among Jews),Judaism was for many hundreds of years a very actively proselytizingreligion, and a very successful one at that. It has been known for someyears that we Ashkenazim (the Yiddish speaking people) are thedescendants not of the Hebrews but of the citizens of the KhazarianEmpire, which was converted to Judaism back in the 8th Century AD. Anddue to the efforts of an Israeli historian by the name of Shlomo Sandwe discover that many of the Sephardim (from Spain and Portugal) andmost of the Mizrahim (Middle Eastern and Asian Jews, mostly NorthAfrican) are descended from Berber people who were converted by awarrior Queen. His book is currently being translated from Hebrew intoEnglish and it will no doubt cause quite a stir, no matter howassiduously the Zionists try to repress and distort it. The ironicupshot of all this is that it turns out that there is no such thing as"the Jewish People," anymore than there was such a thing as Hitler'sbeloved "Aryan Race." Fascism is always built on some suchmytho-history. The "misplaced concreteness," or reification, of suchsquirrelly collective terms as "the Jews," "White People," "BlackPeople," “the Working Class” or “Capitalists” is such a cause ofunnecessary suffering. I follow Ghandi’s example when he said when hewas asked if he was a Hindu “Yes I am, I am also a Muslim, a Christian,a Buddhist, and a Jew.” We are all just people, human beings, with thesame inalienable right to live in peace and dignity as anyone else, andthe same moral responsibility to let others do likewise.

Why are you, a Buddhist Jew, active in the Palestinian question? Why is this topic important to you?

Weare all faced with a question from early on, and one that never goesaway. How is one to live one's life? I'm going to give a Buddhistanswer and a Jewish one. The dharma talks about "the eightfold noblepath," which has some similarity to the Ten Commandments, but much morenuanced and spiritually sophisticated. One of these is "right action."This is not defined - that is left to commentary - but it means to actlawfully, where the term dharma, best translated as "the teachings," or"things as they are," is understood to be the basis of proper behavior,what determines how you act in relation to others. This is furtherelaborated in the Mahayana tradition in the form of the BodhisattvaPath. In order to enter this path, one takes a vow to put others beforeoneself, indeed, to save all sentient beings. This may sound like a bitof overreaching, but one eventually comes to understand that, given theseamless inseparability of all that exists, there's really no choice.This becomes, at the very least, one's aspiration. But, as in allthings Buddhist, how you go about it is left entirely up to you, anddepends on the depth of your understanding and your commitment to thevow that you have taken. That's the Buddhist part. (It might strikesome that there's an obvious similarity here to what Jesus taught,particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. There's a great Zen anecdoteabout that, but no space for it here.)

Solet's imagine a Buddhist who also happens to be a Jew, somebody likeme. Let me note here that no one who meets me gets the slightest hintthat I am "Jewish." I don't fit any stereotype, whether it'sphysically, linguistically or culturally. When I was bumming aroundEurope, the Middle East and Africa, people I met were often surprisedwhen I told them that I was an American - I had to convince people. Iwasn't ashamed of it particularly, although in certain circumstances I,as is still the custom among backpacker types, opted for passing as aCanadian to avoid unnecessary complications. When I found myself inIsrael the first time, I wound up becoming a volunteer on a kibbutz, asmuch a matter of practical necessity as leftover Jewish romanticism. Isoon discovered that the "volunteers" were considered a necessary evilby the kibbutzniks - free labor is free labor, a bargain at any price.They avoided any contact with the volunteers except as necessary to getthe work done - so much for the original ideal of a communitarianagrarian socialism - it was all business. Whenever possible, I wouldget away and wander around the country, soon discovering that I wasdrawn to the Arab inhabitants, the Palestinians, who seemed altogetherso much more attractive as people, so much more at home in the land.But I found that conversation would eventually get around to politics,and they would begin to get tense and the anger and frustration werepalpable. I wasn't close at this point to putting two and two together,so I would begin to feel alienated and restive and would soon move on.This pattern of moving back and forth between the two peoples persistedduring both of my sojourns in Israel in the early 70's. But I digress,which is fun, but perhaps confusing to the reader.

