Following the 1974 UN Resolution equating Zionism with racism, Chavez wrote to Rabbi Sidney Jacobs of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California.

It follows:

The following statement was adopted by the National Executive Board of the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO

The recent United Nations resolution condemning Zionism as racism is an affront to the Jewish people who have been history’s primary victims of racism.

As an embattled minority who have suffered the humiliation and degradation of racial and economic discrimination in this country, we know first hand the ravages brought by intolerance and prejudice. This resolution will encourage the latent anti-semitism that has been a blot on world history and continues to stain the conscience of mankind

A national Home for the Jewish People is the natural and legitimate aspiration of one of history’s most oppressed minorities. We are proud to stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters in America in affirming Israel’s right to live in peace with her neighbors. As democratic trade unions and human beings we can do no less.

Warmest personal regards. Viva la Causa!


Cesar Chavez, President

Here's a copy of the letter. Cesar Chavez was a great friend of Israel and the Jewish people

Here's a copy of the letter. Cesar Chavez was a great friend of Israel and the Jewish people

Even an icon of workers rights can be ass backwards in the face of unfiltered reality.
He was profoundly incorrect.
Zionism is racism with a cloak of many colors. Murderous racism and oppression are the hallmarks of the Israeli state.

Anti-Zionism seeks to dreprieve the Jewish people of a universal right- the right of self determination. Thats why anti-Zionism is racism.

Anti-Zionism is Racism
by Judea Pearl

In the past three months, I have visited four “troubled” campuses — Duke, York (Canada), Columbia and UC Irvine — where tensions between Jewish and anti-Zionist students and professors have attracted national attention. In these visits, I have spoken to students, faculty and administrators, and I have obtained a fairly gloomy picture of the situation on those and other campuses.

Jewish students are currently subjected to an unprecedented assault on their identity as Jews. And we, the Jewish faculty on campus, have let those students down. We have failed to equip them with effective tools to fight back this assault.

We can reverse this trend.

Many condemn anti-Zionism for being a flimsy cover for anti-Semitism. I disagree. The order is wrong. I condemn anti-Semitism for being an instrument for a worse form of racism: anti-Zionism.

In other words, I submit that anti-Zionism is a form of racism more dangerous than classical anti-Semitism. Framing anti-Zionism as racism is precisely the weapon that our students need for survival on campus.

Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to nationhood and self-determination.

Are Jews a nation? A collective is entitled to nationhood when its members identify with a common history and wish to share a common destiny. Palestinians have earned nationhood status by virtue of thinking like a nation, not by residing where their ancestors did (many of them are only three or four generations in Palestine). Jews, likewise, are bonded by nationhood (i.e., common history and destiny) more than they are bonded by religion.

The appeal to Jewish nationhood is necessary when we consider Israel’s insistence on remaining a “Jewish state.” By “Jewish state” Israelis mean, of course, “national Jewish state,” not “religious Jewish state” — theocratic states (like Pakistan and Iran) are incompatible with modern standards of democracy and pluralism. Anti-Zionist racists use this anti-theocracy argument repeatedly to delegitimize Israel, and I have found our students unable to defend their position with conventional ideology that views Jewishness as a religion.

Jewishness is more than just a religion. It is an intricate and intertwined mixture of ancestry, religion, history, country, culture, tradition, attitude, nationhood and ethnicity, and we need not apologize for not fitting neatly into the standard molds of textbook taxonomies — we did not choose our turbulent history.

As a form of racism, anti-Zionism is worse than anti-Semitism. It targets the most vulnerable part of the Jewish people, namely, the people of Israel, who rely on the sovereignty of their state for physical safety, national identity and personal dignity. To put it more bluntly, anti-Zionism condemns 5 million human beings, mostly refugees or children of refugees, to eternal statelessness, traumatized by historical images of persecution and genocide.

Anti-Zionism also attacks the pivotal component of our identity, the glue that bonds us together — our nationhood, our history. And while people of conscience reject anti-Semitism, anti-Zionist rhetoric has become a mark of academic sophistication and social acceptance in Europe and in some U.S. campuses.

Moreover, anti-Zionism disguises itself in the cloak of political debate, exempt from sensitivities and rules of civility that govern interreligious discourse. Religion is ferociously protected in our society — political views are not.

Just last month, a student organization on a UC campus hosted a meeting on “A World Without Israel.” Imagine the international furor that a meeting called, “A World Without Mecca,” would provoke.

