Zionism needs Israeli Jews to feel frightened
It’s also not impossible that an attack on Iran would encourage its leadership, any leadership, to acquire nuclear weapons.
What’s your prediction for the future of Israel’s political entity? Will it continue to survive or will it terminate in a destiny like that of the apartheid regime of South Africa or the Soviet Union?
I personally think Zionism’s colonial enterprise is doomed. In my analysis there was a pre-condition for the survival of the Zionist, not Jewish state. When it closed the Palestine file in 1948/49, it had to keep the file closed, prevent a re-generation of Palestinian nationalism. It has failed to do that.
That fact takes us to the real threat to Israel’s existence. It is not Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran or any combination of Arab and other Muslim force. The real threat is the demographic time-bomb of occupation.
In occupation of the West Bank, Israel has three options:
1. Formally annexing it and granting all of its citizens equal rights, this to enable Israel to go on claiming that it is a democracy. The problem with this option s that it would bring about an end of the Zionist state by political means because, in due course, the Arab citizens of Greater Israel would outnumber and outvote its Jewish citizens.
2. Formally annexing the West Bank but denying Greater Israel’s Arab citizens (the majority in the making) equal rights. In this scenario Greater Israel would have to treat its Arab citizens even worse than the black majority in South Africa was treated by the apartheid regime. And that would not be acceptable to many Jews of the world and, perhaps, a significant number of Israeli Jews. It would also present the governments of the international community with no choice, at some point, but to declare Greater Israel a pariah state and impose sanctions on it.
3. Resort to a final round of ethnic cleansing – provoking an all-out confrontation with the Palestinians to give the IDF and the armed settlers the pretext to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan or wherever, in the name of self-defense, of course. If the Palestinians refused to flee, there would be, as I said earlier, a bloodbath. A Zionist holocaust.
As things are today it’s my view that, at a point, Israel’s leaders will go for the third option.
When they do there will such outrage in the world that governments including the one in Washington DC will have to say to Israel, “Enough is enough!” And the Zionist state will then be subjected to diplomatic isolation and crippling sanctions, with serious efforts to call and hold its political and military leaders to account for their crimes.
How will Israel’s leaders respond?
As Golda Meir said, in a doomsday situation they will be prepared to take the region and possibly the world down with them.
If you asked me if I really believe that’s how the story of the struggle for Palestine could end, I would answer “Yes”, and this is why.
Zionism is not only Jewish nationalism which created a state for some Jews in the Arab heartland mainly by terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Zionism is a pathological mindset. And what the deluded Zionist mind actually thinks is this: “The world has always hated Jews and always will.” In other words, the pathological Jewish mindset assumes that Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against Jews) is inevitable.
In the shadow of the Nazi holocaust, that way of thinking led Zionism’s leaders into believing there was nothing they should not do to preserve Israel as a refuge of last resort for all Jews when the world turned against them again.
And the end, mad, Zionist logic speaks for itself. “If the world won’t let us do whatever we believe to be necessary to preserve Israel as a refuge of last resort for all Jews, our enterprise is doomed, but we won’t go down alone.”
Page 9 of 9 | Previous page
rosemary spiota:
November 13th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Thanks Alan! I have also just read Uri Anery’s article from today (I read it in redress cc) on Israeli Jews almost all accepting Ehud Barak’s lies of 1999 that Israel had no partner for peace.
John Goodfellow:
November 13th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
The truth at last. Brilliant!
Peacemonger:
November 14th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Another lucid explanation of the issues.
Your response to the final question above dovetails with something I have been pondering of late. The intransigence of the Zionist mindset is explained by historic anti-Semitism but especially the barbaric experience of the WW2 Holocaust. This appalling experience lent enormous credibility to the historic Zionist notion that Jews can never risk being a minority people subject to the power of a non-Jewish state.
You hit the nail on the head when you say in your book that Zionism is a sickness of the traumatised Jewish mind. What we dealing with is a mentally unhinged, pathological state of mind.
That is why the Zionists insist so obsessively that Israel must remain a Jewish state and it is why they are unable to make the compromises with the Palestinians that are necessary to resolve the conflict. State power MUST AT ALL COSTS remain in Jewish hands according to this mindset. It cannot be handed over to others or even shared because Jews can never again take the risk of trusting non-Jews to exercise state power over them.
The problem the Zionists face is that the overwhelming majority of the world’s Jews did not and do not share this one-sided hopelessness, this counsel of despair. Since WW2, they have managed to live their lives as a minority in other states, often exercising a great deal of influence over public affairs (the US is the obvious case). And many of them have been in the vanguard of the necessary ongoing fight to rid the world of racism and fascism whereas Zionism has not only collaborated (WW2), evaded and ABSTAINED from that struggle but has compounded the problem by the oppressive actions of the Israeli state that they control.
And the Zionists have played a pivotal role in unleashing wars in the Middle East which in turn have generated the current wave of chauvinist, jingoistic Islamophobia that threatens the overwhelming majority of ordinary, decent, hard working, law abiding Muslims in the West with exactly the kind of racism and bigotry that ordinary, decent Jews heave experienced historically.
The far right parties that are gaining ground today in Europe (e.g. Wilders, Sweden Democrats) and the US (Tea Party) are using Islamophobia, not anti-Semitism, as their selling point. Why? Because by focusing on Islamophobia they are swimming with the stream of anti-Muslim warmongering promoted by the Western media during the past decade.
Nick Griffin openly states the BNP’s best recruiters are the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. Griffin (and the recently formed English Defence League which waves Israeli flags on its pogromist excusriosn) came to the conclusion some time ago that using anti-Semitism as it main focus would get them nowhere and would mean that they would continue to languish on the margins. The Western media is terrified of being accused of being anti-Semitic because of the influence exercised by the Zionist lobby over it. There is nothing but negative publicity or worse no publicity to be gained by focusing on anti-Semitism (which does not mean that it will not soon come back into fashion). But for the moment Muslims are fair game for the media particularly since 9/11.
