Opinion Pieces for the Boulder Daily Camera/Zionism

From: Rich Forer <rich_forer@...>

To: rich forer <rich_forer@...>

Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2025 at 10:47:11 AM CST

Subject: Opinion Pieces for the Boulder Daily Camera

Friends,

Attached to this email are three short articles on Zionism and the logic of Zionism. The first two were published on November 19 and 20 by the Boulder Daily Camera. I did not expect the Camera to publish the third article, which was written by me. I was right, and I explain why towards the end of this email. Together, these articles provide a good summary of the hostility and different worlds Israel’s critics and defenders live in. Some of the points I make in this email and in my article are not discussed by any commentators on the Israel-Palestine debate, so please share this with your contacts.  

     The first article in the attachment is an opinion piece by Guy Benintendi that is critical of Zionism and its effect on the US population. The next day, the Camera published a letter from Boulder rabbi Fred Greene disputing Guy’s reasoning. A self-described Zionist, Greene said, “Zionism is simply the belief that Jewish people have the right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland — a right granted to all peoples.” Is Greene in such denial that he doesn’t realize that for generations the Zionist state of Israel has viciously denied the right to self-determination to the indigenous people in their ancestral homeland, that from its inception the Zionist project was determined to “spirit the penniless across the border (Herzl, 1897),” to “support compulsory transfer (Ben Gurion, 1930s)”? Zionists were unequivocal that “there is no room in this country for both peoples. . . . If the Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us. . . . The only solution is a land of Israel, without Arabs. . . There is no room here for compromises. . . . Not one village must be left, not one [bedouin] tribe. (Josef Weitz, director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department, 1940).”[1]

     When confronted with the consequences of Zionism’s destructive legacy upon the Middle East, not to mention the US and Europe, virtually every defender of Israel is compelled, though they are unaware of their compulsion, to fabricate a story that preserves their cherished beliefs and images of Israel as a  country wanting to live in peace that is continually forced to defend itself against the murderous intentions of antisemites. It’s important to understand that their accusations of bigotry are a strategy to deny their own bigotry. Moreover, just as they are in denial of Israel’s crimes against humanity, they cannot comprehend that the moral support Zionists provide Israel makes those crimes, which they call self-defense, possible.

     Greene’s need to maintain his childish beliefs is the singular reason he misinterpreted Guy’s words and accused him of wanting to deny and erase “Jewish rights." He had no conscious choice but to make that accusation because to maintain his unexamined and idealistic images of himself and Israel as fair and humane, his only option was to lie to himself and ­deny the truth of Israel’s policies and behavior. Additionally, he has to slander Israel’s critics as antisemites. Real antisemitism exists in the US, mainly among Israel’s friends, such as the Republican party and its white nationalist base, but on nowhere near the scale Zionists would have us believe. [“The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.” – The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Volume One]. In any case, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about legitimate criticism of Israel. If critics are antisemites, then rather than being founded upon fact, their criticism can be dismissed as nothing more than scurrilous attempts to dehumanize Jews. From years before its establishment, Zionists were determined to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. As the very dovish former foreign minister Abba Eban once said, “One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism [generally understood as criticism of policies of the Israeli state] is not a distinction at all.”

     Greene's tropes emanate from his and other Zionists' collective imagination. The tropes have no basis in objective reality. They are self-serving and indicative of Zionists' refusal to contemplate anything that challenges their presumed identities as "Jews" and/or "Zionists," including the beliefs and images that constitute such identities. The tropes are confessions of their self-deceit and are essential for them to maintain their presumed identities. Inevitably, they are passed on to anyone they speak to on the subject. The Jewish community is in deep trouble if its leaders are as willfully ignorant as Fred Green—and Greene is a moderate compared to many. 

     Greene also posted his article on his Facebook page with these words: "Yesterday, it was a very ugly piece in the Daily Camera newspaper, the local paper for Boulder, Colorado. . . I felt compelled to write a response. I hope it will be helpful."

     After reading the above, I wrote to Greene, mentioned I'd read his and Guy's articles, acknowledged that I was a severe critic of Zionism, and suggested it could be useful for the two of us to engage in a public debate at his synagogue (Har Hashem), the Boulder JCC, or any other venue he liked. He ignored my challenge which I expected, but which, however, may have forced him to consider—though only for an instant—and reflexively reject the reality that despite his strong convictions he has never investigated this issue and may be on the side of horrific injustice. 

  Despite my near certainty the Camera would not publish any further response to Guy’s article, the day after the Camera published Green's rebuke, I submitted my own article. My near certainty is because it's become increasingly clear to me that the Camera is averse to taking a side on the Israel-Palestine tragedy. It treats the opinions of both sides as equally relevant despite one group's observations being rooted in documented fact and an aspiration to end genocide, and the other's being rooted in denial and a self-serving and fictitious version of history that supports, rationalizes, and justifies genocide—and even denies there is a genocide. 

