The Zionist Entity

Between the lie of a state and reality of a settlemental barracks

Abdullah Al-Hasan

Back to Studies page

v      The Zionist Entity is a "Jewish Settlemental Barracks"

v      Functional Role

Amidst attempts to analyze the structure of the Zionist entity, its nature and functions, there stood out several theoretical categories that formed the basis of the Arab and the nationalistic Palestinian political culture – in its practical and theoretical dimensions – towards the Zionist entity. Adoption of these categories governs the meaning of contradiction that influences the Arab-Zionist struggle: Is it a combative or a non-combative contradiction? And consequently, the manner for managing this contradiction and the means for putting an end thereto.

Furthermore, what is the future of this struggle, bearing in mind that this question is neither nominal nor sumptuous, though it looks so. In fact, this question is combative and cognitive and is of strategic, ideological and political dimensions.

Tending to favor the combative nature of the struggle leads to concentration on the essence of the settlemental phenomenon, while tending to favor the non-combative nature of the struggle would lead to the stage where supremacy expressions and misleading signboards preoccupy interest and importance, and therefore become a captive of a misleading visual deception, like looking at a floating iceberg of which only floating part – which is relatively very small – could be seen, while the sinking part thereof – which is far more dangerous – is forgotten.

Those theoretical categories could lie summed up in the following composite question: Is the Zionist entity the "Jews' state" or a Jewish settlemental barracks?

Adopting the first part of the question (the Zionist entity is the "Jews' state") together with the accompanying category that there is an Israeli nation under constitution, is nothing but an approval of the Zionist allegations in their political and legal dimensions. In this connection, we point out to a sacred untouchable Zionist law, i.e. "Judaism of the state". This law was first accentuated in the declaration of the rise of "the state", and afterwards in the law passed in 1985, which punishes anyone who questions "Judaism of the state". In addition to that, this category involves a vision which says that the Israeli entity is a natural outcome, originating from an international Jewish situation which accrued on the grounds of the "Jewish matter", and that the Zionist entity has come to resolve that matter in a way that warrants an honorable fife for the Jews as Zionism claims. Therefore, it is –one way or another- a movement for getting free from a certain patterns, and hence, the entity's hostility is nothing but an incidental phenomenon, necessitated by the needs for defending the entity because Arabs refuse recognition thereof. This vision which is based on the above mentioned category has sneaked into the official and non official Arab political movement and into the Palestinian political movement as well, finding supporters and theoreticians thereto. On ground of this category came the "Camp David" agreements, Oslo and Wadi Araba agreements, the suspected project of "The New Middle East", "The Golden Square" and "The Golden Triangle". In light of the strategic changes that are taking place in our Arabic/Islamic area in the wake of the fall of Baghdad in the grip of the American-British occupation, the tacit Arab official acceptance of the entity's Judaism no more satisfies the Zionist/American enemy. What is required from Arabs and Palestinians –in light of the new circumstances- is to issue a clear and official declaration, acknowledging that the Zionist entity is a "Jewish state". The American ambassador "David Woolsy" was the first to put forth this subject publicly in Cairo, considering it an indispensable requirement for democratic transformation of the area, whence he said: "There are four main pivots, without gradual implementation of which, no democratic change could be achieved:

a-                 A precise reading of what is taking place in Iraq after was settles.

b-                 Acceptance of the Israeli existence as a Jewish state.

c-                 Erection of the Palestinian state.

d-                 Modernization of Arab societies, starting with cultural roots because political changes start only from the Arab street.[1]

This same question was brought up again by "Sharon" in the wake of announcing his acceptance of "The Road Map" steps. This question was also present on G.W.Bush's agenda in Sharm Al-Sheikh and Aqaba Summits in early June 2003, where the Arab parties, participating in both summits where requested to give a clear announcement to that effect.

Surely, the gravity of this request by itself and timing thereof can not be concealed or hidden because it represents an assault on the rights and the existence of the Palestinian citizens who held tight to their land since 1948, and who originally suffer from racial Zionist discrimination and from abatement of their rights, mainly because the Zionist entity considers them –since the blessed Al Aqsa Intifada- a fifth column and a home enemy. Hence, this request aims at providing the necessary cover for the Zionist entity in getting rid of the 1948 Arabs and in tearing them out from their dwellings through what is known as "transfer projects". The Zionist entity's request for a "Jewish state" means abandonment of the essence of the Palestinian cause, which is "the Right of Return" of Palestinian refugees. The American obligation towards Judaism of the Zionist entity legitimizes the rise of other confessional and sectarian states in the Arab world, in accordance with the text of "Israel's project in the 80s", which calls for fragmentation of the Arab-Islamic area into several small sectarian discordant and contending states.

So, practicing the rightful and rational struggle necessitates liberation from imperialistic categories, as is stated by the encyclopedic intellectual (Dr. Abdul Wahhab Al Massiri), and this imposes on all nationalistics the task of refuting the category which alleges that the Zionist entity is a "Jewish state" or "The state of Jews". Historical facts and state of affairs data confirm that: "All Israeli indications, before Herzl's political project, tottered and collapsed because they tried to stand on one leg. Presentations of "Ardent Zionism" did not find listening ears among Jews, nor did the utopian Jewish Zionistic calls meet any hearty reception among internationally active power centers.

The Zionist project was launched only when those two halves met together in one joint job, governed by mutual interests, and it is only then that this project could move forward towards the aspired goals,[2] through some sort of an agreement between the two parties. This agreement could be well described as a "wordless contract between Western civilization and the Zionist Movement", relating to Jews of the world. As per this "contract" the Zionist Movement undertook to transport or "transfer" the "Jewish surplus" to Palestine in such a manner that this "surplus" looses its old content and gains a new import that makes him a tool in the hand of colonialism.[3]

