The
Zionist Stratagem: Jewish Fraudulent
Definition Of Semitism
Posted By M Shahid Alam
August 9, 2008
“Anti-Semitism has
grown and continues to grow, and so do I.”
Theodore Herzl [1]
As a self-defined
movement for the national ‘liberation’ of
European Jews, Zionism had an anomalous
relationship with its perennial Other, the
Gentile nations, from whom it wanted the Jews
to secede and become a distinct nation under a
Jewish state.
The Zionists did not define Europe’s Gentile
nations as the adversary they would have to
oppose, and against whom they would struggle,
to secure the rights of Jews to emerge as a
distinct nation.
On the contrary, the Zionists would harness
the strength of their perennial Other – their
adversary – to gain their nationalist
objective. Unlike nationalists who secede from
a state or empire by drawing new borders, the
Zionists did not demand any European
territory; they planned to establish their
Jewish state outside the borders of Europe.
In other words, the Zionists were offering to
execute what any state facing secessionist
demands would have embraced quite avidly: the
Jewish ‘secessionists’ would sail away from
Europe and establish their state in the Middle
East, well-removed from Europe.
This was a novel approach to national
liberation.
As a first step, the Zionists proposed to
liberate Jews from European persecution by
arranging for their exodus from Europe. This
had always been the dream of European
anti-Semites: to cleanse their landscape of
Jewish presence. Over the past thousand years,
different states in Europe had periodically
attempted this voiding of Jews through forced
conversions, pogroms, expulsions, and
segregating Jews from Gentiles.
The Zionists were now proposing to purge
Europe of its Jews on a scale never attempted
before, and without the inconvenience of
disturbing the peace. It was a contract that
Europe’s anti-Semites would have difficulty
turning down. Indeed, the Zionists fully
expected the anti-Semites to give them
whatever help they needed to effect the Jewish
exodus.
The Zionists were counting on this help; it
was indispensable for the completion of their
project. The second step in the Zionist plan
was to seize control of Palestine, open it up
to Jewish colonization, and, when the Jewish
colons had gained sufficient demographic mass
in Palestine, they would convert it into a
Jewish state, preferably without the natives.
The Zionists could not undertake this step
without the help of European powers.
This was a clever stratagem: quite original to
Zionism.
The Zionists sought to convert an impossible
nationalism – with little prospect of ever
achieving its goal inside Europe – into a
settler-colonial project. In addition, they
would convert the Jews’ erstwhile adversaries
into strategic partners. The Zionists expected
to persuade at least one European power to
play the part of ‘mother country’ to the
Jewish colons in Palestine.
It appeared that the Zionists were going to
outperform Moses of Jewish tradition. Moses
too had chosen to liberate the Hebrews of
ancient Egypt by marching them out of Egypt
into Canaan, where they would establish their
own state. There were important differences,
however, between the two plans.
The Zionists did not seek divine help, but
they would receive help from the anti-Semites.
Moses had divine help but his plan was opposed
by the Egyptians. The Egyptians could not have
agreed to Moses’ long march because he was
running away with their property – their
Hebrew slaves. In Europe, on the other hand,
the Jews owned considerable property – banks,
bank accounts, factories, houses, lands – that
they would leave behind.
Clearly, the Zionists were offering the
Europeans an attractive deal. Help us create a
Jewish settler-state in Palestine: and we will
solve your Jewish problem, free you from
Jewish competition, free you of the Jewish
presence, and you can have all their property
we leave behind. This Jewish property was
another gift the Zionists offered to Europe’s
anti-Semites.
To Europe’s anti-Semites, the deal was
irresistible. In fact, some of them would
think they could kill two birds with the
Zionist stone. They would get rid of the Jews,
and renew the Crusades against the Muslims.
Of course, there were complications. States do
not get into deals without considering all the
costs. The great powers with an interest in
the Middle East knew that backing the Zionist
plan would mean war against the Ottomans. It
would also mean perpetual war against the
Muslims, since this was an egregious injustice
against them and a deep violation of their
historical space. That is why the great powers
balked.
It was World War I that changed the calculus.
When the Ottomans joined the war on the side
of Germany, the Allied Powers – Britain,
France and Russia – decided to dismantle the
Ottoman empire. Even then, there was little
interest in the Zionist plan – despite intense
Zionist lobbying.