So, in the name of “open political debate,” administrators would not think twice about inviting MIT linguist Noam Chomsky to speak on campus, though his anti-Zionist utterances offend the fabric of my Jewish identity deeper than any of the ugly religious insults currently shocking the media. He should be labeled for what he is: a racist.

Strategically, while accusations of anti-Semitism are worn out and have lost their punch, charging someone with racism makes people ask why anyone would deny people the right of self-determination in a sliver of land in the birthplace of their history. It shifts the frame of discourse from debating Israel’s policies to the root cause of the conflict — denying Israelis their basic rights as a nation.

Charges of “racism” highlight the inherent asymmetry between the Zionist and anti-Zionist positions. The former grants both Israelis and Palestinians the right for statehood, the latter denies that right to one, and only one side. This asymmetry is the most effective weapon our students should use in campus debates, for it puts them back on the high moral grounds of “fair and balanced” and forces their opponents to defend an ideology of one-sidedness.

For example, I have found it effective, when confronting an anti-Zionist speaker, to ask: “Are you willing to go on record and state that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a conflict between two legitimate national movements?” Western audiences adore even-handedness and abhor bias. The question above forces the racist to unveil and defend his uneven treatment of the two sides.

America prides itself on academic freedom, and academic freedom entails freedom to teach hatred and racism — we graciously accept this fact of life. However, academic freedom also entails the freedom of students to expose racism, be it white-supremacy, women-inferiority, Islamophobia or Zionophobia wherever it is spotted. Not to censor, but to expose — racists stew in their own words.

In summary, I believe the formula “Anti-Zionism = Racism” should give Jewish students the courage to both defend their identity and expose those who abuse it.

Source - http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=14207

Word hash fests only go so far.
Zionism is 'self determination' over the mass graves of the non-'Jewish' people of former Palestine.
BTW, it [ the preceding scree of equivocations and bull shit ] doesn't give anyone the right to someone's lands and freedoms.

You forget. The Arabs were the original colonizers and occupiers

As an Israeli Jew, I have always taken for granted my own indigeneity to my homeland. I am indigenous not only because I was born here; I am no more indigenous to the hills of Judea than any Jew born in the Diaspora. I am indigenous to this land because, like Diaspora Jews, I am part of a nation that had two glorious kingdoms here, but due to a series of historic injustices committed against us by Assyrian, Babylonian, and Roman Empires, our land was ravished and our people dispossessed.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories FREE SIGN UP!

I am also indigenous because I smile when my grandmother tells me partially in Hebrew, partially in Arabic, and partially in French about how it was tradition for her family in Morocco to dress in fancy clothes for the Shabbatot that fell on the three-week mourning period leading up to Tisha B’Av (unlike the other families), as part of the preserved honor culture of the “Levite” tribe. I am indigenous because of my deep emotional reaction to reading the 2,300 year-old texts written by my ancestors on the Digital Dead Sea Scrolls website. I am indigenous because, even after hearing it for the millionth time, I cringe every time a Jew refers to our beloved Judean soil – soaked with the blood, sweat, and tears of my people for thousands of years – as the “West Bank” and because not so long ago I literally burst into tears when I heard two people utter the unbearable words “a divided Jerusalem.”


The indigeneity of Jews to the land of Israel is not some vague, anemic, or obscure “semi-status.” This is not only a matter of academic qualifications which we clearly meet – whether it be our national origin, indigenous culture, language, historic sovereignty, deep spiritual connection to the land etc. – but emotionally as well. Consider for a moment how much our people in exile over the centuries prayed, fought, and bled for our dream of returning home. We might very well be the very embodiment of what it means to be an indigenous people. The instinctive indigenous self-identification of Jews throughout the ages is what enabled Jewish freedom fighters to sacrifice their lives for this land, and it is what gives relentless strength to Israeli soldiers today. Note for a moment how anti-colonial tactics such as terrorism, tactics that have been used successfully in places like Algeria to drive away real colonialists, do not work on us, an indigenous people, at all.

So why do those who care about indigenous rights not support a native people’s right to live on its ancestral lands?