     Put simply, the Camera's possible bias in the direction of Greene—and the supremacists on the Boulder City Council—eclipses its duty to serve the public with accurate reporting. While I acknowledge these are "opinion" pieces, I believe that American journalism has a duty to stand up for the oppressed and to stand against the lies and deceptions of their oppressors. How else can it enlighten and educate the public? Why won't the Camera denounce Jewish supremacy and Zionist ideology, the latter being the engine that powers the dispossession, torture, false imprisonment, occupation, character assassination, and genocide of an entire people because they are guilty of the “crime” of not being "Jewish"?  

    Guy's, Greene's, and my articles are attached to this email in a single Word document in the order in which they were written. My 719 word article, titled "Amalek and AIPAC: The Ideology That Incites Antisemitism," stands on its own so you can bypass Guy's or Greene's pieces, though, at 650 and 300 words respectively, they are worth reading. Yours, Rich

---

[1] . Also, “Land is the most necessary thing for our establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands in Palestine, we are bound in each case of the purchase of land and its settlements to remove the peasants who cultivated the land so far, both owners of the land and tenants.” – Arthur Ruppin, 1930. Known as the father of Zionist settlement and the father of Jewish sociology, Ruppin (1876–1943) was a founder of the city of Tel Aviv. 

Guy Benintendi: We must resist Zionist propaganda

There’s a Buddhist parable that goes like this: A man was swimming in the sea one day when he saw a fish swimming beneath him. He said to the fish, “How’s the water down there?” The fish replied, “What’s water?” Just as fish don’t know that they’re swimming in water because they’re surrounded by it, most people in the U.S. don’t know what the Zionist narrative is because they’re swimming in it; they accept it as factual rather than a political stance.

I’ll give you three local examples of this:

The first is Boulder City Council refusing to demand a ceasefire to the Israel-executed and U.S.-funded genocide in Gaza while at least a hundred other cities around the country did so. Opposing genocide should be a no-brainer, so what stopped the council from doing so? Can you imagine them refusing to demand a ceasefire if Jews somewhere in the world were experiencing industrial murder?

Next, Boulder’s Palestine sister city project received strong opposition from the local Jewish community.

To get official certification it had to issue a statement of commitments— bouldernablus.org/about/statement-of-commitments. It is the only sister city project that has rules, restrictions, guidelines or requirements above & beyond those articulated in the resolution certifying it.

The final example has to do with a discussion group that was cosponsored by the CU Center for Humanities & the Arts and Chautauqua. That dialogue was promoted with the following ad copy:

“Israel. Palestine. Boulder. A Very Difficult Dialogue.” Now that the hostages taken by Hamas have been released and Palestinian prisoners have returned to Gaza, what does the future look like for Palestine and Israel? How do tensions in this region resonate globally — particularly in the U.S.? Can we envision a future where both nations coexist in peace, given the recent hostilities and violence?” (chautauqua.com/event/difficult-dialogues-israel/)

I wonder if anyone else sees anything grossly biased by this Lede. First, there’s the Israeli captives being referred to as “hostages” while the Palestinian captives are referred to as “prisoners.” The word “prisoner” implies a legitimately incarcerated person who has been tried in a court and found guilty; the word “hostage” implies the exact opposite. Yet Palestinians have been swept up in mass arrest raids and held without trial (a description that applies to the majority of incarcerated Palestinians). Palestinians who have been convicted of “crimes” most often acted against the occupation army — legal acts under International Law. This is another fact that the vast majority of U.S. citizens don’t know. Israel, as an occupying power, does not have the right to defend itself; Palestinians do (UN Resolution 42/159, among others). You will never hear this in the Zionist narrative zone, of course. That too often these claims go unchallenged is an indication that the Zionist narrative has been internalized.

The last sentence in the “Difficult Dialog” announcement assumes that history started on Oct. 7, 2023, and that a two-state solution is the way forward. A fairer question would be, “Can we envision a future where Jews live in Palestine, not as colonial masters of an indigenous population but as citizens equal to every other citizen? Martin Luther King Jr said: “True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.”

That Americans could be trained to accept the idea that Israel, a Jewish state, is a democracy even as it occupies another people shows how internalized the Zionist narrative is. Democracy and occupation are contradictory concepts; a Jewish state that privileges Jews over its non-Jewish citizens is no democracy either.

We owe it to ourselves as responsible citizens of this country to free ourselves from the indefensible Zionist narrative that has shackled our minds for so long. Especially in these increasingly repressive times, we must all resist the propaganda that seeks to make us numb to the genocide aided and abetted by our government — and to so much else underway domestically.

Fred Greene: Opinion writer perpetuates anti-Jewish rhetoric

I must address the dangerous misconceptions in Guy Benintendi’s opinion, “We must resist Zionist propaganda.” While criticizing Israeli policies is legitimate — Israelis themselves are fierce self-critics — this crosses into territory that promotes antisemitic tropes and denies Jewish rights.

The author fundamentally misrepresents Zionism. At its core, Zionism is simply the belief that Jewish people have the right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland — a right granted to all peoples. I am a Zionist, and I oppose settlement expansion. I am a Zionist, and I believe in Palestinian rights and dignity. These aren’t contradictory. Calling the very concept of Jewish self-determination “indefensible” doesn’t critique policies — it denies Jewish peoplehood itself. My Zionism is rooted as a liberation movement and the national renewal movement of the Jewish People.

