Section 2: [Continuation: Deconstructed Contents]
Kay: If the Arabs had accepted the two-state solution proposed by the UN partition plan of 1947, they would have been living in their own state for 60 years in peace with Israel. Why do you blame Israel for Arab intransigence and stupidity?
Refutation: Interestingly, lacking a coherent theory of explanation, Kay undermines her argument (Part 10) about stopping population transfers by injecting the infeasible formula of “retroactive suppositions.” Now, she seemed to suggest that the transfer of targeted population should halt at a point in time favorable to the dispossessors. Not only that, but by dint of the same implication, she suggests that the Palestinians should have accepted the dispossession of more than half their territory.
Dialectically, this type of reasoning is both: flawed and worthless. In figurative terms: imagine that we rob you, then turn around and ask you to accept our robbery and its consequences upon you. Now, imagine that you vehemently reject and then resist our proposal and begin fighting back to recover your possession. A this point, imagine that because you refused to be subjugated to our bullying, we just go ahead and lay the blame on you for refusing our generous offer that, if accepted, will only consolidate our supremacy over you, your existence, and your destiny. Now, imagine that we are the Israelis and you are the Palestinian.
Additionally, one should never loose sight of a few facts: 1) western colonialist powers installed Israel, 2) hence, Israel could have never started by its own internal force, and 3) these same powers then imposed the two-state solution. Consequently, that solution was illegal under natural law. To illustrate this point, let us paint another scenario. Imagine that we rob you but that all Dick and Janes of the world approve of it. Now, would that make our robbery legal in your eyes, and would it be acceptable to you?
Logically therefore, Kay’s bogus conclusion: “they would have been living in their own state for 60 years in peace with Israel” is historically and ethically nil and void. This is especially true considering that the nature of the Zionist state (which is colonialist expansionism) and its role as the spear point for western imperialisms impedes any peaceful co-existence in its artificially created milieu. By analogy, if the Kay clan is dispossessed and the dispossessor of the Kay clan can get some legal authority to ratify a partitioning of the former Kay residence such that the Kay clan is granted permission to live in the basement, then the Kay clan would be, by her own argument, stupid to refuse.
Kay [to Kim]: You mention the expulsion of the European Jews. I notice you fail to mention the expulsion of the Jews in Arab lands, of which there were 600,000, the exact same number as the Palestinians.
Refutation: For starters, if an independent international committee with knowledge of history and the development of world societies would want to give a special trophy to the most outrageous liars of all time, it is probable that Zionists would win without trouble. Figuratively, lies are the cement that holds the Zionist falsifications of history together. But this cement is temporary in nature, brittle inside, and thus cannot withstand the simplest of verification tests.
Let us have a look at recent history:
First, historical facts do not support the claim that Germany or Italy expelled 600,000 European Jews out of Europe. Expulsion is not the term. Because of the conditions created by World War 2, there had been a huge efflux of European Jewish refugees and immigrants. However, we do not have exact data on their number, and if a number exists, then it is normally inflated.
Second, Zionist movements in Europe together with western colonialist powers rendered help to Jewish refugees and engineered their transfer — especially to Palestine — out of European is not supported by historical facts. Most important, if European powers persecuted their nationals of Jewish faith, we do not see any rational that the Palestinians must pay for it. This is extremely important considering that in the sixth Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland of 1903, Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, discussed and then rejected a proposal to establish a Jewish state in Uganda. The meaning of this is paramount: The Zionist movement had no any historical claim over Palestine, since they were shopping to establish a Jewish state wherever the conditions were propitious. From a British colonialist viewpoint, establishing such a state in Palestine was a winning move owing to the discovery of oil in Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf region.
Third, the expulsion of Arabs of Jewish faith including a genuine minuscule minority of descendents from the ancient Hebrews (not to be mixed with European converts to Judaism), did not happen automatically, but was, again, engineered by Britain, France, and the United States. Notorious among these facts of social engineering was Operation Babylon where Britain, with the complicity of an “Iraqi government” under British neo-colonial rule (1921-1958), carried out the exodus of Iraqi Arabs of Jewish faith to Israel. According to Iraqi records, the number of those Iraqis transferred to Palestine could not have exceeded 80,000-110,000.
Fourth, the total number of Arabs of Jewish faith from Egypt, Syria, Libya, etc. that Britain (again with the complicity of Arab rulers under its control) managed to send to OCCUPIED PALESTINE so the newly formed Zionist state would not collapse because of lack of population, could not have exceeded at best the 200,000. Any number beyond this is falsification.
DISCUSSION: Zionist literature about a so-called forced transfer of Arabs of Jewish faith to the newly established Zionist “state” of Israel is not only abundant but also of flooding nature. It is really beside the point to state that Zionists authored this literature not because of a debt to history but because of intense intent to deceit western readers. Opposing Arab literature also abounds, but the invariable fact that emerges from the Arab literature is that Britain and France which rule the Arab Middle East as colonial powers arranged those transfers with Arab governments that were neither independent not sovereign.