The Cold War has been replaced by the war against “Muslim terrorism”.
Cllr David Durant:
November 14th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
An impressive read, such clarity of words and argument, but a few observations.
1) When President Roosevelt sent Japan a private message to ‘get out of China or we cut off your oil supplies’, he failed to tell Pearl Harbour.
Was Roosevelt hoping to provoke a Japanese attack, to outflank public opinion and draw America into WWII? And was Roosevelt aware of the impending attack?
Whatever the truth, the fact is, it was a Japanese attack, and events took over before an investigation could be held into the culpability of others.
I make this point because without the authority of evidence from a Public Inquiry investigation, it is a mistake to give an empathic verdict on the who, why and how of 9/11. This is because it allows the pro-war lobby an excuse to shout conspiracy theory, rather than debate what we do know.
Instead just say the full story hasn’t been told, but we do know that American foreign policy was likely to provoke a retaliatory attack and that this attack has been used as a pretext to wage war in the middle east and to attack the American constitution with ‘homeland security’.
2) The authentic voice of the Tea Party is Senator Ron Paul, who promotes the message of small government and defend the constitution. He is anti-war, because he believes the ‘war on terror’ is responsible for the big government budget deficit, for subverting the constitution and for making America loathed around the world.
He is ignored in favour of the charismatic (but slightly dotty)Sarah Palin, because she has said “bomb Iran”, which is bird song to the neocon media.
3) The fear that the zionists will bring down the temple on all our heads is real, but ironically zionism could mutate into a harmless form of Israeli nationalism!
This is because the original zionist aim was to create a homeland for all (european) jews, but most (european) jews have no intention of living there.
Instead because of the ongoing conflict Israel has encouraged Arab/Ethiopian jewish, Russian non-jewish (said they were jewish to escape the Soviet Union) and Asian (etc) immigration to boost numbers and man the factories.
Increasingly the jewish population is becoming more non-jewish jewish and ethnically arab. Ironically this could create a growing divide between Israel and the diaspora and turn Israel into just another Arab country in the middle east.
Beverly:
November 15th, 2010 at 4:45 am
Do you think Iran may be targeted precisely BECAUSE it has the ability to disrupt oil exports in the region, and we are trying to end that possibility?
Also, if Israel does go for the “third option”, do you really think the world community–including the US–will actually demand accountability from Israel? I would like to think that you are correct and that at least some justice could prevail. Could you speak a bit more on this?
John Modest:
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:49 am
… “the Republican and Tea Party lunatics…” ?
Would you mind to explain how you come to the conclusion that “the Republican and Tea Party” … consists of nothing but “lunatics” who would continue the ‘war on terror’?
As far as a bystander can see, such as me, the only opposition to the middle east US foreign policy today comes from the Republican puritan backbone (you do not tell me that any serious man believes there is such a thing as a Christian Zionist – something never anyone spoke of before 9/11) and the Tea Party, a libertarian movement that to all intents and purposes refers to the American constitution and its non interventionist nature.
Have you never ever heard of Dr Ron Paul, the one politician originally associated with the Tea Party movement and at the same time the only US congressman consistently and vigorously opposing the US middle east foreign policy, to the extent the poor man being labelled an anti-semite?
Never heard of the opposition within the US republican party from such people as former republican secretaries of state James Baker (and the Baker commission, indicating to me that oil interests are not really served by neo-cons crusade against Islam, and followed by the removal of neocons from government and the Bush government’s subsequent simple refusal to take action against Iran), and Al Haig, who publicly expressed unusual emotional attacks against ‘neo-cons who hijacked the party’?
If you have some self respect, something other than vulgar bush-bashing style of comments would serve you better as a means to explain the future of the middle east. Following your rationale, it even would not have made any difference if there would have been a democrat in the oval office? So why continue these shallow comments?
It is always the same problem with loony so-called “left” people, so obscenely pretentious in their self-righteousness that they are blind and deaf to people who advocate non collectivist ideals. In this case again, your collectivist narrow mind does more harm in one sentence than all the good your elaborate books and articles combined try to accomplish.
Ron Paul may well be the last best hope for some change, which goes hand in hand with a foreseeable bankrupt America and the fall of the $$$ as the inevitable consequence of Quantitive easing I & II, an outcome economists expect in the next 2-3 years.
America’s economic problems may well lead to a downsizing of its disproportional military complex and its presence in the middle east. How will this affect the powers in the middle east? Will China, Russia & co step in and have a say in the region? Perhaps time to reflect on this instead of this sudden outburst of collectivist emotions from within the old world order.
I must admit your divine Obama’s loony keynesian policies may have caused more change than Obama hoped for, albeit not in the way intended, nevertheless quite effective and hopeful in the long term.
andrewmcglincheywesleyan.blog.com:
March 17th, 2014 at 2:17 am
Have you ever thought about writing an ebook or guest authoring
on other blogs? I have a blog based on the same subjects you
discuss and would love to have you share some
stories/information. I know my audience would value your
work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an email.
Also visit my web blog Andrew McGlinchey Wesleyan (andrewmcglincheywesleyan.blog.com)
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20060924/interview-andrew-mcglinchey/:
March 17th, 2014 at 5:42 am
I love what you guys are up too. This type of clever work and exposure!
Keep up the superb works guys I’ve incorporated you guys to blogroll.
Visit my weblog :: Here (http://www.istartedsomething.com/20060924/interview-andrew-mcglinchey/)