Zionists’ Crafted Geopolitical Tapestry

The on-going war in Syria and Iraq arrests the attention of the global powers and apparently much diplomatic struggle is being waged to handle the current crisis, which is readily declining the state artifices of both Syria and Iraq. This article attempts at investigating the historical linkage to the current situation.

Zionists’ Crafted Geopolitical Tapestry, Zionists’ Crafted Geopolitical Tapestry, Middle East Politics & Culture Journal
© Photo: Muhesen Amren/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Weizmann and Ben-Gurion were willing to negotiate with Arab rulers in order to gain those rulers’ recognition of Jewish statehood in Palestine in return for the Zionists’ recognition of Arab independence elsewhere, but they would not negotiate with the Arab politicians in Palestine for a political settlement in their common homeland.

The Weizmann Doctrine

As early as 1918, Weizmann wrote to a prominent British politician: “The real Arab movement is developing in Damascus and Mecca […] the so-called Arab question in Palestine would therefore assume only a purely local character, and in fact is not considered a serious factor.”

The idea of “The Jewish State” was mooted by Theodor Herzl in his book of the same name, published in 1896. The newly formed World Jewish Congress adopted the book’s content as a programme of action for the Zionist movement. It depended from the very beginning on immigration to Palestine (although that was not Herzl’s first choice of location for the state) and international support, especially colonialist countries who would, it was believed (rightly), look favourably on what was in effect another colonial project.

The whole concept of Israel’s “Jewishness” was set out in the “declaration of independence”, followed by Israel’s 1950 “Law of Return” for Jews. Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted on recognition of this as a precondition for talks with the Palestinians, following Obama’s use of the term at the UN in September 2010. Ex-prime minister Ehud Olmert had also used it as a precondition to talks. The question is; do Palestinians realise the impact and consequences of the term?

Israel as a “Jewish state” does not mean that it is going to be a faith-based state; it means that nationality will be exclusively for ethnic Jews. The Palestinian Arabs living in Israel, 20 per cent of the population will become a foreign minority. Thus their right to live on their own land will be removed. Their presence in historic Palestine is the material evidence that this was somebody else’s land before Israel was created and the “ethnic cleansing” began, but the Zionists will be able to “deport” them beyond “the Jewish state”.

War criminal and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s talk regarding “a new regional alliance” that joins Israel and Arab states known as the “moderate camp” is not so much an attempt to involve these countries in Israeli political traps as much as it is an expression of the catastrophic Arab reality today.

Zionists’ Credo

In order to realize the aims of Zionism and build a Jewish national home, Zionist movement undertook the following practical steps in many different realms:

  • They built political structures that could assume state functions.
  • Created a military force.
  • Promoted large-scale immigration.
  • Acquired land as an inalienable property of the Jewish people.
  • Established monopolistic concessions: The labour federation, Histadrut, tried to force Jewish enterprises to hire only Jewish labour.
  • Set up an autonomous Hebrew-language educational system.

According to Article 3 of the Constitution of the Jewish Agency, the land was held by the Jewish National Fund as the inalienable property of the Jewish people; ONLY Jewish labour could be employed in the settlements, Palestinians protested bitterly against this inalienability clause.

The moderate National Defence Party, for example, petitioned the British in 1935 to prevent further land sales, arguing that it was a life and death [matter] to the Arabs, in that it results in the transfer of their country to other hands and the loss of their nationality.

The placement of Jewish settlements was often based on political considerations. The Palestine Land Development Company had four criteria for land purchase:

  • The economic suitability of the tract.
  • Its contribution to forming a solid block of Jewish territory.
  • The prevention of isolation of settlements
  • The impact of the purchase on the political-territorial claims of the Zionists.

The land and people of Palestine were transformed during the thirty years of British rule. The systematic colonization undertaken by the Zionist movement enabled the Jewish community to establish separate and virtually autonomous political, economic, social, cultural, and military institutions.

A state within a state was in place by the time the movement launched its drive for independence. The legal underpinnings for the autonomous Jewish community were provided by the British Mandate. The establishment of a Jewish state was first proposed by the British Royal Commission in July 1937 and then endorsed by the United Nations in November 1947.

That drive for statehood ignored the presence of a Palestinian majority with its own national aspirations. The right to create a Jewish state—and the overwhelming need for such a state—were perceived as overriding Palestinian counterclaims. Few members of the yishuv supported the idea of bi-nationalism.

Rather, territorial partition was seen by most Zionist leaders as the way to gain statehood while according certain national rights to the Palestinians. Transfer of Palestinians to neighbouring Arab states was also envisaged as a means to ensure the formation of a homogeneous Jewish territory. The implementation of those approaches led to the formation of independent Israel, at the cost of dismembering the Palestinian community and fostering long-term hostility with the Arab world.