Goingback to the meaning that I give my "Jewishness," I should relate that Iwas sent to Hebrew School to prepare for my Bar Mitzvah, which, in theConservative Jewish tradition, as in the Orthodox, requires one tochant from the Haftorah in Hebrew. This comprised my Jewish educationthough I remember very little of it - I was not there willingly; myfather insisted, more for social and family reasons than anything else,which was a common attitude among second generation Jews at the time.For those who don't know, the Conservative school was something of acompromise between the Orthodox (rare at the time except among thoseborn in the old country - I think many of us felt that it was sure todie out completely in America; little did we realize how resilient suchcultural artifacts are), and an American invention, Reform Judaism, aprecursor to the type of Christianity that became dominant within theNational Council of Churches starting in the 60's, a kind of catch-allthat mimicked multi-activity secular institutions while paying lipservice to whichever branch of the religion whose name it carried - asort of social service oriented pastiche whose function was more thatof providing some sense of community and social purpose than anysemblance of pursuing a religious path. This has somewhat gone out offashion in recent years, largely replaced by a more robust form thatrelies on magic and blind faith, signaling a return to traditionalAmerican revivalism with the tents replaced by TV and Monster Churches.

Theinstitution I attended was Temple Emeth - 'emeth' meaning 'truth' inHebrew. In recent years I have found this increasingly ironic as I havebecome aware of the almost totally mythical nature of the stories thatJews have told about themselves over the centuries, much of which iscontained in the collection of folklore called the Jewish Bible. Andwith the advent of political Zionism, we have a full blown fascistmytho-history that is almost entirely fabricated. But somehow Iabsorbed something of the wisdom tradition that must have provided theseed for the whole thing, as can be found in every theistic religion ifone looks hard enough. Certain words resonate in my mind, like “truth,”“justice” and "righteousness," which somehow encapsulates the notion ofwhat in Buddhism we call "right action." It was all quite legalistic,stemming from the famous Ten Commandments and immersed in theinjunction to "fear God," for he is a "jealous God." I never had theslightest inclination to believe any of the theistic claptrap, butsomething about how one should live one's life properly did make sense.The wisdom essence seems to be contained in the Golden Rule. I justlooked up a variation that was handy, “Do not do to others what youwould not have them do to you,” which was attributed to Rabbi Hillel. AGoogle search then came up with other sources for those exact words,Confucius and Jesus of Nazareth (according to the Gospel of Matthew).One could also say that this formula sums up Mahayana Buddhism, as wellas the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin LutherKing. It’s all of a piece.

Allof this is leading to an answer to the question of why I am concernedwith the Palestinians, of why it's important to me. I am notparticularly attached to Palestinians as such. They are neither betternor worse than anyone else. Everyone is, as it is put in ShambhalaBuddhism, "basically good." But perhaps because I am Jewish, I feelthat I have a special responsibility to the millions of people who aresuffering at the hands of some of my fellow Jews, and I particularlyobject to this being done in my name. But really it's a moralimperative. What's basically wrong with political Zionism (theJabotinskian variation that gained the upper hand in Israel in the1930's and has had a tight grip on power ever since) is that itdirectly and flagrantly violates the bottom line of all genuinespiritual traditions. That is to say, it is intrinsically evil, andmust be opposed by anyone who has even the most rudimentaryunderstanding of the difference between right and wrong, be they ofwhatever religious, ideological, ethnic or national persuasion.

What was the reaction of your Jewish relatives and friends to your conversion to Buddhism?

Thisquestion I can dispense with quickly, but it does bring up aninteresting point. As for relatives, I am close only to my brother, whovery generously keeps me from starving and, to a much lesser extent, myfather, who kept me from starving while I was growing up. They areaware of my Buddhist connection, but are not particularly curious aboutit. I put this down to the fact that they are secular - my brother isagnostic and my father's Jewishness is a matter of identification withthe tribe - his pro formarelationship with the religion is, as with most Jews of his generation,more a matter of sentimentality and attachment to some sense oftradition and community than anything else.