The opening parable — suggesting Americans are unknowingly controlled by “Zionist narrative” — employs a classic antisemitic trope: Jews controlling discourse and politics in invisible, insidious ways. This echoes conspiracy theories about Jewish power that have fueled violence against us for centuries. American foreign policy is shaped by complex geopolitical factors, not by citizens “trained” by narratives that have “shackled our minds.”

Critique is essential. If you choose to criticize another state’s actions, have at it! However, criticism that denies Jewish history, trauma, and rights to safety isn’t progressive — it’s dangerous.

We can acknowledge Palestinian suffering without erasing Jewish rights. We can demand better from Israel without suggesting its existence as a Jewish state is illegitimate. We can pursue justice without employing tropes that endanger Jewish communities. And we can recognize that there are two indigenous people in one land and they need to work together to build a better future.

Benintendi’s article perpetuates anti-Jewish rhetoric where Zionism is used as bait to build hatred against Jews and Israel. It perpetuates hostility and inhibits real, lasting peace. 

--Rabbi Fred Greene

Rich Forer: Amalek and AIPAC: The Ideology That Incites Antisemitism

In his response to Guy Benintendi’s November 19 op-ed, Fred Greene employs talking points used for decades to thwart criticism of Israeli policy. He writes

"Zionism is ... the belief that Jewish people have the right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland. . . My Zionism is rooted as a liberation movement."

I dispute Greene’s characterization that Israel is the Jewish people's "ancestral homeland." The region became the destination of European Jews in large part because Zionist leaders—many of whom were atheists—blocked their migration to the US and western Europe following WWII. The goal was to increase the Jewish population of Palestine and convince the world to support the establishment of a Jewish state.   

In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries most religious Jews opposed Zionism as rejection of the Torah, believing that only God, through the Moshiach (Messiah), could establish a Jewish nation. What then is “liberating” about stealing—to use David Ben-Gurion’s language—another people’s homeland and reneging on virtually every promise to comply with international law? Does defining itself as an eternal victim exempt Israel from laws designed to maintain civility among nations? Doesn’t such exceptionalism make Israel a pariah in much of the world?

Whereas Palestinian ancestral claims are grounded in thousands of years of continuous habitation, Greene’s claim rests upon nostalgia and a materialistic interpretation of the Torah. He says nothing of Palestinian self-determination, so one must ask: Must Jewish self-determination negate Palestinian self-determination? Does Jewish self-determination spawn a narcissistic ideology, contemptuous of non-Jewish life and intent on destroying a people as if they were “Amalek,” a term Netanyahu often uses? In the Hebrew Bible, God commands King Saul to utterly destroy Amalek, the archetypal enemy of the Israelites.

Greene argues that “suggesting Americans are unknowingly controlled by ‘Zionist narrative’ – employs a classic antisemitic trope about invisible control.” Citing political reality is not antisemitic. Unknowingly controlled by the Zionist narrative and writing from that perspective, Greene is willfully blind to AIPAC’s visible control of the votes of much of Congress. Though they possess minimal knowledge of Middle East history, congressmembers loyal to Israel accept Zionism’s false narrative peddled by supremacists like Netanyahu and enforced by AIPAC, then approve weapons Israel uses to pulverize Gaza. Greene further disregards the oft-repeated slogan echoed by Congress—as it turns a blind eye to Israeli leaders’ calls for Gaza to be “wiped off the face of the earth”—about the "unbreakable bond"  between Israel and the US.

Greene dismisses Benintendi’s criticism of Zionist influence as a denial of “Jewish history, trauma and rights to safety.” That is a trope meant to divert the public’s attention from Israel’s denial of Palestinian history, trauma and rights to safety. The misuse of historical trauma—and the actions carried out in its name—exacerbates Palestinian trauma, portrays the Jewish people as lawless oppressors,  and foments global antisemitism. Is that what Greene wants? The answer is Yes, because Yes is vastly preferable to him than inquiring into his identity and its beliefs and images and facing death—the apparent death of his ego-identity.

Finally, Greene states that the two peoples “need to work together to build a better future.” That is a positive, though naïve, sentiment but it ignores Israel’s rejection of numerous peace proposals from the Arab world both before and after 1948. It also ignores the many long-term ceasefire proposals made by Hamas since 1988 and acknowledged by, among others, Jimmy Carter, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy and former Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet) head Yuval Diskin. And it ignores Netanyahu and the Knesset’s determination to rule out any possibility of a Palestinian state. For them “peace” is the absence of the Palestinian people from the latter’s historic homeland. As Nahum Goldmann, founder and former president of the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, noted: Israel “has rejected every settlement plan devised by her friends and by her enemies. She has seemingly no other object than to preserve the status quo while adding territory piece by piece.”

If a lasting peace is more important to Greene than being right, if he wishes to counter the image much of the world has of Jewish people as mass murderers and ethnic cleansers, I urge him to set an example for his congregation by deepening his understanding of the historical record.   

--Richard Forer