It is worth mentioning here that this partnership that controlled the strategic aims of the Zionist project in order to serve the interests of both parties did not revoke the particularity margin of any of them. Furthermore, declaration of the rise of the Zionist entity was not an indication of maturity of Jewish settlemental independence. In fact, it was a pivotal necessity to save the Zionist project from collapsing due to resistance. All this was carried out by the use of violence and terrorism, without which the Zionist project could not have stood on its feet. The language of numbers is the best to illustrate this: whether by purchasing or by expropriation and confiscation, the Zionist settlemental community could not dominate more than 6% of the Palestinian lands, and just prior to declaration of the rise of the Zionist entity this percentage reached 13% of the Palestinian territories despite the blood-baths, war and displacement policies adopted. As for the number of Jews, it did not exceed "600000 settlers". Added to all this, there is the irremediable crisis of identity inside the Zionist entity, as up to this date there is no answer to the question: "who is a Jew?" though the answer thereto is very exigent because it falls in the core of the political action for its importance in molding the economical, political and civilizational aspects of the project, and furthermore to identity who is to be mobilized and who is to be excluded, to identity friends and enemies, to specify the borders of the state, its identity and its population and to assign who is and who is not to migrate thereto, etc…

A controversy arose between Jews of the East and those of the West when the following question was put forth: Is a Jew only the white Ashkenazi or is he any Jew in the whole world including Sephardim, Mezrahim and Flasha? Resolving this dispute was adjourned, and it was agreed that –temporarily- all Jewish communities, with all their civilizational diversity are Jews or _absolutely- from "the Jewish people", while nothing was mentioned abut the dispute.

This deliquescent state of "no war" "no peace" went on until erection of the Zionist entity, and until issuance of "The Return Decree" which gave to any Jew the right of settling in Palestine on basis of his/her Judaism that was not defined yet. As such, the question of "Identity", together with other matters like "the Jewish personality" and "unity of the Jewish people" were being tested.[4] As a result, the "Jewish identity" question exploded at the "State" level, leading to battles between religious and secular groups. Those battles exacerbated with the arrival of Conservative and Reformational Judaism to the Zionist entity. The number of followers thereof –in the United States- increased to reach 85% of the total number of religious Jews. This situation created a state of disequilibrium at the international Jewish level. While Diaspora majority –which overwhelms the Zionist organization- considers it necessary to separate religion from the state, the Orthodoxy institute not only tries to give religion a major role in the private and general life of an individual, but also insists on making religion govern the religious relation between the settler and the settlemental community.[5]

Based on what we said earlier, we deduce that the question "Who is a Jew?" is not a political or religious matter, it is a decisive one for the Zionist entity, as it dedicates itself to viewing itself, the world and the basis on which solidarity of the Zionist settlemental community is based, because it is the median in the Zionist social contract. But, what is worth mentioning here is that this question –which has been left unresolved so far- has enabled the Zionist entity –via a clear pragmatic vision- to gather the greatest possible volume of beings under the "Jewish Banner" so as to have them settled in Palestine or to have them ready to move thereto whenever there is a need for the human element. Yet, this can not conceal the fateful impact on the present and future of the Zionist entity due to the exacerbating "identity crisis". It seems that the most important "identity manifestation" is the inability of the Zionist entity to accomplish "a distinguished and united national culture".

In the absence of a national united culture that cultural scene –inside the Zionist entity- remains bound to subsidiary cultures. In this concern, Zionist sociologists talk about five or six subsidiary cultures. It is true that there is a prevelant culture of an East European pigmentation that tried to melt all groups migrating to Palestine into one cultural crucible, i.e. its own culture. This meant that the Eastern immigrant, arriving from the Arab countries –for example- had to abandon his cultural heritage and adopt a new one. This attempt not only failed but also agitated the reaction of the East European Jews, who felt that this was an attempt to divest them from their Eastern Jewish culture, and to cast on them the Ashkenazim's traditions and ideals, under cover from Zionism. As soon as some started to talk about plurality of cultures inside the Zionist entity, most considered it a war between disparate cultures.[6] The common divisor between those cultures is what we may figuratively call a settlemental culture.

This settlemental culture has nothing to do with humane because it is settlemental in its terminology, in its concepts, in its expressions and in its political, educational and social address. Such a culture (this is what we should point out to) can in no way form a basis for a national culture that covers all aspects of life, even if it uses one language for interlocution between the different components of the Zionist mixture. In addition to that, the Zionist project did not arise for mere economical exigencies, as was the case in South Africa or in Algeria or else where, though an economical basis was necessary thereto. Yet, the assets of this economical basis are subordinateness and dependency[7], where a Zionist settler is born indebted by not less than $6000. The American economist (Thomas Stover) evaluates the cumulative cost of American policies in the area to outmatch 1500 billion dollars, which exceeds the cost of the Vietnamese War, and three quarters of this money (1200 billion) is spent by America on defending the Zionist entity[8] since the 1973 war. One of the most important characteristics of settlemental economy[9] is that it gives priority to settlemental considerations, meaning that in case these considerations disagree with rational economical requirements that are based on economical cost and turnout, priority is then given to settlemental considerations, on top of which comes security requisites and materialistic persistence. This is a well understood matter, because economical considerations express the will for economical success, where as security is associated with the existence of this settlemental pocket itself, and hence, economical success comes in the second place after materialistic persistence. This means that settler groups wish to preserve themselves as an independent human community that has its own independent characteristics, and consequently, the most important feature of settlemental economy is collectivism and militarism.

In consequence to this, we can understand the declaration of one of the Zionist leaders who said successful projects are the least beneficial from the settlemental point of view "because of their dependence on the Arabic work and the Arabic consumer and because of the difficulty to defend them"… etc. "But financially loosing Zionist projects are more beneficial, being fully detached from Arabs and being fully dependant on Hebraic work and Hebraic markets. The Zionist labor pattern –whose backbone was the Hestadrot- formed the basic land mark for Zionist economy in Palestine before 1048 and after the rise of the Zionist entity as well. It started to shake simultaneously with the international economical crisis which began in the wake of the 1973 war, to reach its peak in the mid 80s, declaring the disability of such a pattern of economical management to go on or even to get over its deadlocks.[10] This led to the rise of a new tendency –inside the Zionist entity- that called for free enterprise and for compliance with ordinary prospective priorities. What led to the appearance of these directions is nothing but the trends now prevailing in the world, such as privatization and globalization. The United States –as we know- pushed and still pushes to enable the Zionist entity to play the role assigned thereto in the Middle East area within the scope of what is known by "The New Middle East". Never the less, this trend clashes with the basic structural truth, which means that the subrogational nature of the Zionist enemy –"settlemental migration, absorption, security, expansion and repression of natives"- requires reorganization of economical priorities in a way different from the market requirements within the frame of the capitalistic system. The capitalistic economical infrastructure (economic liberalism) contradicts geographically and demographically with the Zionist expansional requirements. It also contradicts the necessity for military supremacy and production of developed weapons.