Both liberal and conservative Israel advocacy organizations in America are doing it wrong. Every time they portray Israel as a Western country, identify Jews (even indirectly) as white people while simultaneously referring to our ancient national culture as a “religion” or speak in a mannerism which would suggest we are anything but an indigenous people, they are reinforcing the bizarre but successful anti-Israel narrative depicting us as Western European colonialists in a foreign land. Since the hasbara industry has collectively been identifying us in this fashion for years we shouldn’t be surprised when we are told to “go back to Europe.” When all of the largest Jewish American Israel advocacy groups, whether right or left, insist on this false Western presentation of our people it not only weakens our position, it also destroys the possibility of ever truly integrating into the region and making peace with our neighbors. A Western country does not belong in the Middle East and the inclination of the other peoples of the region to oppose such a state is instinctive.

Gay rights, women’s rights and Western-style democracy are also not going to do the trick as all three are irrelevant to the core issue at hand, and true indigenous status easily trumps all three in the minds of even the most progressive young activists. Even if such topics may help gain the support of many American liberals, focusing on these issues bolsters the narrative that we are foreign to the Middle East, ultimately falsifying our people’s true historic narrative and further alienating the other Semitic peoples from us (those we are actually destined to live with). It is also time to throw away the (somewhat arrogant and very much irrelevant to the point of discussion) “we are the good guys because we are more civilized/produce better technology/have more Nobel prizes than you” rhetoric and go back to the authentic definition of Zionism as an indigenous people’s liberation movement, with our inherent connection to our land based on indigenous rights, the correction of historic injustices and the universal rights of all native peoples.

The UN’s resource kit on indigenous people’s issues states that:

“Self-identification as indigenous or tribal is considered a fundamental criterion and this is the practice followed in the United Nations and its specialized agencies, as well as in certain regional intergovernmental organizations. Article 33 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples refers to the rights of indigenous peoples to decide their own identities and membership procedures.”

In other words, it all comes down to self-identification. It is ultimately up to Diaspora Jews to make a decision. You are either native to Eretz Yisrael, the ancestral homeland of the people you are part of, to which your people’s language, customs, and traditions are indigenous and to which your people aspired and sacrificed to return for thousands of years; or you are indigenous to the place in which you were born in only because Assyrian, Babylonian, and Roman imperialists invaded your people’s homeland some centuries back. You are either part of a Semitic people, a proud and ancient Middle Eastern nation with a rich treasured past and a collective meaningful future, or you choose to willingly give in to subtle Western social constructs pressuring you to discard your people’s authentic self-definition and identify as white people, part of the Euro-Western nations, history and ethos with the only thing distinguishing you being some kind of different “religion.” I know where I stand.

The last occupier of Palestine-Israel was the Ottoman Empire. The last official country with an independent government in Palestine was the Jews. All others were just conquerors with no official independent government. After many years the Jewish people retained their land back and established its own government.
The Arabs who claim title to the lands in Palestine-Israel are thieves who have possessed land that was never theirs. They never purchased any of the land in any legal manor.
Just like the Arabs expelled a million Jews (who lived there for over 2,000 years) from their countries and confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate 5-6 times the size of Israel 46,000 sq. miles.

There never was an Arab-Palestinian State on Jewish land and it will never be an Arab Palestinian State on Jewish land of Israel.
The Arabs beheaded 700 Jews in Medina (Saudi Arabia today) 1500 years ago and destroyed the Jewish community, took the wives, women and children as slaves.
The Arabs killed hundreds of Jews in Safed Israel in the 1600's.

Arabs expelled over a million Jews from all their countries and confiscated all their assets and 46,000 sq. miles of Real estate.
The Jewish forced exodus from Arab lands refers to the 20th century expulsion or mass departure of Jews, primarily of Middle Eastern background, from Arab and Islamic countries. The forced migration started in the late 19th century, but accelerated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. According to official Arab statistics, over 989,000 Jews were forced out of their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970’s. Some 750,000 resettled in Israel, forced to leave behind personal property which the Arabs confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate valued today in the trillions of dollars. Jewish-owned real-estate confiscated by the Arab countries is about 120,000 square kilometers or 46,000 square miles (5-6 times the size of the State of Israel). Valued today in the trillions of dollars.
Israel - In order to consider a new negotiations with the Arab-Palestinians
First thing, let us see the Arab Palestinians stop teaching their children and the masses to commit terror and violence. Stop rewarding terrorists, stop funding terrorists families, stop naming streets after terrorists. Declare and practice that terror and violence is unacceptable. We need to see a change in attitude towards terror and a true and honest pursuit of peace and coexistence.
You can accomplish more with honey than with vinegar.
If that is not possible than there will never be peace.
A true peace will be a blessing and an economic prosperity to all concerned.

