In essence, Britain single-handedly affected a monumental replacement of one similar people, with diverse groups of people. The first is nationally homogeneous groups (modern Palestinians) comprising modern descendents form ancient people with similar backgrounds and multi-millennial ties to the land including Philistines, Canaanites, Hebrews, Samaritans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Arabs, Sabaeans, Aramaeans, and Syrians. The homogenization of all these groups through Judaization, Christianization, and Islamization, and, with the bonding cement of massive Arabization through Islam, notwithstanding the continuation of religious affiliation, took over 1400 years to accomplish.
On the other hand, the second group who supplanted or replaced these homogenous groups of ancient people are nationally heterogeneous groups (mainly Eastern Europeans whose ancestors converted to Judaism during the 11th - 13th centuries, including Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, etc.) with no ancestral continuity or claim to the land given to them. (Jews descending from Arab, Ethiopians, Persians etc., who also have no ties to the land, moved to the exclusive state for Jews after European Zionists, thanks to Britain, the U.S., and the USSR who sanctioned the creation of Israel in 1948.)
Regardless of the motivations that lead to this transfer, colonialist-imperialist Britain and Zionism played with fire that is still burning and devouring the Middle East. Incidentally, what Britain and Zionism did in Palestine was identical to what British settlers and their American successors did to Native Nations in North America. Except that the Native Nations ceased fighting to recover historical rights, the Palestinians are still fighting!
In the end, the Zionist claim to Palestine is as absurd as the hypothetical claim of all converts to Buddhism on Tibet or India, or as the claim of all converts to Islam, be they non-Arab Muslims or non-Saudi Arabs to Saudi Arabia where Islam took root. Consequently Israel, being implanted illegally and anti-historically amidst the Arabs, has to negate the Palestinian existence and dominate the Arabs (by means of U.S. and European weapons, money, and direct intervention), to assert its primacy and power in a way to overcome its sense of historical incongruity and illegitimacy. Reason: as Palestinians invoke the restoration of historical rights, Israel feeling its incongruity, denies them that privilege, as it may curtail or delete its own acquired privilege of power and political existence. This has become especially true after the transformation of Zionism from a movement to unify Jews regardless of nationality to a full-fledged imperialism in cohabitation with the U.S.
In the very end, the fact that Israel's supporters and Zionists who have been in gradual but firm control of the United States since the end of WWII, can explain the persistent and implacable U.S. policies against all issues that concern the Arabs. Indeed, prior to WWII, the U.S. and U.S. politicians hardly took any adversarial positions against the Arabs. As for oil and strategic positioning of hyper-imperialism on Arab soil, and the further passage of Zionism to super-militarized imperialism, these are beside the point, and are another matter.
I must emphasize that looking critically at Zionism is not, nor does it coincide with "anti-Semitism". This is Zionist rubbish, and I can verify this assertion immediately with simple analogies. The fact that I oppose the fascist regime of Saddam Hussein and its legacy does not make me anti-Iraqi, or anti-Arab; and the fact that I oppose the brand of Islam espoused by Bin Laden does not make me anti-Muslim. Likewise, the fact that I oppose Israel's policy and Zionism does not make me "anti-Jewish" or make me assume hostility toward Jewish traditions, religious holidays, culture, rituals, and the rich history of the all communities who converted to Judaism; that is miserable bigotry and utter cultural ignorance. Notice that I used the term "anti-Jewish" and not anti-Semitic and that is for a reason I shall explain shortly. Also, please pay attention to another matter: the only two states that dub people opposing their policies with the prefix "anti" are Israel and the United States. That is not a coincidence, as we shall see why this is so.
I have never heard Japan calling its political opponents "anti-Nipponese", Greece calling its opponents "anti-Hellenic", or France calling its opponents "anti-French"! It is of interest to notice that the British never accused the IRA fighters for being, "anti-Protestant" or "anti-English". Britain never called Mahatma Gandhi or Mohammad Jinnah (founder of Pakistan) as "anti-English". In the end, those who invented the term, "anti-Semitic", are the same who invented the term, "anti-Americanism" to create the illusion of a shared discrimination, to the point that opposing Israel's policies is now dubbed "anti-American".
The apogee of all things frivolous, however, is the charge that an American who opposes the Zionization of U.S. institutions and foreign policy is labeled "anti-American". Under this ludicrous absurdity, if I were to scold myself for having done something stupid, would I then accuse myself for being, "anti-me"! To conclude, life and existence of nations are not subject to ideological games based on "anti" or "pro"; consequently, it is overdue that we evaluate the ideological use of the prefix, "anti", as its nonsense goes beyond any useful logic. To uphold this point, if the use of "anti" is a standard and sensible way to describe dissention, are we then entitled to accuse the Bush Administration of, "anti-Arabism", and "anti-Iraqism" according to the popular adage, "what is good for the goose is good for the gander"?
[...]
dissidentvoice.org |