Ihave many Jewish friends, but pretty much all of them are alsoBuddhists. It might help to point out that just as English is theworld's second language, Buddhism, if my take on this is correct, isthe world's "second religion." I don't know how many people (a lot)have told me that if they weren't a This or a That, or if they were toidentify with any spiritual path, they would be Buddhists. I don’t meanto imply that one path is “better” than another. For example, mybrother is one of the kindest and wisest people I have ever known, yetthe only spiritual discipline (if one could call it that) that onecould ascribe to him has been so-called secular humanism. He is aself-taught student of the Western Enlightenment, whose sages were thelikes of John Locke, David Hume, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Ishould add that "conversion" is not an accurate term in this context.One converts to a religion, and there is a distinction betweenreligions and spiritual (or wisdom) traditions. Religions, as I’vesaid, are institutions that grow out of wisdom traditions, a processakin to ossification, or the production of a husk around a seed. Thewisdom which is experienced and transmitted by elders, shamans,mystics, practitioners of spiritual yogas, sages, etc., becomessolidified into a masquerade, usually with elaborate trappings andpolitical responsibilities in support of the state. Religions, almostalways theistic, are founded on blind faith, dogma. One can no more"convert" to a genuine spiritual discipline than one can convert tophysics or gardening.

TheInternet is buzzing with discussions about the Neocons and the"Jewish/Israel/Zionist Lobby". What is your taken on these concepts? Isit correct to conflate them and use them interchangeably as is oftendone? Norman Finkelstein often repeats that it is wrong to speak of a"Zionist Lobby" because the leaders of the "Lobby" are not at allZionist in their outlook; according to him, all they are interested istheir power. Noam Chomsky says that it is wrong to speak about an"Israel Lobby" because, according to him, the USA is using Israel andnot the other way around.

Firstoff, I like the term "Zionist Lobby" because it is the most concise andaccurate. "Israel Lobby," which is the common usage, comes close, butIsrael is entirely the creation of Zionism, and therefore not quite asdescriptive. Why Finkelstein disagrees I have no idea, but one mustbear in mind that he is what we call a "soft" or "closet" Zionist. He,like other soft Zionists such as Jimmy Carter or Uri Avnery, whoimmediately come to mind, are still supporting the chimerical notion ofthe "two state solution." It is for this reason that I consider them tobe more a part of the problem than the solution, in spite of theirotherwise useful contributions to the general debate, particularlytheir insistence on viewing Palestinians as fellow human beings ratherthan cartoon characters with suicide belts strapped to their waists.

Butcan one really speak of a "Neocon Lobby" when referring to AIPAC, theADL, or the CPMJO?! Aren't all these organizations Israel-centric? Andif they are, does this not justify speaking about a "Zionist Lobby" or"Israel Lobby"? Furthermore, the fast majority of Neocons, but not all,are Jews and pretty much all members of AIPAC/ADL/CPMJO/etc are Jewsalso. Should one then speak of a "Jewish Lobby"? Please give us yournomenclature, your choice of words in regards to this issue: in youropinion who is representing whom,..

Asfor the neocons, that term refers to a very specific group of peoplecomposed primarily of Jews who started out on the Left and then, underthe influence of Leo Strauss, philosopher, and the other wing of theChicago School associated with Milton Friedman, economist (both of whomwere Jewish), migrated to the Right. Strauss is considered to be thefather of neo-conservatism, and is a perfect candidate for the role ofthe real Dr. Strangelove. As pro-Israel sentiments have historicallybeen more prevalent among the Democrats than the Republicans, NeoconLobby is a non-starter (as would Neolib Lobby, for the same reason). Ihave a certain fondness for a term coined by James Petras, Zionist Power Configuration,because it not only references the various formal organizations thatare considered to comprise the Israel Lobby, but includes all of thevarious individuals, corporations, associations as well as the vastarmy of collaborators, fellow travelers and sympathizers that have madesupport of Israel a fundamental plank, if not THE fundamental plank ofboth of the two major political parties (who, by the way, Icollectively refer to as the Republicrats).

Mostof the confusion about terminology stems from the conflation of threedistinct terms, "Jews," "Israelis," and "Zionists." Jews are the peoplewho self-identify as Jews and are considered Jews by others. The basicidea is that of a tribe or a people descended from Abraham of Chaldea(in what is now Iraq) and his progeny. Although that is probably 99%mythology and 1% history, it's the general view. Many people are underthe impression that it refers to people who practice the Jewishreligion - that was actually true, by and large, for perhaps a thousandyears or so, when Judaism was an energetic proselytizing religion, buthasn't been for at least the last 200 years. Israelis are the peoplewho are considered to legitimately reside in Israel (they don’t havesuch a thing as citizenship, as it would hinder their peculiar policytowards their Palestinian population. And Zionists are those who buyinto that particular ideology, which is, in essence, the belief thatthe Jews deserve a nation state of their own and that they had theright to establish a state in Palestine, and to maintain it there nomatter what.