“The last official country with an independent government in Palestine was the Jews. “
Give me a break.
This isn't about highly speculative, convoluted 'law' or historical myths unsupported by real archaeological evidence or even boundaries drawn by powers that were beyond the control of the people of Palestine.
This is your “self-determination” pogrom against the people who were living there for centuries.
It's called Genocide of the native population for a Jewish Lebensraum .
Shall we dance over definitions again?
You're still nutz, all of you psychopaths. Real neo-NaZis.

There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let’s get a few things straight:

As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.
If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don’t want it back.
If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don’t even exist any more, so they can’t want it back.
So, going back 800 years, there’s no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel’s title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:

The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:
The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:
The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:
The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:
The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:
The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from:
The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:
The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn’t conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:
The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:
The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:
The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:
The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:
The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:
The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:
The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.

"the Palestinian problem" you are probably referring to, has the same "final solution" your predecessors, the NaZis had.
But they weren't so tiresome about their 'rightful' position in doing it.
The European Jews that invaded Palestine never had any ancestors who had ever set foot there, Their predecessors adopted the Jewish faith as a convenient business/political choice.
The menu of Zionist lies are limited and all too familiar.

The AIPAC are reaching pretty far back if you have to exhume Cesar Chavez to get a quote.

The AFL CIO and activists in Civil Rights supported Israel in the 60s and 70s because it was a progressive state, because the unions tend to go along with the State Department, and because Jews were a big part of the Democrat Civil Rights coalition.

Back then, American Jews were involved in desegregating housing, in pushing for Civil Rights, in very pro-Labor. When you see whites in the photos of the Civil Rights movement, many are Jews.

However, times have changed. Israel has turned from a somewhat gentle non-democratic state to a very harsh, racist state.

Liberal and progressive Jews support a 2-state solution, and some want a majority-Arab Israel, and the right-wingers don't. The right wingers support a mild form of genocide of Arabs within the Israeli borders.

Look at J Street. They don't support Netanyahu and his racism.

If Chavez were alive today, he'd be either silent on the issue, or opposed to Likud.

This is the mainstream liberal Jewish position:

No more settlement expansion

Aid to Palestinians

A 2 state solution

MAINSTREAM. This is NOT the radical or even "left" position.

The radical position is the dissolution of Israel. The left position is to implement full democratic rights for Arabs - automatic citizenship for all residents and refugees.

All the anti-BDS crap being posted here is probably done by professionals who do this for pay. They are probably working for one of the lobbying groups, or a bogus nonprofit, or even the US government.

We already HAVE a two state solution.
The occupier with all the military hardware it can get from the U.S. tax payer and the occupied.
Don't blow smoke up our ass.
A one state solution with equal rights for all is the ONLY sane solution, void of treachery and hypocrisy.
Git real.

I see no evidence that hamas and fatah will ever resolve their differences

" I see no evidence that hamas and fatah will ever resolve their differences"
Maybe because your infiltration / promotion of Fatah makes it so.
They were voted as the choice of the people.

One election in ten years does not a democracy make. neither side is willing to even attempt an election- both hamas and Fatah have alienated the Palestinian people. Time for a real choice.

It's time for the psychopathic Israeli pogrom of Genocide towards the original native population to cease, 'Carlos'.

Various peoples at various times have occupied the area now known as Palestine/Israel and called it their home. Even those who argue (ridiculously) that Bible stories give them title to it, have to rely upon a Holy Book that clearly narrates how the Hebrews seized it from its former occupants, untold thousands of whom were murdered, raped, and enslaved. And now some of the alleged biological descendants of these invaders claim that they have the right to take it away from Palestineans who have lived there for many centuries and are probably, in part, descendants of the ancient Hebrews themselves? Rubbish!
The only solution to the present untenable situation is a one state solution in which Jewish citizens have equal rights but Arabs whose ancestors lost their homes in 1948 receivesubstanial reparations.

"alleged biological descendants of these invaders"
Well, it seems to me that these present day Zionist invaders don't even have ANY biological descendants who had EVER set foot there.

The Palestinians are recent migrants to the Holy Land. Their surnames prove it

One state deprives both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people of the right of self-determination. The only hope for peace are two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of Palestine, side by side.

Both the Hamas Charter and the Palestinian draft constitution call for a nation ruled under Sharia law. For you to impose a shared state with Jews deprives the Palestinians of what they desire- thats a Western wet-dream, not a Palestinian one