Therefore, the reserves are being distributed according to these strategic priorities and not according to economical efficiency and capability. The Zionist entity economy could not have carried out these tasks had it not been protected,[11] and had it not been an economy of continual war, as it had been fully militarized.[12]

Yet, it surely differs –in this militarization- from economical militarization of other countries of the world,

Whereas in the case of increase in military expenses as a state normally tries to mobilize its local resources and to squeeze the consumption of an individual, but in the case of the Zionist entity, militarization of the economy leads to an increasing dependence on outside resources, without effecting consumption of the individual. In this situation, financing of the budget is done deficiently, thus causing a rise in consumption rates, equivalent to the military consumption rate. This in its turn raises the inflation rates but observes –at the same time- steadiness of the individual's consumptional level and stability of the capitalistic structure, and this is what is known as "military amassment."[13] Because of the Zionist entity's increasing and continual need to American economical support, which the American citizen started to look at as a heavy burden, the Zionist leadership –supported by the Zionist Lobby in the United States- had to justify what is known as "the special Israeli-American relationship", and the best way to do it was to underline and emphasize full agreement and compatibility between the military and political activity of the Zionist entity with the global strategy of the United States.[14] This means that the Zionist entity's subordination to the imperialistic center increases due to the entity's increasing need of materialistic support there from. In this respect, we point out to the fact that the Zionist entity –despite receiving billions of dollars as direct monetary aids and donations- still falls under a huge indebtedness that amounts to its own gross national income although this entity claims a boom of economical prosperity.[15] This was of course before the break out of the blessed ALAQSA Intifada which inflicted a strangulating economical crisis on the Zionist entity, the thing which forced the Zionists to ask for a quick financial aid that amounts to $14.8 billions.

In the course of refuting the category that the Zionist entity is "the state of Jews" we draw the attention to the long lasting dispute that broke out between Nahom Goldman (1884-1982) who was president of the International Jewish Congress and Ben Gorion (1886-1973), which reflects rejection of the Zionist entity's custody over Jewish communities in countries of the world. Therefore, the Zionist entity is neither "the state of Jews" nor a "Jewish state" as it claims, despite the support and back-up it attains from Jews of the world, since it does not form a basic or spiritual center for them,[16] though it appears to be a "Jewish State".

v      The Zionist Entity is a "Jewish Settlemental Barracks"

The previous facts that refute the category that the Zionist entity is "the state of Jews" put us face to face with the second category which says that the Zionist entity is but a settlemental Jewish barracks, when analyzing quiddity thereof: its nature and its functions.

I believe I have given the most intact and most precise description of the Zionist entity, particularly relating to justification of continuity of the Palestinian and Arab struggle against and refusal to this project, and furthermore, refusal of settlement and reconciliation therewith. It is worth mentioning that the term "settlemental barracks" had been used by many sociologists, one of whom is the Jewish "George Tamarin".[17] It is also worth mentioning that this concept constitutes a starting point, not a closing point, as this concept is in continual need for development and re-regulation in the course of the Arab-Israeli struggle at its strategic level and historical range.

Yet, before diving into anatomization of the characteristics and features of the "settlemental barracks"[18], we have to distinguish it from an "ordinary barracks" which relies on armies that can be withdrawn or disassembled or whose assignments could be cancelled at any time, while in the case of a settlemental barracks, soldiers with their families come thereto and perpetually live within a geographic area which they consider "the barracks state".

Side to side with their military administration, they erect a social and economical productive base that should be taken into consideration. From here, we feel the settlemental barracks's inclination to a certain degree of autonomy from the center, which is the mother land, where the margin of movement of the smaller partner persists as long as the project is under construction. At any rate, this margin of movement depends on the smaller partner's weight in the joint work and on his ability to profit –internally and externally- from crises through which the bigger partner passes. So, it is quite natural for the smaller partner to increase his activeness in the joint project so as to increase his weight in decision making and consequently in laying down the strategy of work. This would of course increase his share in the returns of the work under this project as a whole. The more efficacious this small partner is in performing his role –and consequently, the more important in incorporating the bigger partner's strategy- the more he tries to invest that in favor of his own part of the project, and consequently, the more excessive he becomes in trying to impose his will on the bigger partner (the mother country), thus infiltrating into the institutions of the "Center" and even black mailing it.[19]

This matter reached a point where the American citizen was pushed to say: "All through our history, we never witnessed a foreign authority that had such domination over our government." As for Paul Findly (an ex-member of the Congress) he says: The congress behaves as if it were a subdivision of the Israeli Parliament."

There are plenty of similar attitudes and incidents, but we would like to point to one as an example. It is the decision taken by the Senate (with a majority of 94 votes against 2) which equates between "Israel and the United States in the war against terrorism." The House of Representatives was more energetic and more intimate when it issued a stronger and tougher decision in a few minutes of time. The decision was passed with a majority of 325 votes against 20.[20] Tom Delay (who is commissioned to gather the majority in the Parliament) said: "Let every terrorist know that the American people shall not abandon freedom, democracy or Israel." In his opinion "Palestinian attacks on Israel are attacks on freedom, and all people have to admit that israel's war is our war."[21] It seems that this situation has pushed the British writer (Robert Fisk) to put forth the following question: "Is America on the verge of loosing its sovereignty and turn into a colony that follows the Jewish state"? He continued: "There is a main gauge that indicates the augmenting power of the Jewish Lobby. It is the influence it exerts on appointments and nominations in the American Administration. Of course in addition to massing of political backing up and financial support". Fisk adds: "Political penetration was quite strong during Regan's rule, but augmented during Clinton's. it became so effective that "Maariv" newspaper published in 1994 a lengthy article headed "The Jews that Run Clinton's Government."