JewishLobby is a total non-starter. For one thing, most American Jews feel agreat deal of ambiguity towards Israel and Zionism. There is thesubliminal tribal attraction counterbalanced by a natural repugnance,on the part of people who are otherwise secular, tolerant, progressivechildren of the Western Enlightenment and so forth, to an ethnocentric,fascist and violent ideology. Then there is the fact that the influenceof Jewish Zionism is wholeheartedly buttressed by the far more populousChristian Zionists, who are very much a part of my preferred term,Zionist Power Configuration. And if that term sounds too clumsy,Zionist Lobby will do fine. But I usually say Israel Lobby because itis the most popular term and it isn't entirely inaccurate.

..who is the dog and who is the tail"?

Iconsider the relationship between the U.S. and Israel to be basicallysymbiotic, but "who is the dog and who is the tail" depends on thespecific time and context. The term USrael comes in handy in thisrespect. Both regimes are under the impression that they are using theother, but I think the Israelis are winning that one hands down. Israelcouldn't survive for a month without the all out support of the U.S.,and most of official Washington appears to still buy into the notionthat Israel is a useful proxy in advancing the interests of Americanhegemony in the Middle East (principally control of their petroleumresources). That the truth is actually just the opposite is a notionthat doesn't seem to have penetrated at all inside the Beltway (perhapswe could start referring to the Beltway as the Separation Highway andDC as the Domestic Green Zone. How about the U.S. Permeable Membranethat allows money in but filters out any genuine concern for humanbeings and the planet).

Tellus about the Jewish opposition to the Neocons and the Lobby: who is itcomposed of, what does it stand for and what exactly does it oppose -the Neocons? Zionism? The State of Israel? What are the mainexpressions of this anti-Neocon Jewish movement, the progressivereaders of Tikkun or Orthodox Jews like the members of Neturei KartaInternational?

This question is directly addressed in "A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism", by Yakov M. Rabkin. It is listed on the Books Page of my website .

'Thisbook sheds light on religious anti-Zionism, which, demographically andideologically, represents the most serious threat to Israel as a Stateand as a collective identity. In fact, it is a more grievous anddangerous challenge than Arab and Palestinian hostility. The State, byincreasing its achievements, leads the country straight into an abyss.To paraphrase Marx, one could say that Israel, by virtue of itsspectacular development, is digging its own tomb.' (from Noam Chomsky’sreview)

In the Westmost Jewish opposition comes from secular Jews who see the Occupationas the main problem, as well as people like myself who view Zionism asan inherently fascist ideology, and its product, the State of Israel,as a criminal enterprise that has no more legitimacy as a modern nationstate than La Cosa Nostra has as a normal corporation. Tikkun, thecreation of Rabbi Michael Lerner, a close friend and advisor to theClintons, represents a group of (mostly secular) progressive Jews whoare somewhat New Agey and conventionally postmodern, similar to theJewish Renewal movement (more spiritual), whose most prominent teacheris Rabbi Zalman-Schechter. In spite of their disgust at Israel'sbehavior and compassion for the Palestinians, these people are all softZionists insofar as they support Israel's "right to exist."

Morebroadly, what role does religion vs secularism play in the issue ofIsrael, the Lobby and the Neocons? Is religious piety a reliableindicator of the political leanings of a Jew?

Itplays a divisive and negative part in Israeli politics, as thereligious parties have an influence far exceeding their numbers, but isa non-issue with regard to the Lobby and the Neocons, who areoverwhelmingly secular. As for religious piety, I don’t think it’s anydifferent from its role in any of the theistic religions – its basicfunction is to maintain a bulwark against the slings and arrows ofoutrageous fortune, known in Buddhism as samsara(the wheel of birth and death, the world of confusion and suffering,the natural result of continuing to make the same mistakes over andover again and expecting a different result). As this bulwark is anartificial construction, all available spiritual energy is divertedfrom actually dealing with things as they are into shoring up what isessentially a house of cards. I suppose one could say that the Neturei Kartaare the exception that proves the rule, at least in terms of theirattitude towards the “Jewish State,” which they consider to be anoxymoron. Joe Lieberman is an example of an Orthodox Jew who appears tobe schizophrenic when it comes to separating his general views, whichtend to be relatively sane and humane, from his fanatical devotion toIsrael. This is not all that uncommon among Zionists in general. Onewould think that the cognitive dissonance would be deafening, but ithas been said that our ability to hold two contradictory thoughtssimultaneously is a big part of what makes us human.

