Gaza seize-fire (II)

The US will not be bothered: it bases its concern and ground for involvement in the Middle East conflict on what it sees as its leadership of the world; and it bases its bias for Israel on their possession of a mutual Judeo-Christian root, which, even if true, shouldn’t have been ground for US foreign […]

The US will not be bothered: it bases its concern and ground for involvement in the Middle East conflict on what it sees as its leadership of the world; and it bases its bias for Israel on their possession of a mutual Judeo-Christian root, which, even if true, shouldn’t have been ground for US foreign policy to depart from justice to support an aggressor, but it is all utterly false; and it justifies its monopoly of the search for a solution on its so-called honest brokerage.
All of these are totally untrue: Gaza has exposed the falsity of all the three. The US leads no one in the world but its imagination; and as the African saying has it, if it leads and no one follows willingly, the US is merely taking a walk. As for Judeo-Christian heritage, it is a contradiction in terms in view of Israel’s attitude to Christianity; and, as to the peace process in the Middle East, dishonest brokerage is too mild a term—indeed, an understatement—to describe US attitude to, and handling of, the Middle East crisis.
If there is anything that will forever deny the US that very coveted leadership role is precisely the way it has handled the Middle East conflict. Its kowtowing to Israel is unfortunate and cowardly, and a blatant betrayal of their own Founding Fathers. It is difficult to believe that the authors of the great Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers would have countenanced a United States of America that would have sunk so low on the international moral scale.
Zionists advance claims of their inheritance of the land, and this is perhaps the most spurious of their claims. Claiming presence in Palestine 2,000 years ago, which was not untrue; but the Palestinians have themselves been there for more than 3,000 years. Zionist claim rests on the fact their ancestors had established an empire in Palestine. First of all this is not true because the ancestors of Zionists were not from the Holy Land. Arthur Koestler, himself a Zionist, pointed this fact out by in The Thirteenth Tribe, his seminal work on the European stock that was grafted on to the 12 known tribes of Jews.
All these Ashkenazi Jews who migrated to Palestine from Germany, Poland, Ukraine and Russia should go back where they came from, not least because they have never had any ancestral or any type of connection with Palestine—they being Mongoloid Caucasian and the Jews of Moses [AS] being Near-Eastern Semitic. True they are Jewish by religion today; but the adoption of religion has never conferred extra-territorial rights of citizenship on any believer. If today someone embraces Shintoism or Zen Buddhism, that won’t qualify him for automatic citizenship of, or a right to return to, the land of Japan.
So, if a group of Italians today wake up with the intention of recovering the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle of Europe because their ancestors once ruled an empire that covered this expanse of territory, will they be in the right? And if, in trying to realise their dream, they start annexing parts of Spain, chunks of France, all of Austria, Switzerland, the Benelux, Greece, the Balkans and the Bosphorus, will Us foreign policy come to their aid?
Or if some Madinka tribesmen today decide to lay claim to Parts of Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, parts of Senegambia, Guinea, Niger Republic, northern parts of Benin and north-western Nigeria, because their ancestors once ruled an empire over this territory, will the US Department of State and the Defence Department come to their aid to recover, recreate and protect Songhai Empire?
But the reality was that it had nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity. When, three years before the creation of Israel, American diplomats were brought in from their posts in the Middle East to urge Truman not to heed Zionist urgings to create Israel, Truman bluntly explained why: “I’m sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”
But if European Zionists have no claim over the land of Palestine, the Jews of the Middle East certainly have one—those of them, if any, who remained after the Great Dispersal. And they did have an empire in history—the empire of Judah; but they should have added that it lasted only 76 years out of the several millennia of the history of the Holy Land and it covered only a few barren hills. If they could rest their case for coming back on this untenable ground, what of Palestinians who had continuously occupied all of the rest of Palestine even before the Jews came and have continued to do so after they had dispersed?
When all else fails, Zionists fall back on God’s Great Promise to Abraham [AS]. But what does it mean: a promise to Abraham [AS]? First of all, as David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, said in a moment of Zionist candour, the God Who promised them Palestine, or to Whose spiritual bounty they gave a materialist interpretation, is not the God of the Palestinians, so, why should they be bound by the legality or consequences of His generosity? And the rest of the world will not even begin to understand, or countenance or accept the concept of a tribal God who could do something so unjust—and to a nation soaked in terror and blood.
Yet all this is to prove to the world that they have a right to return; but it is this right of return with which they justify their own claim to Palestine that they wish to deny the Palestinians who have greater claim to the land. And suppose God did indeed promise and give Palestine to the seed of Abraham [AS] in the sense of physical ownership of the land in perpetuity; for God is able to do as He pleases, and Abraham [AS]  was of such spiritual stature that every of his prayer was answered. But he was himself neither of the one nor of the other: he was father and patriarch to both branches of his Semitic progeny; so why do the Zionists exclude Arabs from the covenant?
And if the resort to the promise fails, they fall back on the Holocaust which is supposed to elicit such powerful, visceral outpouring of sympathy and guilt in a world that ‘allowed’ this to happen to the ancient people of God.
Why is it that each and every idea in this world, including the fact of the existence of God, can be questioned but you dare not question the Holocaust? Why is Zionism so afraid of an inquiry being launched into it? Why is it the only idea that you cannot question in a West that pretends to be the successor to the Enlightenment and dedicated to, and guided by, the spirit of scientific inquiry and the freedom of speech?
And if we cannot question it, why should we believe it, especially in a situation where hundreds of academic tomes by scholars of international repute disproving it are given the silent treatment? So, where is just the proof of it? Just because Hollywood has made so many hundreds of films of the ‘bad Germans’? Or because of those pictures of emaciated bodies? Or because there are so-called survivors? Or because they have built the Yad Vashem to it? Or, is it because the world has to be reminded about it every now and again? But suppose it really took place, why should it have to fall the lot of Palestinians to bear the burden of a world payback?
But in all this, at least one thing has become clear: that the Arabs regimes have taken on a responsibility beyond their capacity. At the end of the Six-Day War, they called an Arab summit in the Sudanese capital and issued the Khartoum Declaration on September 1, 1967 spelling out their conditions—no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and the ‘maintenance of the rights of the Palestinian people in their nation.’
At the end of it all, all these unequivocal No’s of the Khartoum Declaration had become unequivocal Yes’s. Arab regimes have negotiated and made peace with Israel—and left Palestinians in the lurch. It is clear only Islam will liberate Palestine; but it is an Islam grounded in knowledge and based on justice that can – and will – defeat Zionism and its Western allies and establish a unified Palestinian state in which Jews, Christians and Muslims will live peacefully as equal citizens, just as they have been doing for more than a thousand years before the arrival of the Zionists.
And if any of the European Ashkenazi and the Sephardim elect to stay on in Palestine—and after more than a quarter century, they are qualified and entitled to do so—they must do so at the pleasure of the Palestinians, the owners of the land, just as the religious, truly Mosaic Orthodox Jews of the Neturei Karta have been saying for the past 66 years. There will be no two-state solution to this Zionist colonial tragedy, just as there wasn’t a two-state solution to end its mirror-image—apartheid in South Africa. Why should the Bantustans of Bophuthatswana and Transkei be rejected but those of Gaza and the West Bank be accepted by the world? Why was Mangosuthu Buthelezi treated as a pariah and Mahmoud Abbas hailed?