The said news paper correspondent "Avino Ambar-Yousef" once phoned the American Foreign Ministry. He thought for a second that he had mistakenly rung the Israeli Foreign Ministry because the person at the other end replied in perfect fluent Hebrew. During Bush's second period Israel's friends culminated due to their numerousity and influence inside the American Administration in their capacity as "The New Conservatives". Those new conservatives are soaked with the Jewish tendency. They emerged as a distinguished separate group about thirty years ago under cover of what is known as "The Instant Forbiddance Committee". Their look to the world was satiated with the idea of "good in return for evil". The central –if not the only- matter in the philosophy of their deeds was not only their support to Israel but particularly to the Right Wing therein. For them, the American and Israeli interests are in full conformity. Those new conservatives who were of marginal power in Carter's days, moved to the center of power during Regan's reign, but did not start practicing their actual influence until the second period of Bush's reign, whence they became the major composers of his policies.

There is another particularity in the Zionist case, nothing that –interlaced with the imperialistic motif behind erection thereof- the Zionist entity grew and developed, escorted by global events –with which the Zionist settler had to accommodate- that resulted in the birth of a new global system, because legal arguments that are based on international authorities' decisions assure attachment of the Zionist project with the imperialistic schemes concerning the area, whereas issuance of these decisions was –at all times- accompanied by major consecutive steps in re-arranging the area conditions and within the frame of a new global system". Zionist–surely–played and influential role in trading on the international variables. In this concern, the modern Historian "Tom Segev" says in his book (Palestine in a one whole): "Balfour's Pledge was not a final sequence or outcome of military and diplomatic interests. In fact, it was an inevitable outcome of racism, religion and fraud. Those who made Balfour's Pledge materialize were Christians and Zionists, and in most cases were anti Semitic. They all believed that Jews control the fates of the world.[22] Segev unveiled that in the beginning no war was planned to take place in the Middle East during the 1^st world war. He says: "Britain's behavior was based on the assumption that the best means for striking Germany was direct confrontation therewith in Western Europe, potentiality to encircle the German troops from the east, through the Ottoman Empire was not part of the 1^st world war plans.

Yet, many believe that it became so as a result of the tremendous pressure exerted by the Zionist Movement, whereas the Zionist Jewish "Herbert Samuel" drafted a memorandum –in January 1915- and presented it to the British Cabinet, suggesting invasion of Palestine. As from 1915 onwards, Loyed George started pressing and pushing the matter of occupation of Palestine. Since the ministry of war had planned to wage war in Europe only, the war minister "Lord Horateo Herbert Catchner" objected to that and insisted that "Palestine will not –in any way- be of any importance to us. "One year later Catchner drowned in the sea, and with him drowned his strategic plan. The war plan changed and the British forces received orders to invade and conquer Palestine".[23]

Declaration of the rise of the Zionist entity was also a fruit of the World War 2 yield. The holocaust legend was one of the legends that assisted in establishing the Zionist entity, whereas Zionism succeeded in exploiting it for justifying the rise of the entity. Using it as an excuse, the most famous American president in the 20^th century "Franklin Roosevelt" (1933-1945) tried to make the rise of the Zionist entity acceptable to the Arab counties, as is clear from what he said to king Abdul Aziz Al Saud when meeting him on board of the American cruiser "Quincy" in the Bitter Lakes in 1944: "Jews had extremely suffered from Hitler and he (Roosevelt) has taken upon himself to solve their problem". The solution –according to Roosevelt's letter to Senator Robert Wagner- was to open Palestine for unrestricted Jewish migration and colonization, in addition to any policy that leads to founding of a democratic Jewish Commonwealth therein. Roosevelt's efforts were crowned by success on the hands of his success or "Harry Truman", who recognized the Zionist entity directly on declaring establishment thereof. Truman described himself –later in 1933- when he said: "I am Korosh… I am Korosh". Thus the Zionist movement realized its first strategic step, which leveled the basis for Baltimore's program, issued in 1942, stipulating the following:

-          Establishment of a sovereign Jewish state that includes Palestine and –may be- East Jordan as well.

-          Probability of moving Arab population from Palestine to Iraq.

-          Erection of a Jewish leadership for all the Middle East in the field of economical development.

In the wake of the cold war, the break-up of the Socialist Block, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Second Gulf War, emergence of the United States as a sole pole and the wide spread discourse about a "New Global System, the settlement process started moving on all routes. The Zionist enemy launched his new expansional project (Great Israel) as an expression of the American imperialistic project in our Arab area, reflecting the new American catch word "Necessities of a new American age", which was named "The New Middle East". Originators of this imperialistic project thought that execution thereof could be carried out through political and economical means, where the peoples intended in the settlemental agreements –such as Camp David, Oslo Agreements and Wadi Araba- shall play the role of a crane for this project, or the role of a bridge by means of which traversing to other Arab countries could be achieved. But this illusion did not last long because the Arab popular resistance scattered it, and then came the blessed AL AKSA Intifada to overthrow it, but without driving it out of the heads of its creators who brought it up again in the wake of falling of Iraq under grasp of the American/British occupation, accompanied by emaciation of the Arab territorial system. In this concern Shimon Peres[24] says: "An unusual strategic opportunity for establishing peace has now shown up in the Middle East area, because the victory achieved by the allied forces in Iraq, accompanied by erection of a new Palestinian government –though some what in effectual- had let to a new situation".

President Bush has now added a new economical dimension to this development when he promised that the Middle East area shall become a free –trade zone, and an established open Middle East shall become a "New Middle East". To actualize this, the Zionist American party contrived "The Road Map" plan. Identification of "The Road Map" as a gate to the new Middle East is but a deceitful indication of removal of the main obstacle standing in the face of "The New Middle East", i.e. the valiant Intifada, so as to relieve the Zionist entity from the acute crisis that stemmed out from the Intifada on the political, economical and security levels. It suffices to state some announcements of the Zionist entity leaders to realize this fact.

Requesting his ministers' approval to the "Road Map", Sharon said: "Any body who does not connect between our strained economical situation and security regression would be deceiving himself, and would be blind folded because there is a clear link between all these matters". Sharon goes on: "It is clear that commencement with implementation of the "Road Map" will be an inceptive step towards settlement of economical crisis… if we want tourism, or if we are looking for foreign investments we must first have peace with the Palestinians. This is very important for our country and for peace and security requirements we are seeking".