How are people like you who support Palestinian rights and who live in the USA seen in Israel?

That’sdifficult for me to say – one can only guess. There is an enormousdiversity of opinion about just about everything in Israel, but arecent survey that found more than 80% of (Jewish) Israelis have astrong anti-Palestinian bias demonstrates that government fostering ofparanoia and hatred has been largely successful. On the other hand,another survey found that upwards of 40% would emigrate if they could,including a majority of Holocaust survivors, who are allocated lessthan enough to live on in spite of the huge amounts of money Israel hasmanaged to extort from Europe and North America (especially Germany).The organized pursuit of this blood money is based on the exploitationof guilt about the Holocaust. This extortion racket and its associatedspinoffs, such as the Holocaust Museums, has been termed “the HolocaustIndustry.”

Do you hear the "if you lived here you would see differently" line very often?

Yes,something like that, but much more common are screams of sarcasm andhatred from Zionist true believers, though my guess is that thosemostly come from Brooklyn, the center of Jewish religious fanaticismand the source of the bulk of the settler-colonists in the West Bank.

Whatis your position on the "Two State" vs. "One State" issue? In youropinion, is it possible for Israel to be a democracy and a "JewishState"? Have you read Jonathan Cook's book Blood and Religion: the Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State and, if yes, what do you think about it?

AdvocatingOne State is the project that I’m engaged in. I wrote to Jonathan atone point – we have had a long standing correspondence – and asked ifhe specifically advocated One State in Blood and Religion (because Ihadn’t read it). His answer was “..thebook doesn't specifically advocate one state (although i do) becausethat wasn't the goal i set myself with this book. instead the bookdemolishes the idea both that israel can be a jewish state anddemocratic and that a jewish state has any interest in peace with thepalestinians -- with of course the very clear implication that the onlysolution would therefore be one, secular and democratic state…" I took this as a “yes,” and included it in my listing of books advocating One State, which had been the reason I had asked.

Itshould be mentioned that although the recent American and Israeliagreement on the need for a Palestinian state appear to be in concert,a closer look reveals that the Israelis are still just playing adelaying game that conveniently masks the consistent view of politicalZionism that all the land from the Euphrates and the Nile constitutes“Greater Israel.” At the same time the Israeli people, like any otherpeople, have a genuine desire for peace and security, which must bepandered to. However, there are cracks in this wall of deception, as Olmert’s recent pronouncementindicates. The establishment American view is purely pragmatic. Itcontinues to see Israel as its advance guard in the Middle East, andthere is some impatience to finally see borders clearly drawn and somesort of stability arrived at so that the project of fully establishingU.S. hegemony in the region can be realized without all the distractingfuss.

While Jimmy Carterspeaks of an Apartheid-like regime in the Occupied Territories he isvery careful to stress that he doe not refer to Israel proper. JonathanCook's book focuses on the Israeli Arabs and their legal status and hemakes the claim that their status inside the Israeli society is alsovery much Apartheid-like. Do you agree?

Very much so.Carter is an interesting case of a moderately intelligent person whotries very hard to do the right thing. As such, he is that rare case ofa religious person who is genuinely compassionate and I have a lot ofrespect for him, in spite of the numerous shortcomings of his book onIsraeli Apartheid, which includes the fact that he writes atrociously.That such a person, so deeply steeped in both American and Israelimytho-history, was able to let his conscience dictate such a departurefrom the conventional wisdom as to actually label Israeli policy asapartheid (a commonplace in the Israeli internal discourse) bespeaksconsiderable moral courage. At the same time he’s unable to perceivethat the Israeli Arabs, so-called, are very much the victims ofapartheid as well. A mere glance at the numerous restrictions they liveunder; their second-class status when it comes to social services,allocations for education, medical services, infrastructure, and so on;the fact that Israeli identity cards are based on religion; that landownership of 90% of Israel is administered by the Jewish Land Trust andis available only to Jews…well, you get the idea. They don’t havedrinking fountains labeled “Jews Only,” but that’s about the onlydifference between the situation in Israel and that of the Jim CrowSouth or of South Africa under the Nationalists.