In addition, whether in Operation Babylon (in Iraq) or the Lavon Affair (in Egypt), it was British Zionist agents who engineered acts of violence against the Jewish population to ease their transfer. In the specific case of Iraq, Shlomo Hillel (calling himself an Iraqi Jew) described his Operation Babylon in romantic overtones as if the story were a novel, and Iraqi annals of history do not corroborate his many details. The infamous Lavon Affair (Operation Susannah), where Zionist Jews engineered violence against Egyptian Jews to ease their transfer to Israel, is a patent example how the transfer of a part of the Arab Jewish population happened. This is the hideous face of Zionist disinformation; it ascribes its own crimes and western imperialist crimes (committed with a handful of collaborator Arabs) against Arab Jews to the otherwise innocent Arab population.
Since discussing this subject is not the purpose of this series, and regardless of all the preceding, we shall not loose sight of the only problem in the Middle East: Israeli existence in the Middle East was not a product of so-called Zionist nationalism but a product of colonial arrangements. Even if we were to acknowledge the existence of Israel as a “normal state” in the region, said acknowledgment does not resolve the Palestinian issue, nor will it lead Israel to de-nuclearize or cease its quest to control the Arab states or pervert their socio-political, religious, and cultural orders.
On the other hand, whatever the number of Jewish peoples transferred to Palestine, the fact remains that the installed Zionist “state” (a state without resources or proper state structures) managed to administer such enormous human waves of immigrants, proves that without an astronomical infusion of western money to prop up the exclusivist Jewish entity, Israel could not have survived long. The following links provide documentation on the size and scope of the US financial and military aid1 to sustain Israeli racism and occupation of Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese lands:
- The Washington Report for the Middle East: “U.S. Financial Aid To Israel.” The link offers facts on the magnitude of American aid to sustain the military supremacy of Israel in the Middle East.
- The Washington Report for the Middle East: “Unprecedented U.S. Aid to Israel.” More information on the same subject.
- MIFTAH, “US foreign aid to Israel.”
- Wikipedia, “Israel-United States relations.”
- Joel Bainerman, “End American Aid to Israel?” This is a sympathetic Zionist view of aid to Israel; the article contains important figures.
- Daniel Feith, “The Costs of U.S. Aid to Israel.” This is a detailed Zionist view of the relation between the United State and Israel based on imperialist relations and expectation.
Kay: Except they were not left to rot by their brethren as the Arab refugees were; they were absorbed by Israel, just as the Arab refugees should have been absorbed by Jordan, since ethnically they are Jordanians.
Refutation: With this statement, Kay mixes obvious Zionist fallacies, stark manipulation, and macroscopic ignorance. Let us deconstruct Kay’s statement attentively.
One: It is the apogee of arrogance that Zionists created the Palestinian problem but want the Arabs to resolve its consequence. Specifically, why do Kay and Zionists create the problem and Kay wants Jordan or other Arabs to resolve it? Why make a space for people who came from every corner of the world just because they profess to practice Judaism although they have no ethnic affinity with each other? Again, a rhetorical question may clarify the situation: Would you accept that we rob you, take your home, orchid, furniture, and seize your bank accounts, but then ask your other family members to compensate you and offer you shelter in their homes, while we enjoy the home, the orchid, and the money we took from you?
Two: The division of the Arab world is part of divide-and-conquer tactics of imperialist powers. Kay’s discussion of Arab and Jewish “brethren” is fanciful and deceptive. For instance, Jews, unlike Arabs, are not brethren — tribes, maybe, but not brethren. While Jews may be connected among all tribes by religious affiliation (and even this does not hold universally), they are not ethnically related across all tribes. Arabs, however, constitute an ethnicity.
We stated that Kay has displayed macroscopic ignorance. This is why: she alluded to how Jordan could have absorbed the Palestinians “since ethnically they are Jordanians.” To apprise Kay, Jordan is a monarch-controlled political state and not an ethnic entity; it counts among its people groups of diverse ethnic origins including Arabs, Arameans, Greeks, and Turks, as well as a labor pool that includes many Egyptians and Iraqis. The point is: interchanging nationhood with ethnicity is either an ideological gizmo to prepare for an apartheid state or ignorance on semantic differences.
We merely note the discrimination faced by Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews from Ashkenazi Jews,2 and challenge the statement that “Jews were not left to rot by their brethren” with the statement by earlier Zionist leader David Ben Gurion:
Were I to know that all German Jewish children could be rescued by transferring them to England and only half by transfer to Palestine, I would opt for the latter, because our concern is not only the personal interest of these children, but the historic interest of the Jewish people.3
Kay: So let me ask you: Was it wrong for the Arabs to expel Jews from their lands? And since I now assume you will say yes, why don’t we agree to call it a draw.
Refutation: Kay is posing a hollow rhetorical question with no merit or cogency — read all the arguments and facts we have reported thus far. Second, she assumes wrongly. First, we stake our position based in a simple morality, on principle. Hypothetically, accepting Kay’s allegation of Arab Jews being expelled from Arab lands (which we do not accept), we state unequivocally that Jews who are indigenous to the Middle East (Mizrahi and some Sephardic Jews) and who have maintained peaceful residence in the territory (or are refugees) have a right of secure residence free from discrimination. Arab Jews, and other Jews, are entitled to all their rights that any other humans have. We certainly do not argue for disenfranchisement of Jewish rights or any other groups’s human rights. We firmly uphold equality of rights for all humans. Our purpose is solidarity for the human rights of Palestinians since it is they who are suffering from their rights being violated.