In a lecture he delivered at the annual conference for "Israeli Organization for Economy", Deputy Chief of the Research Division at Israel Central Bank (Dr. Machile Starpetsky) said: "Continuation of positive atmospheres in the money markets, and chances to free the Israeli economy from stagnancy depend on the possibility of occurance of changes in the political and security situations". Dr. Machile continued: "The Intifada had inflicted much damage on the cumulative income rate in the Israeli economy (10% of the national product which amounts to fifty billion Sheckels). A political relaxation will reduce the damage by 3% of the National product. Starpetsky estimates that political relaxation will assist in reducing the structural deficiency in the Israeli budget by 15 Billion Shekels. Benjamen Natinyaho is well known for his declaration in which he said: "The Israeli economy could develop and prosper amid military confrontation". He furthermore announced –when presenting his economical scheme for discussion, in his capacity as minister of economy in Sharon's second government- that "improvement of security conditions would assist economy, through this is not a necessary prerequisite".[25]

v      Functional Role

The Zionist military/political leadership and its mate "The International Zionist Organization" (the American in particular) had pushed in the direction of deepening and fostering the features of the settlemental barracks in light of its perception of the nature of matters. The settlemental barracks is substantially an extension of the imperialistic center and the mother country that aims at establishing "a safe base for an aggressive military machine that takes off –in its milieu- from an imperialistic functional role implementing all possible means –mainly fascistic violence- because justifications of the existence and continuation of the barracks are contingent upon its performance to its role and its fulfillment of the missions it is entrusted with[26]. It seems that the aggressive functional role of the Zionist entity –in one way or another- is a continuation of the role of the Jewish groups inside western societies. The Zionist intellect conceived –though embryonally- the position of the Jewish groups, as being functional groups. Theodor Herzl and Leon Pensker pointed to Jews as ghosts and parasites. Max Nurudwa named them "bacteria" and Herzl described them as "everlasting minorities". Bokhof's discourse about "the converted production pyramid" in its essence is about functional groups but without using this term. This function is nothing but borrowing and usury inside the Zionist labor system. It is the function of the witnessing people in the (Christian or Jewish)[27] religious Zionist system. The colonial formation transported this human surplus to Palestine, and turned it into one functional group that takes the form of a "state" which looks forward to a major combative and settlemental role, and which considers usurpation of Palestine an declaration of independence of Israel. The combative role becomes "a lawful self defense" and the forces of these combative settlemental and functional groups take up the name "Israeli Defense Forces".

Thus, isolation becomes "the identity" and "the combatants" language (Hebrew) becomes the language of the sacred books of the Western World. Members of the combative functional group live neither in a special ghetto of their own, nor in a private barracks, but the intact live in the state/castle and go on deepening their identity (i.e. their isolation). They live amidst killing and fighting for money or for lavish monetary and non monetary rewards, disguised in the most modern and civilized garment. For all this, the Western world resorted to the mode of the combative settlemental functional state, instead of the combative settlemental functional group. So, the precise translation of the Zionist catch word is: To change Jews from a class (i.e. a functional group) to a nation (i.e. functional state)[28]. On top of that, there lies the Torah dogmatic dimension behind the aggressive functional role of the Zionist entity, resulting from confinement of the Jewish concept by means of a bloody operation which is of great ugliness and brutality as depicted in the Deuteronomy of the Torah.

Furthermore, "Jehovah" the god of Jews was not a god of guidance, but a god of war.

Today, as the Zionist army has become the best interpreter of the Torah –according to Moshe' Dayan- we see a continuance of massacres from Bashan Kingdom and Ariha to Deir Yassin and Sabra and Shatela, and from Kana and Jenin to Gaza etc… The colonialistic European centers had pointed out to the functional role of the Zionist settlement as soon as the concept for erection of the Zionist entity began to manifest politically during the fourth decade of the nineteenth century. Thereafter, Zionism leaders started to react positively to the functional role which they stressed. Hanna Arnt explains this matter by saying: "By proposing itself as a national movement, Zionism had sold itself –right from the beginning- to carrying out a settlemental combative function. The "state" catchword in fact meant that Jews intended to hide behind nationalism, proposing themselves in their capacity as a strategic influential scope for any great power that pays the price.[29] The Zionist journalist "Amos Kenan" says that the Zionist entity is "a watch dog whose head is in Washington and its tail in Jerusalem. "It is a strong watch dog but it needs protection. To be able to carry out the assigned functional role, the military machine occupied a central rank in the Zionist entity, and assumed the role of the backbone inside the settlemental barracks so as to look as if it were an "army that has a state" or in other words "an army and a few millions of settlers to supply its requirements". Even in the Zionist address, speaking about the military establishment is speaking of something that is more valuable and precious than the entity itself, because it is always embraced with an aura of veneration[30]. This becomes evident when comparing –even superficially- between development of the military establishment and that of any other institution in the entity, whereas the military institution has become the backbone of all other settlemental institutions that work on judaization of the land. This military machines –and appurtenances thereof- are the leading factor in developing the Zionist economy, particularly in the field of technological industries. Added to that, the military machine is the common divisor with the center, i.e. the imperialistic center supplies the Zionist settler with support in lieu of the services carried out by the Zionist military machine.

Therefore, the Israeli General Staff has the closest ties with the governing American institution and with the American Intelligence Agencies. In light of all these facts, the military institution has assigned the Zionist security ideology on basis of three principles[31]:

-          Ensuring the settlemental base (i.e. judaization of Palestine).

-          Subjugation of the Arab nation (i.e. carrying out the imperialistic functional role).

-          Unique relations with the mother country (here it is the United States).

The relation between these three principles is dialectical and trilateral. It is –of course- more complicated than the bilateral dialect, i.e. action and reaction. When the dialectical movement has three sides it takes a route different from the one it takes had it been bilateral. It could be either harmonious or discordant. When it is harmonious relation with the imperialistic center advances in an ascending spiral form, but when it is discordant, that relation forms a descending spiral. In these two cases the action of each principle is reflected on the other two principles. This means that as long as the settlemntal base is strong, the Zionist entity could perform its functional role in a better way, the thing which consolidates its relation with the center. Consolidation of the relation with the center necessarily strengthens the settlemental base. The opposite of this leads to a descending spiral, which means that crispiness of the settlemental base weakens its functional role and consequently shakes the relation with the center which will look at settlement as a burden and not as a reserve, thus leading to a descending spiral.[32]

Here a question imposes itself: "How did these three Zionist spiral principles materialize in reality? And has the Zionist entity achieved its goals?