Whatis your view of modern anti-Semitism? Do you agree with NormanFinkelstein when he says that this is largely an invention of the ADLor with Michael Neumann when he says that the very concept ofanti-Semitism has been so overused as to become meaningless?

There’ssome truth to both of those assertions, but a comprehensive view ofanti-Semitism would involve a much more detailed and nuancedexposition. Finkelstein is referring to the ADL version as theofficial, mytho-history of innocent Jewish victimhood. It convenientlyomits any serious discussion of the causes of the almost universalhostility that Jews engendered in numerous countries over themillennia. I should amend that – this hostility occurred almostexclusively in European countries, in contrast to the Islamic world forexample. This is because the only Jews with this history are theAshkenazim, the descendents of the Khazars, a turko-finnic people whothemselves were leftovers from the hordes of Attila the Hun. There isas yet, as far as I know, surprisingly little good historical materialon the Khazarian Empire and its subsequent manifestation among theAshkenazim. It would be a terrific subject for some aspiring PhDstudent of History.

As for Neumann’s assertion, it’s true as faras it goes, but one must ask how and why that happened. The problemcould be said to be encapsulated in the fact that the only real“semites” with whom I am familiar speak Arabic as their nativelanguage. And it becomes even more of a muddle as one looks closer.Suffice it to say that “anti-semitism” has become little but apropaganda device used as part of the whole Zionist disinformationproject. Anyone who criticizes Israel or its raison d’etre Zionism isautomatically labeled an “anti-semite,” and if they happen to be Jewishlike me, they are by definition “self-hating Jews.” Anyone who can’tsee through this shallow, knee-jerk logic wouldn’t be reading this.

Itgets really interesting when one looks at the heavily Zionistinfluenced intellectual fads that swept American universities in the‘70s. From multiculturalism to identity politics, from victimology tothe criminalization of hate crimes, everything conveniently fit theZionist playbook. Political correctness was probably the most insidiousof the lot, as it was a bid for Orwellian mind control. Fortunately,young people turned out to be resilient and the thought police arehaving a rougher go of it these days, not that they aren’t stillworking at it. Perhaps the most dangerous result of this effort hasbeen the criminalization of speech in a dozen or so European countries,with the Germans, not surprisingly, being the worst offenders. Theresult has been legislation against questioning any details of theofficial version of the Holocaust, as determined by the priesthood ofthe new Inquisition. This is a subject outside the scope of yourquestion, but it deserves much more discussion than it gets outside ofthe insular world of the Historical Revisionists (the officiallysanctioned Holocult term is “Holocaust Deniers.”)

I should alsopoint out that both Finkelstein and Neumann are what I have called"soft Zionists" – they too continue to advocate the fantasy of the twostate solution. I think that the only way to overcome this lingeringproblem is by offering free courses in intensive map reading. And ifany of your readers find that idea intriguing, the best maps I know ofare in Jeff Halper’s book Obstacles to Peace: A Reframing of the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict.

Doyou think that most of the vocal critics of Israel, the Lobby orZionism are harboring a maybe well-concealed but deeply felt hostilitytowards Jews?

In some cases it’s not well-concealed atall. There are numerous white supremacist and/or “Christian” sites thatpublish anti-Zionist material. I avoid linking to them for obviousreasons. Then there is the curious case of David Duke, whose Klan pasthas the effect of devaluing his writings on the subject, but he’sactually quite good on the subject these days, though I assume thatmost people don’t read his stuff when they see his name on it. Thenthere are Ziopedia and Israel Shamir.One can find relevant material on their sites that is hard to findelsewhere, but the general odor of Judeophobia permeates theenvironment around them so it’s kind of touchy. Most One Statersstrenuously dissociate themselves from both, but I am inclined to bemore inclusive, and I occasionally link to material I find on theirsites. Then there’s Joachim Martillo’s blog, Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel,which is well worth a look. It’s difficult to classify, starting withthe curious fact that he is neither Ashkenazi or Jewish. But he isquite erudite, and produces a considerable amount of material that isoriginal and is based on an extensive knowledge of Jewish history andreligion. This is the after effect of a youthful enthusiasm to convertto Judaism and an associated commitment to learning everything he couldabout it.