As for the rest, it is axiomatic that people of Jewish faith have the rights of all humans to make residence. They have a right to make a fair living. But Jews do not have the right to invade and dispossess other people, just as Nazis and western colonialists did not have the right to invade, persecute, murder, and dispossess other peoples. We base our stand on an immutable humanistic principle that all people share the same rights equally. And deviation from this principle would constitute intentional supremacist racism.
Kay: The Arabs are now happily free of Jews, and Israel — while happily living with their 1 million Arab citizens — is also happily free of those Palestinians who wish them dead.
Refutation: With this, Kay reached the peak of insipid rhetorical garbage. Dissection is not required.
In a Marxian sense, being a manifestation of ideology, racism is a superstructure to a material base that determines its magnitude and direction. Many factors exert influence, including an inculcated sense of racial superiority, transmitted or acquired religious or non-religious forms of prejudice against nations or groups with different belief systems, and historically stratified anti-group indoctrinations.
Categorically though, racism emerges for three main purposes: 1) to achieve territorial conquest (in this case, racism justifies violence to achieve that conquest), 2) to maintain the post-conquest status quo, and 3) to keep a group of people or nations under protracted or permanent subaltern role to justify economic exploitation.
While racism implies intense or even virulent dislike of specific others and could eventually extend to include the physical application of institutionalized ideological hatred as in anti-group and anti-nation violence, as well as multifaceted discrimination against targeted victims, the term itself, as evolved now, no longer targets the victim of racism based on race, color, somatic, or anthropological traits. Rather, it is now a policy that targets the victims based on other attributes such as beliefs, place of origin, city of origin, region of origin, and national origin as in belonging to a specific political state.
A powerful expression of this type of encompassing geographical racism is the violence unleashed by Zionism and American imperialism against all nations extending from western Asia between the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean, excluding Israel, and to the western borders of India, and against all nations living in the southern Mediterranean shores extending to the Horn of Africa and Sudan. And that is regardless of all other attributes that distinguish the groups living in these regions.
Does this observation raise any specific question? Of course, Zionism, Israel, and the United States elevated anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments to an irrational level for the sole purpose to impose imperialism and a neo-colonialism. Likewise, all recent colonialist policies that allowed Europeans settlers to destroy the Original Peoples living in the places they invaded by eradicating their familial, societal, cultural, religious, and politico-economic structures. While the violent duopoly of expropriation-appropriation at the expense of weaker nations or groups is the fundamental factor promoting violence, racism assumes the role of an ideological motivator and facilitator to implement the conquest of others’ territory and wealth.
Having extracted a fundamental relation that ties racism to conquest, understanding Israeli Zionist racism should be that of a logical inference, since Israel could have never existed without ingrained racism to keeps its basic ideology of conquest alive. After the colonization of Palestine in the early 20th century, racism among the newly arrived Jewish colonists against the invaded people began to rise with each act of resistance by the indigenous population against the colonization as a process and finality.
Zionism is irrefutably racist. The proof is the dispossession of and slow-motion genocide that Israel is waging against the Palestinians in the Middle East. This is why a state based on Zionism is not only a severe moral issue, but also a focal point of rejection, tension, and war. A state cannot expect reward or claim the right to exist through the monstrous crime of murdering and dispossessing an Indigenous people (or people of long-established, continuous, peaceful residence).
The tentacles of Zionism have pervaded much of the western world, in large part aided by infiltration of foreign governments and control of the corporate media. The crimes of Zionism and any such crimes against an identifiable group must be abhorred. Zionism, the Zionist state, and the Zionist Power Configuration must be steadfastly opposed based on a rock solid moral foundation.
In the end, Israeli racism is a double-edge sword: while it is destroying the Palestinians and promoting endless wars against the Arabs via the United States and Western Europe, ultimately it is going to destroy the humanity of people of Jewish faith, as such racism cannot generate but counter-racism.
On a wider note, Israeli racism coupled with the global imperialist ambition of the United States is not going to disappear because of fear of counter-racism by others. On the contrary, in absence of an equitable world order where the United and Israel can no longer rule unopposed, and in absence of effective Arab and Palestinian resistance, the logic of brutal force and pervasive fascism seem to feed and perpetuate Israeli racism, which is now the dynamic core of Israel’s colonialist and imperialist expansionism.
- Since aid is supposed to be for humanitarian or altruistic purposes, it is a phantasmagorical leap to qualify assistance provided to a racist entity, such as Zionist Israel, as aid; it is an ideologically driven investment — NOT aid. [↩]
- See “Olmert decries anti-Ethiopian racism,” JTA Breaking News, 9 December 2007. [↩]
- Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust (Harcourt Brace & Company, New York: 1996). Quoted by David S. Wyman, “Rescue Efforts,” New York Times, 6 July 1997. [↩]