There is no doubt that the Zionist work has achieved some obvious results. It is true that it had started from the zero point, approximately a little more than a century ago, and it is also true that this start was with stumbling paces in the beginning. But, collaboration of its subjective circumstances on the Jewish part and development of local and international objectivity to suit the imperialistic part had hastened the pattern of its accomplishments, on top of which is acquisition of a military force, qualified to respond to the mother country's territorial requisites in the Middle East. This caused the so called "Strategic Cooperation" between the United States and the Zionist entity to rank high on the "American National Security" scale, as many American Presidents had stated, in addition to strengthening the entity's centrality in the Jewish rounds around the world. However, the demeanor of the Zionist project in its move towards materialization of the potential goals that underline and justify proposition thereof is not always a strong of success, as there had always been frustrations that form the basis of crises from which the Zionist entity still suffers on the general and current temporal levels[33]. The aspects of the crisis on its two levels are follows:[34]

1)           The strategic Level: The Zionist entity did not succeed in materializing its required aims, not did the achieved results match its expectations, especially if compared with the exerted efforts as from the beginning of the settlemental activities and particularly after the rise of the entity. It never succeeded in securing its settlemental base whether through Judaization of Palestine or through absenting the Palestinian People, nor did it succeed in subjugating the Arab body politic to its will.

2)           Tactical Level: The Zionist entity failed in achieving an interim settlement the way it desired, so as to found a main stop on the trail of self establishment for accomplishment of its historical functional role. Zionists admit their failures and acknowledge severity of the stale mate they undergo. It suffices here to refer to the introduction of the summary paper issued by "Hertzliya Interdisciplinary Center" in the wake of the "1^st Annual Congress" held during the period 19-21 December 2000: "The conference papers have clearly reflected the feeling that Israel stands at a crucial crossroad that will determine whether it is moving towards a prosperous and flourishing period or towards a dusky one… what it would be is subject to its will[35]. Perhaps the Zionist feeling of the stalemate severity at the tactical and strategic levels was created in the wake of the great Lebanese victory in May 2000 and the out break of the blessed AL AKSA Intifada, the most conspicuous fruits of which were:

a-                                   The imperialistic functional role in subjugating the Arab body politic started to wear out, whereas the Zionist entity –for the first time in the history of this struggle- was forced to retreat under the intensity of the Resistance strikes, the thing which deprived it (the entity) of its most important characteristic (clinging to the goal particularity). Thus, the entity was left with nothing in its quiver to retaliate with, other than destruction of the infrastructure which became a burden thereon due to the "balance of terror" which the Lebanese Resistance –under the leadership of Hizbullah- was able to achieve. We say this though some tried and still try to attribute the retreat in the Zionist entity's imperialistic functional role to the Second Gulf War (Desert Storm) in 1991, whence the United States prevented the entity from taking part therein. The United States –thence- restrained it from retorting the Iraqi missile attacks even under the catch word of "Self-defense". At that time the United States was content with deployment of "Pattriot Missile Battaries" –that were operated by American crews- inside the 1948 occupied territories. Not taking part directly in the war did not prevent the Zionist entity from participating. It is true that the Zionist entity was prevented from direct participation in the war, but it is also true that its participation took other forms such as mobilization and massing centers given to the American forces for attacking Iraq. It is said that every five minutes a C-130 aircraft landed in Tabouk Airport (north of Saudi Arabia) and –supposedly- this is not possible unless these planes did take off from south Palestine and from the airports in Negev, constructed by the Americans themselves in substitute of those in Sinai. Hence, the level of strategic cooperation between the United Staes and the Zionist entity ascended in order to compensate for lack of direct participation and to confirm America's full obligation to the so called "security of Israel". Anyhow, the Zionist role remains a sort of a permanent strategic reserve in the area, always ready for employment. That is why the imperialistic role of the Zionist entity witnessed an increasing expansion through development of submarine weaponry. The entity now owns three "Dolphin" submarines of the most modern types in the world which enable it to operate in the Indian Ocean, thus directing its activities against Iran and other countries up to Pakistan and India.[36]

b-                                   Shaking the security of the settlemental base via convulsion (of the security strategic depth) and attrition of the entity's security through martyrdom operations and through glorious deeds of Palestinian martyrs, the thing that pushed the enemy back to square one in the struggle and to speak newly about the so called "independence war" and "existential war" etc… This clearly reflects how brittle the settlemental structure is, and reflects the state of restlessness –spread among settlers- relating to continuance or discontinuance of the state. In a public opinion poll settlers expressed their reaction to the blessed AL AKSA Intifada, where 60% of those inquired feel worried about their personal security while 75% are worried about continuance of the entity itself. In view of this deep crisis the imperialistic center (i.e. the United States) rushed to save the Zionist entity from the factors of the objective crisis, resulting from the gorgeous Lebanese victory, the blessed AL AKSA Intifada and indications of the strategic changes in the Arab medium so as to enable the Zionist entity to repractice its functional role: settlement and fighting. Hence, the imperialistic center launched its second "Camp David" settlemental initiative in an attempt to liquidate the Palestinian cause once and for all, but when its efforts led to nowhere it resorted to menace to strike the Arab rings that stand against the Zionist project. Based on Henry Kessinger's recommendation to contain the Intifada and to abort the indications of strategic changes in the Arab milieu, which came in the form of an essay headed "From Baghdad to Jerusalem and not Vice Versa", the imperialistic center started its aggressive war on Iraq which fell in its grip on April 9, 2003. the war on Iraq was not merely American, but Zionistic with distinction. It suffices here to point to some of the declarations and data that substantiate this. George Bush's second competitor from the Republican Party wrote on 24/03/2003: "The war on Iraq is a war of a state which is Israel, and of a party which is the likud, and of a president who is Ariel Sharon."The Zionist minister of war (Shaul Mufaz) said: "It is the seventh Israeli war."The Zionist trait of the Iraq occupational war indicates that the Zionist Movement –if certain local, territorial and international conditions and circumstances are furnished- could dominate the mind and feelings of the American Administration from the inside and could push it to go to war in its own name and on behalf of the Zionist entity. It is worth mentioning here that "proxy wars" (wars on behalf of others) are old and known in all historical ages, particularly in the bipolar era wherein direct confrontation between the two giant poles was impossible because of the nuclear balance of terror. But the American was on Iraq seems unique: It is the first time in history –contrary to what is common- that a suzerain state that dominates the global system wages a "proxy war" on behalf of and to the credit of a small country. This –by itself- is considered a great and specific achievement credited to the Zionist entity and the Zionist movement[37]. To explain this we must indicate two matters that are of great importance:

1-     The ideological nature of the American policy, where Christian Zionism is the creed and reference to this policy. It is worth mentioning that the Torah (which is the ideological reference of Christian Zionism and Jewish Zionism) praises "proxy wars" that are fought on behalf of Zionists, as states Psalm No 137 of the psalm-book.