Overall I would say that the best informed, mostintelligent, articulate and compelling “critics of Israel, the Lobby orZionism” are just that, and are no more judeophobic or “anti-semitic”than I am, and you will find all of them on my website(s), as long astheir work is written in or translated into English. There’s a contributor’s page on my old sitethat is now a couple of years out of date, but has some detail aboutall the writers who wrote at least three pieces that I referenced.

Whatis the purpose of your website? What kind of people is it addressed toand what makes it different from other websites trying to provide goodinformation about the Middle-East?

It is meant to informand educate, and hopefully help as many people as possible to come tothe conclusion that there is only one viable solution to theIsraeli/Palestinian conflict, and that is the establishment of onedemocratic state in the land currently comprised of Israel, theOccupied West Bank, and the besieged ghetto of Gaza. Those people ofwhom I speak are not those whose minds are adamantly made up, but ofthat relatively small but potent group of people whose minds are stillopen. Most of all I want to reach ordinary Israelis and Palestinians,for they are the ones who will have to do the hard work of realizingthis seemingly impossible but absolutely necessary goal. This is not tosay that we don’t need the support of people everywhere, particularlyin North American and Europe, whose governments are ignoring their ownbest interests by going along with the U.S. in propping up what hasbeen accurately termed “the Zionist Entity.” (It’s not a nation statelike other nation states, for reasons we don’t have the space to gointo here, so what else should one call it?). One could look at OneState advocacy as a public health project. I have elsewhere comparedIsrael to a malignant tumor embedded in the body politic. I leave it tothe reader’s imagination to contemplate what happens when such a growthis not only suffered to survive, but is widely nourished and sustained.And bear in mind that the body I refer to is not just Palestine and theMiddle East, but the entire world.

If one visits my links page,you will find six websites (one of which is my old one) listed at thetop that specifically advocate One State. They all agree on the reasonswhy this would be a wise, just and workable solution, but they differin the same way that works of art in the same genre that deal with thesame subject matter differ – their creators are individuals with theirown unique styles and points of view. So you will find that AliAbunimah’s Electronic Intifada clearly reflects the outlook of a Palestinian American, while Mazin Qumsiyeh’s Human Rights Web is a product of his background as a Palestinian Christian from Bethlehem. Haidar Eid’s One Democratic State Group (Gaza) is unmistakably a view from that tragic enclave. The Committee for the Open Discussion of Zionism grew out of the Zionist hounding of Joel Kovel for publishing his book, Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine. Joel, John Siglar (the creator of An Online One State Bibliography in English), and I are all American Jews, but each with our own perspectives and background.

Myparticular approach is characterized by a quote I have attached to animage on the site’s home page that combines the Israeli and Palestinianflags – “Only connect…” It can be found in E.M. Forster’s Room With AView, but he liked it so much he inserted it as a sort of aphorism atthe beginning of “Passage to India.” It says a lot in only two words,and it is my approach to the website, which carries the banner YourOne Stop Source For Real (not Faux) Reporting on Israel/Palestine,Zionism, the Middle East, Pax Americana, and Related Matters.It is indeed all connected, and one can’t really put the whole puzzletogether, and fully comprehend it, without all or at least most of thepieces.

How can somebody best help you in your work?

Well,I’m so glad you asked! I stopped maintaining one-state.net because theweb design front end I was using became no longer compatible with thenew operating systems and I’m not a code warrior. The current Googlesite is OK, but lacks much of the functionality that I would like. Sothe first answer is technical help. For that and numerous otherreasons, I could make good use of some financial assistance, includingsolving the first problem. There’s a Donations page on the old website that still works, or people could email me if they have something to offer, even if it’s just helpful suggestions.

Thank you very much for your time and for your important work!
-------
Roger Tucker is author of the One Democractic State website and astudent and practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism who grew up as a Jew inthe Boston suburbs. He has traveled widely, including two stints inIsrael, and now lives quietly in North Carolina. Aside from watchingthe birds and the deer in his backyard, he collects and disseminatesarticles on his website"Your One Stop Source For Real (not Faux) Reporting onIsrael/Palestine, Zionism, the Middle East, Pax Americana, and More."He also writes some pieces himself, - By the Editor - most of themadvocating the One State Solution. He can be reached at rtucker41@earthlink.net.

---