Two factors turned the tide in 1917. In
Britain, a new cabinet had taken office in
December 1916 with at least five strongly
pro-Zionist ministers, including the prime
minister, David Lloyd George. In addition, the
war had been going badly for the Allied Powers
on the eastern and western fronts.
Now more than ever before, Zionist lobbying
became a formidable force. The Zionists
lobbied Britain, Germany, and the US for their
support of Zionist goals. They made sure that
their lobbying of one power was known to
others: thus forcing them to compete for the
support which the Zionists promised them in
their war effort.
The Zionists promised to bring the US more
fully into the war, to keep Russia in the war,
and to mobilize the resources of world Jewry
on the side of the power that would support
their cause. It did not matter if the Zionists
could deliver these promises: the European
leaders were convinced they could.
At this point, all the pro-Zionist forces
converged – anti-Semitism, Christian Zionism,
Crusader zeal, racism, national interests,
and, above all, Zionist lobbying – to place
the power of the British empire behind the
Zionists.
By late October 1917, after many months of
maneuvers, the Zionists and the British
finally agreed upon a statement that would
signal British commitment to Zionism. On
November 2 1917, this statement was delivered
by Lord Balfour – British foreign secretary –
in a letter to Lord Rothschild, a
distinguished leader of Britain’s Jewish
community.
This was the Balfour Declaration: this was the
document that would formalize a new – and for
the most part, irreversible - partnership
between Western Jews and the West, joined,
pitted, in expanding wars against the Islamic
world.
During the nineteenth century, when Britain
and France competed to control the land bridge
of the Levant, each sought to lure the Jews
into their scheme to create a Jewish
protectorate in Palestine. The Jews then
quietly rejected these overtures: they could
sense that a Jewish state in Palestine would
be a trap.
Starting in 1897, when the European powers had
lost interest in this colonial scheme, it was
the Zionists who revived it. Their hubris was
so great, they were willing to ignore the
hazards of their plan. No doubt, the Zionists
did overcome these hazards: and their
successes have been stunning.
But Zionist successes have not helped to
establish a political equilibrium in the
Middle East. On the contrary, they have been
deeply destabilizing. Zionist victories over
existing foes produce new ones, harder to
defeat than those they replace.
Despite its military superiority, Israel feels
paranoid. It seeks its security in the total
obliteration of its foes. It works
round-the-clock to strangulate the
Palestinians, it has repeatedly unleashed
destruction against the Lebanese, it was the
leading advocate of the war against Iraq. And
now it threatens to unleash a nuclear
holocaust against Iran.
Most Zionists now believe that Israel is just
another war away from forging an absolute,
irreversible ‘right to exist’ – a code for the
right to exercise perpetual hegemony over the
Middle East. Will the world grant Israel this
‘right’ if this last war turns Iran into a
nuclear wasteland? Will history forget or
forgive this crime?
Footnotes:
[1] David Hirst, The gun and the olive branch:
The roots of violence in the Middle East (New
York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2003): 286.
This Is EsinIslam.Com The African Muslim Portal Also Available Via IslamAfrica.Com
We Are Awqaf Africa The Muslim Communities And A Non-Profit Making Organization Established For Da’wah, Education And Relief Inside And Outside Africa :: نحن أوقاف إفريقيا المجتعات المسلمة وجمعية غير هادفة للربح موسسة للدعوة والتعليم والإسعاف
Awqaf Africa Bazaar promotes collection of Islamic heritages and possession of its items, enabling people to proudly display their faith as well as their identities as Muslims while generating revenues for sole purpose of Da’wah and releief programmes :: بازار أوقاف إفريقيا تعزّ جمع التراث الإسلامي وحياز مواده ممكنة للناس من إعلان إيمانهم بكل فخر وكذالك عرض هاوياتهم الإسلامية في حين أن تدر الجمعية الخيرية إيراداتها لغاية الدعوة والإسعاف
Balanced news and safe information about the Muslim World covering the Arabs, African World and beyond with pure Islamic perspectives in a way of Da'wah :: الأخبارالمتوازنة والمعلومات المأمونة عن العالم الإشلامي فيما يتضمن العرب والعالم الإفريقي وأبعد من وجهة النظر الإسلامية السليمة بشكل دعوي