2-     Accomplishing the "Israelization" of the American local and foreign policy so that separation between the American society and the Zionist settlemental congregation renders impossible. [38]We have to admit here that the existence of both is inseparable from the global American imperialistic project. In fact both of them exist in its core, because the key thereof is the Middle East. According to American appreciation[39] the authentic main partner –particularly in this era- are not Arab advocates or friends, nor is it Britain as things may suggest. In fact, it is Israel and none other than Israel that actually exists on earth. By means of the truth of force (not the force of truth) Israel became influential in the area. Because of its Relation with the United States Israel does not hesitate or vacillate due to a legal or moral deterrent, yet, it well understands and knows that its existence and survival away from the United States is a non- lasting project.

One of the most important features of "Israelization" of the American policy is America's confirmation of overlapping between Iraq and the Zionist entity's security. This was evident during the second gulf war , when Bush (senior) declared that the American strategy in the area relies on two main pillars, i.e. oil and security of Israel, as had been confirmed by the presidential report submitted to G.W Bush in January 2000, which- under the heading " Sailing on rough sea" – included:

-                full and unrestrained support to Israel, being the main pillar for securing regional security and for ensuring the entity's qualitative superiority.

-                Encouragement of changes in Iraq and Iran by different means, whereas changes in Iran could be politically feasible, but in Iraq changes cannot be politically achieved.

This official American vision of overlapping between the Iraqi question and the Zionist entity's security – specifically during the second half of the fourth decade of the 20^th century – is an extension of Richard pearl's report which he wrote to Benjamin Netinyaho in 1995 under the heading "An obvious change: A new policy for protecting Israel". This report was not submitted to Netinyaho until July 8, 1996. It stated that" part of the strategic policy we are suggesting is to create a new balance of powers in the Middle East. This would depend on cooperation with each Arab state separately and independently so as to reach a bilateral agreement with each country for protecting joint interests, starting with Jordan and Turkey. But prior to that the Syrian role must be scaled down either by containment or weakening thereof –if needed- by the use of force to make it constrict its influence. But before Syria , eradicating Saddam Hussein is indispensable. This is –at the same time- an Israeli target that leads to three things:

1-           Minimizing the Iraqi influence.

2-           Minimizing the Syrian influence.

3-           Pavement of the road for the Zionist expansion to Jordan and Turkey[40].

It is worth mentioning that the American "proxy war" on Iraq, waged on behalf of the Zionist entity was not restricted to translation of Zionist incentives and to achievement of objectives thereof. It also revitalizes Zionist war-plans against Iraq, Plans that had been put away for decades inside the drawers of the Zionist army.

The study titled: "Israel's war plans for domination of Arab oil" was prepared by a British group that supports the Palestinian rights, and was released on the internet (on the May- Briton site) in January 2002. The study talks about the " Shikinah operation" [41] which aims at occupation of oil wells in south Iraq and which does not differ much – in content- from the American/ British plan for occupation of Iraq. The study says that " Shikinah operation" was set up in the 60s of the last century , but was put away because of the geopolitical dangers then. It was dug out in march 2001 on a meeting of the Zionist government during which the plan for seizure of the west bank and Gaza strip was raised, in addition to the question of being subjected to international sanctions that might reduce the size of oil imports and consequently might put it in a critical situation because a decrease in oil supplies means diminution in the ability of the huge Zionist war machine. This in its turn would surely lead to imbalance of powers which will against its interests.

Implementation of this plan requires occupation of Jordan, domination of oil fields in south and north Iraq and utilization of the old fuel pipeline (Tapline) for pumping oil to Haifa seaport. According to the Zionist government conception, this occupation allows the Zionist entity to control the junction that overlooks the transportation of the middle east oil, not only through grapping the Iraqi oil fields, but also through containment of Kuwait (in one way or another) and threatening Iranian oil fields, thus getting rid of OPEC and leaving the American (NIMEX) market as the only oil circulating market after finishing or extremely weakening the international oil market in London. In this way, the Zionist entity would have secured an American support to its scheme in light of conformity and intersection of mutual interests between them.

From what was infiltered by the press, it seems that the Zionist entity was preparing –since two years- for the occupation of Iraq, whereas it had already bought 16" diameter metallic pipes to reactivate  the old Mosul- Hiafa pipeline, in addition to the 30" diameter pipes that suit the Saudi (Tapline) pipeline.

Based on what we mentioned previously, the following question arises: why didn’t the Zionist entity carry out that operation instead of leaving it to the United States?

I believe the answer to this question lies in the early concordance between G.W Bush and Ariel Sharon, during the first's visit ( being governor of Texas at that time) to occupied Palestine, wearing the Jewish cowl, accompanied by the latter who was then the minister of infrastructure in Netnyaho's government, when their helicopter hovered over the Jordan valley , and Bush said to his companion:" had you been a prime minister and I a president of the united states, we would have achieved a lot ".

When Sharon won the elections on 7^th of February 2001, he was out of sight for about an hour, when he was back his face was full of happiness, he then addressed "all the Israelis" saying: "I am glad to inform you that I have just had a long chat with the friend of Israel president George Bush, in the course of which I reminded him of the day we flew over the Jordan valley. President Bush's reply was that he doesn’t forget what I told him on that day, nor does he forget what he said. I then told him that we have now become presidents and asked him to fulfill what he promised.

What Sharon did not say was what the two had agreed to on that day[42]. This made the news commentator of Haaretz news paper, Yotil Marco says:" Bush and shorn use one mind for thinking".

A few hours before declaring war on Iraq, Sharon held an extraordinary meeting with his security and military team to tell them that the goal which Israel had been yearning for a quarter of a century shall come true today. He added that the American and British war planes will carry out the mission which the Israeli air forces had always desired to fulfill since its attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, Sharon couldn’t contain himself on the first day of the allies' attack, so he went out to the media to express his great admiration to the United States and its president who launched his campaign against terrorism.