The world recognised Israel after the partition decision, but it did not recognise the legitimacy of its occupation of land taken over and beyond that which was set out in the partition plan. Because Israel has not met the conditions of its membership of the UN, it is on the way to declaring itself to be a Jewish and thus a racially based state, putting itself beyond the pale for such membership. If the Jewish state becomes a reality, the UN should decide again whether or not to recognise this new state based on ethnicity alone.

Creation of Israel & Its Aftermath

Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state will also be reflected on what it does in occupied Jerusalem and yet another key component of Palestinian demands for the negotiations – East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine – will be dropped, as will all UN resolutions relating to Palestinian rights and demands for the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Palestinian territories.

Palestinians will be pushed across the Jordan River and told to declare their state in place of the Hashemite Kingdom; the ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine will thus be complete.

In short, agreeing to recognise Israel as a Jewish state will mean the complete liquidation of the Palestinian cause and independent state and the achievement of the Zionists’ ultimate goal, Greater Israel. In this sense alone, President Obama is Israelis’ best option in the White House as the Zionist project reaches its zenith, while Palestinians are completely removed from the equation along with their land.

For Israel this was arguably positive, having increased its territory by 21 per cent in comparison to the partition resolution boundaries. Contrarily, this could also be viewed as negative as it increased hostility of Arabs, who believed Israel should have no land whatsoever.

Arab states increased their territory, with Transjordan gaining the West Bank and Egypt gaining the Gaza strip.

This all proves that the Arabs also had the intention of expanding their power and territory. Palestine, however, “lost any possibility of a state of their own” due to the acquisition of Palestinian land by Arabs or Israel.

To this day, “partition remains controversial among Palestinians”. It has been considered that Palestinians have undergone an “extraordinary change since 1948” having been transformed into a “mobile people”.

The impact of the First and Second World War contributed to the British foreign policy of handing over the Palestine Mandate to the UN, which consequently resulted in the declaration of independence for Israel. It was this declaration, which created uproar amongst Jews and Arabs alike, and instigated the war.

The consequences of this war have been catastrophic in shaping Middle Eastern politics until today. Hinchcliffe says that “while major military confrontation between Israel and its Arab neighbours” has not occurred since 1982, the “absence of meaningful peace” has continued to the end of the century.

Zionists Versus Palestinians

Zionist leaders argued that if Palestinians could not reconcile themselves to Zionism, then force majeure, not a compromise of goals, was the only possible response. By the early 1920s, after violent Arab protests broke out in Jaffa and Jerusalem, leaders of the yishuv recognized that it might be impossible to bridge the gap between the aims of the two peoples. Building the national home would lead to an unavoidable clash, since the Arab majority would not agree to become a minority.

In fact, as early as 1919 Ben-Gurion stated bluntly: “Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can fill this gulf […] I do not know what Arabs will agree that Palestine should belong to the Jews […] We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.”

Arabs’ Mantra

Like sheep to the slaughter the Arabs have surrendered to the Zionist logic. The leaders in such countries have begun to listen to Israel’s vision of the region. Everyone is now following the Zionist orchestra’s conductor and they are all singing the songs of the war on terror. This refers to all forms of Arab resistance against the Zionist project, which is aiming to redraw the maps of the region. According to Netanyahu, this is a new Sykes-Picot agreement.

Arab Zionists established a hostile position against Palestinian resistance on the grounds that, according to their perspective, resistance represents political Islam. The question remains: Why not indeed? Controversially Zionists, knowingly or unknowingly, roll up their sleeves to support what is, in effect, political Judaism.

We know that Israel is an ideal embodiment of the concept of a religious state. Therefore, it is strange and rare to find Arab states blatantly claim they are against supporting political Zionism.

No one remarked about the meaning of the measure taken by the Israeli Knesset about a year ago before launching an aggression on Gaza.

In the midst of the protests against the rule of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt, and the mobilisation of the counter-revolution of masses against the rule of “political Islam”, the Israeli right-wing bloc, consisting of Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu and the Jewish Home Parties in the Israeli coalition government, passed a revised text of a draft law considering Israel to be a “Jewish state with a democratic system”. The previous text described Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state” was replaced.

This occurred on Wednesday, 26 June 2013, four days before the counter-revolution against Egypt’s “Arab Spring”. According to Haaretz newspaper, the right-wing Zionist extremists tried to formulate a state on religious ethnic foundations, preferring the Jewish identity of the state to its democratic characteristics.

The root cause of this particular clash is a tract of land – Palestine – and its colonisation by Zionist settlers from the late nineteenth century, which ultimately led to the creation of the Jewish state and expulsion of the majority of the indigenous, mainly Muslim, population.

This conflict is a running sore that has shown no signs of resolution and has naturally received much attention. But, in the modern era, particularly in the twenty-first century, this clash is also about identities and, more specifically, dual identities. Millions of Jews not living in Israel strongly identify with the Jewish state. Indeed, for many being Jewish is tantamount to being Zionist, that is, they show their allegiance to the state of Israel. This is not necessarily related to the fact that all Jews have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship.

Hence, an American Jew, British Jew, or French Jew has loyalty to his/her country of residence and citizenship but also to Israel – there thus is a dual identity. Given their close alliance, conflicts between these three countries and Israel are largely non-existent. Hence conflicts between national identities are also immaterial, that is to say, a dual identity retains its cohesiveness.

Nexus Between Zionism, Neoliberal Orthodoxy & Corporatism

The Zionists’ indoctrinated economic liberalism has opened manifold gateways to the western world to exploit the international economic system, as well as to promote and expand an industrialist-corporatist complex – orchestrating a nuclear apocalypse in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The political creed of Zionism has created a pincer movement on the human mind by hijacking staggering amounts of political, corporate, banking and media power on one side and by using the fear of being called “anti-Semitic” if someone dare state the obvious.

They have been able to do this by equating in public perception that Zionism = Jewish people. Well, it does not. Zionism is a political creed introduced by the House of Rothschild to advance the goals of the Illuminati families that are largely controlled by the Rothschilds.

When people think of Zionism they think of Jewish people. When they think of Israel they think of Jewish people. That’s understandable given the propaganda, but it is misleading and those instant connections need to be broken if we are going to understand what’s going on here. Significant numbers of Jewish people are not Zionists and oppose that appalling creed while many Zionists are not Jewish.

These include Christian Zionists such as Obama’s vice-president, Joe Biden, who told Israeli television “I’m a Zionist”. If, as Biden rightly says, you don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, how can it then be a racial rather than a political movement? It can’t. It’s just made to appear like that to manipulate public perception because opposing Zionism then becomes opposing Jewish people as a whole and the “you’re a racist” card can be played over and over.

Far from protecting and advancing the interests of the mass of Jewish people it has often been devastating for them and caused millions to be labelled unfairly by the actions of the Zionist elite. On the Jews Against Zionism website one feature highlights how Rothschild Zionism targeted Jews who had lived for generations in Palestine side-by-side with Arabs in peace and harmony:

“The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, and who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbours for generations, became unwillingly identified with the Zionist cause and their struggle with the Arabs.”

Jewish people of Palestine requested from the United Nations that Jerusalem be designated as a de facto international city. They appealed to the diplomatic corps assigned to Jerusalem – but to no avail. They were hence confronted with a choice of either becoming a part of a Zionist State, which diametrically opposed the interests of Jews as a religion, or abandoning the land of which their forefathers were the first Jewish settlers.

The very flag of Israel tells us who owns it. There are many reasons why the Rothschilds and their allies wanted to hijack Palestine and one was to keep the Middle East in a state of disruption and turmoil from which a global war can eventually be triggered to usher in a New World Order of world government dictatorships. Now Israel receives around a third of all US overseas aid.

An average $3 billion a year is handed to the State of Rothschild as a result of decisions made by American administrations that are always, “Republican or Democrat”, influenced by the Rothschilds.

This explains why the United States never talks about the arsenal of nuclear weapons stockpiled by one of the world’s most trigger-happy states. Israel refuses to discuss them and the American policy, recently reconfirmed by Obama, is never to ask or bring up the subject. The last two US administrations are testament to the extent of Zionist control of America and thus its foreign policy, not least with regard to Iraq, the former land of Sumer and Babylon, which according to some just happens to be part of the ‘Greater Israel’ that the Zionists seek to secure.

Netanyahu’s Indoctrinated Geopolitics

Netanyahu and the neocons currently view Iran as a greater threat in the Middle East than ISIS, and while they advocate US military intervention, they emphasize that such intervention should not empower Iran, notes the American thinker Stephen Sniegoski.

Bernard Lewis, an thinker and author, echoed Yinon’s analysis of the fragility of Middle Eastern countries with an article in the September 1992 issue of Foreign Affairs titled “Rethinking the Middle East”. Therein, he wrote about a development he referred to as “Lebanonization”, stating that a “possibility, which could even be precipitated by [Islamic] fundamentalism, is what has of late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’ Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process.”

The Bottom Line of B. Lewis’ Doctrine

The theory behind this argument has been that if the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity or overriding allegiance to the nation state. The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.”

Since Bernard Lewis— credited with coining the phrase “clash of civilizations”—has been a major advocate of a belligerent stance for the West against Islamic states, it would appear that he realized that such fragmentation would be the result of his belligerent policy.

Lewis was a major proponent of US invasion of Iraq and was an advisor to Dick Cheney, who has maintained close connections with the neocon nexus for years. Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of the process of “Israeli territorial expansion”. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and NATO is directly supportive of an expedition directed against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), which ultimately seeks to destroy both Syria and Iraq as nation states.

Comment here