It is Sharon's right to say this, according to Patrick Seal, because this war is the war of Bush and Sharon against Iraq. Talking about America's war against Iraq –in its own behalf and on behalf of the Zionist entity- does not, at all, mean that the Zionist entity had no role therein, nor does it mean that its role was restricted to fruit picking . The Zionist entity –as information tells- had an effective role, though in the backstage. So, what was that role?

As soon as Washington secretly took the decision of war against Iraq, the pace of security and military coordination between the two parties high rated. This coordination took the following forms:[43]

1-           The Zionist entity agreed to transform its territories into an American base. The Zionist intelligence outfits- with their vast experience in Iraq- became an affiliated division of the Pentagon and the central intelligence agency (C.I.A). They provided the Americans with all intelligence information they had about Iraq. It was circulated in some ways that the Zionist entity had handed to America tens of Iraqi men whom the entity managed to arrest.

2-           The Zionist entity extended its wide experience in countering guerilla wars to US troops, to help them in the Iraqi cities.

3-           According to Western sources, Mossad agents –a couple of months ago- began working together with their American coordinates on war in Iraq. Their work included gathering data and monitoring movements.

4-           The Zionist entity's sea ports such as Haifa were turned into ports for the American Navy ships and warehouses for American war materiel.

The Zionist role in the war for occupation of Iraq –according to the Zionist viewpoint- started much earlier. Chief of the National Defense Academy in the Zionist army and ex-president of "Research and Appraisal Division" in the said army said: "Let us remember that war against Iraq followed the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. In other words, Israel had paved the way for the Americans by shelling the Iraqi nuclear reactor. This clearly shows that strategic cooperation between Israel and the United States will lead to extermination of any regime that constitutes a threat to the Middle East".[44]

In relation to the Zionist role in Iraq we refer to the secret and serious report published by the London "Times" newspaper on 24-27/01/2000, issued by "The Iraqi Affairs Office" at the "Higher Israeli Board" under the heading "The Israeli Role in Iraq: Between Reality and Illusion". The report said: As you know, our state –since the late 50s- started establishing different offices, each of which is specialized in one of the confrontation countries encircling Israel. During that same period "The Iraqi Affairs Office" was also founded. This office is formed of Iraqi Jewish cadres that were selected with extreme cautiousness and arduousness". The report adds: "It is true to say without exaggeration –and with the admission of all our senior executives- that the "Iraqi Affairs Office" had acquired a great pride for setting up and managing the Kuwaiti War, for destruction of Iraq, for scattering Arabs, for squandering Arab wealth and for subjugating Palestinians". The report then summarizes the Zionist policy towards Iraq saying: "Weakening thereof, weakening thereof and weakening thereof". We can rather say that most of our leaders and officials wish to have it wiped out from the map –if they could- so as to eliminate the danger that has always been a threat to Israel.

Iraq enjoys a major geographic locality in the Middle East area, as if forms a bridge between Asia, the Gulf and the Mediterranean. It acquires a historical, a geographical and a civilizational overlapping with Syria, the thing that necessitated its dominance over the sea coast of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. In addition to this, Iraq is one of the very few countries that possess water and oil. Most important of all is our perception of the nature of the Iraqi people who acquires a fiery psychological depth and a civilizational reposit that enables it to build up –in no time- a military and civilizational force as long as the following two conditions are met:

a-           A serious and rational state.

b-           A short period of stability and normalcy.

Our perception of these facts made us plan –politically- to prevent fulfillment of the above mentioned two conditions:

1.            Prevent Iraq from establishing any serious national government.

2.            prevent Iraq from realizing any stability, whether internally or externally.[45]

Anyway, the Zionist/American enemy will neither stop exploiting Iraq, nor would it stop trying to impose a comprehensive defeat on the body politic. This enemy has always tried hard to exterminate the valiant Intifada and Liquidate the Palestinian cause. Today, it seeks humiliating and enslaving the body politic in consequence of occupation of Iraq and with the support of some of the regime symbols through an internationally supported "Road Map" and by classifying the Palestinian people's resistance as terrorism.

It has always tried to build up official international and Arab support for declaring an extensive war on the Intifada in case the Palestinian people undermines the "Road Map".

Nevertheless, the fact that aught not be missed is that even in case the United States allows the Zionist entity to resume its functional role –by eliminating all objective impediments- a reality will still impose itself on both of them (the United States and the Zionist entity). This reality is that every time the Zionist entity accomplishes a certain duty another one will always be awaiting. This necessarily leads to sealing up of the severeness of social tension therein, and consequently drags it more and more into an irremediable crisis.

Summary:

After all what has been mentioned, could the Zionist entity transcend the conditions of its organization and shift to the ordinary state pattern, as other settlemental countries –such as the United States and Australia- have managed to do ?

In the light of what is aforesaid, we see that the Zionist entity is objectively and structurally unable to do this, because of the following:

1-           Setting up of the Zionist entity is yet incomplete because its project is still under execution . It has so far failed to judaize Palestine as was supposed to, or at least in the form announced then. The Palestinian truth is still standing up and the Zionist entity is still receiving waves and waves of immigrants. The entity is still trying – by all means- to expel Palestinians and to accomplish its imperialistic functional role because struggle against it is still existent. The nation has not kneeled in front of the imperialistic project, and the role thereof, and hence the struggle is still open.

2-             After more than fifty years of its rise, and despite the full recognition thereof by the united nations (1949), the Zionist entity is still of a settlemntal nature, the factor that governs its internal and external relations.

3-           In pursuing to secure its existential and economical security, the Zionist entity still depends on the mother country, i.e. the imperialistic center.

4-           Settlemental countries that managed to transcend the conditions of establishment thereof -such as the United States and Australia- are countries whose native people had been mostly eradicated, but the Palestinian people and the Arab Islamic nations will never change into Red Indians.

Accordingly, we can say that the Zionist entity is a state "in external structure", but in content and in function is nothing other than a "settlemental barracks". Knowing that neither settlements nor solutions can be attained with barracks, the only remaining alternative is resistance.

Resistance therefore is the only mean to get rid of this barracks and of the American "Democratic" sword placed over the neck of the Palestinian people and over the neck of the Arab Islamic nations as well. 

References: