[News] Zionist Dialectics: Past and Future
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Tue Sep 21 11:20:09 EDT 2010
M. Shahid Alam Zionist Dialectics: Past and Future
By
<http://palestinethinktank.com/author/guest-post/>Guest
Post Sep 21st, 2010 at 7:20
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/09/21/m-shahid-alam-zionist-dialectics-past-and-future/
Excerpted from: Israeli Exceptionalism (Palgrave: 2009)
My God! Is this the end? Is this the goal for
which our fathers have striven and for whose sake
all generations have suffered? Is this the dream
of a return to Zion which our people have dreamt
for centuries: that we now come to Zion to stain
its soil with innocent blood?
Ahad Haam, 1921
This study has employed a dialectical framework
for analyzing the destabilizing logic of Zionism.
We have examined this logic as it has unfolded
through time, driven by the vision of an
exclusionary colonialism, drawing into its
circuit aligned with it and against it
nations, peoples, forces, and civilizations whose
actions and interactions impinge on the
trajectory of Zionism, and, in turn, who are changed by this trajectory.
It would be a bit simplistic to examine the field
of interactions among the different actors in
this historic drama on the essentialist
assumption that these actors and their interests
are unchanging. Instead, we need to explore the
complex ways in which the Zionists have worked
and, often have succeeded to alter the behavior
of the other political actors in this drama: and,
how, in turn, the Zionists respond to these
changes. Most importantly, we need to explore all
the ways in which the Zionists have succeeded in
mobilizing the resources of the United States and
other Western powers to serve their specific objectives.
Consider a list of the political actors who have
had more than a passing connection to the Zionist
project and, who, at one time or another, have
affected or have been affected by this project.
First, there are the different Zionist factions,
the Jewish diaspora and, later, the state of
Israel. These entities are overlapping, with the
degrees of overlap between any two of them
changing over time. The second set of actors
consists of Western powers especially, the
United States, Britain, and France the
Christian Zionists especially in the United
States, the Soviet Union and its allies in
Eastern Europe. Finally, there are actors who are
the direct and indirect victims of the Zionist
project, those who have paid the costs of Zionist
success. They form four concentric circles around
Israel, including the Palestinians, the Arabs,
the Middle East, and the Islamicate. These three
sets of actors make up the dramatis personae in
the unfolding tragedy of the Zionist project.
Clearly, the number of actors involved, their
variety, and, not least, the multilayered power
commanded by the Zionists and their allies would
indicate that Zionism is no sideshow. Directly,
it has involved much of the Western world, on one
side, and the global Islamicate on the other
side, who will soon make up one-fourth of the worlds population.
Many white settlers established colonies in
Africa during the nineteenth century. In
Palestine, the Jews established the only white
settler colony to be established in the Middle
East or for that matter, anywhere in Asia. Of
all these colonial settler projects, only the
Jewish settlers in Palestine have endured. In
1948, only three decades after they gained
British backing for their project, the Jewish
colons created their own state, Israel, which,
almost overnight, became the dominant power in
the region, capable of defeating any combination
of the military forces of the neighboring states.
Within two decades of its founding, the tiny
Jewish state had also acquired an arsenal of
nuclear weapons, the only country in the region
with such weapons of mass extermination. In
recent decades, militarily, Israel has ranked
behind only three other countries, the United
States, Russia, and China. In addition, Israel
has forged a special relationship with the United
States, which finances its military, arms it, and
shields the country from the sanction of
international laws, leaving it free to expand its
colonial project, and threaten and attack its
neighbors at will. After September 11, Israel and
its allies were a majorif not decisivefactor in
pushing the United States to invade and occupy
Iraq. For several years now, they have been
itching to instigate the United States into a war against Iran.
How did the Zionists manage to do all this?
In part, the answer to this question lies in
taking a measure of the forces that underpin
Israels capacity to endure. Had the French
colons survived in Algeria, had they partitioned
the country to create a white colonial settler
state along the Mediterranean coast, like Israel,
this settler state too would be armed to the
teeth, backed by a special relationship with
France, and perpetually at war with Algerian
refugees and with its Arab/African neighbors. In
1960, David Ben-Gurion had urged Charles De
Gaulle, the French president, to create a
colonial settler state in Algeria in the rich
agricultural areas along the Mediterranean coast.
In the Algerian civil war, Israel had supported
the faction within the Organisation Armée Secrete
(OAS), the underground militant organization of
the colons in Algeria, which wanted to partition
Algeria. Had it gone through, the partition
would have prolonged the conflict in Algeria,
created an Israeli twin in North Africa, and
deepened the bond between France and Israel.
Unluckily for Israel, de Gaulle firmly rejected
partition. He was convinced that French rule
could not be maintained in Algeria and conceded independence to the Algerians.
How did the Jewish colons in Palestine succeed in
creating an exclusionary colonial settler state
in the middle of the twentieth century, and
continue to grow with support from a surrogate
mother country, while the French colons in
Algeria, the Italians in Libya or the British
colons in Kenya had to give up their colonial projects?
The answer to this question is simple. The white
colons in Algeria, Libya, or Kenya simply did not
have enough influence over the mother
countryover France, Italy, and Britainto
overrule what the elites in the mother country
had decided was in their interest: to pull out of
their colonies. The Jewish colons in Palestine
had more power than the white colons in Algeria,
Libya, and Kenya. Where did their power come from?
The success of Jewish colons in Palestine and the
failure of the colons in Algeria, Libya, or Kenya
is a paradox. The French, Italian, and British
settlers had a natural mother country, a country
of origin, with whose people they shared an
ethnic bond. The Jewish colons in Palestine did
not have a natural mother country, a powerful
Jewish state to support their colonial project.
Yet, their colonizing project succeeded, and they
drove out the Palestinians to create a nearly
pure Jewish state in Palestine. The Jewish colons
did not pull off this feat on their own; they
succeeded because of their ability to recruit the
greatest Western powers, and many others besides,
to support their colonial project. Somehow, the
Zionists turned what could well have been a fatal
deficiency for their colonial project the
absence of a natural mother country into their
greatest asset. They gained the freedom to pick
and choose their mother country.
How did the Zionists bring this about? The Jews
were not a majority in any country, but there
existed a Jewish minority in nearly every Western
country. In itself, the presence of Jewish
minorities could not have been a source of
strength; a weak Jewish minority in any country
could do little to help their coreligionists in
another country. What made the Jewish minorities
different was that they carried a weight that far
outweighed their numbers. Over the course of the
nineteenth century, they had become an important,
often vital, part of the financial, industrial,
commercial, and intellectual elites in several of
the most important Western countries, including
Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and the United
States. Moreover, the most prominent members of
these elites had cultivated ties with each other across national boundaries.
Once these Jewish elites, spread across the key
Western countries, had decided to support the
Zionist project, they would become a force in
global politics. On the one hand, this would
tempt the great powers to support Zionism, if
this could buy them the help of the Jewish
communities, based in a rival or friendly power,
to push their host country in a desirable
direction. Conversely, once the Zionists
recognized this tendency, they too would seek to
win support for their cause by offering the
support of Jewish communities in key Western
countries. It would be in their interest to
exaggerate the results that Jewish communities in
this or that country might be able to deliver.
During periods of intense conflicts such as
World War I when the fate of nations hung in
the balance, the competition for Zionist support
became more intense than ever. This placed the
Zionists in a strong position to trade their
favors for the commitment of the great powers to
their goals. In September 1917, this competition
persuaded Britain, at a difficult moment in the
execution of its war, to throw its support behind the Zionist project.
The Zionists continue to market their colonial
project as a haven for Jews, fleeing anti-Semitic
persecution. This is misleading. Overwhelmingly,
Jews fleeing persecution in Europe have stayed
away from this haven when alternatives were
available. On the contrary, the Zionists were
counting on support from the anti-Semites to
propel their nationalist-cum-colonial project.
They were counting on anti-Semitic persecution to
send Jewish colons to Palestine; and they were
counting on the European anti-Semites desire to
be rid of Jews to recruit Western powers to
support their colonial project in Palestine.
Zionism was primarily a nationalist movement,
whose origins predated the resurgence of
anti-Semitism in the late nineteenth century.
Even then, most Jews sought to combat
anti-Semitism through assimilation, Jewish
autonomism, and socialist revolutions. When
forced to emigrate, they overwhelmingly preferred
destinations outside Palestine. The fortunes of
Zionism improved only when most Western countries
closed their doors to Jewish immigrants. When
these doors were closing in the early 1900s, it
was little opposed by the Jewish diaspora, whose
leadership now identified increasingly with
Zionist goals. Little pressure too was applied to
reopen these doors before the 1960s.
The Zionists have received support, since the
launching of their movement, from the dominant
Protestant segment of Christianity, whose
theology reinstated the Jews to their covenant
with God. As a result, a few Protestants began
calling for the restoration of Jews to
Palestine in the seventeenth century; at the
time, Jews looked upon these proposals with deep
suspicion. Since the nineteenth century, a new
group of evangelical Christians began to support
the restoration of Jews, because they believed
this was a necessary prelude to the Second
Coming. From its home in Britain, this movement
spread to the United States, where, in recent
decades, cheered by Israeli victories, it has
become an important source of support for Zionism in the United States.
In no small measure, the success of the Zionist
colonial project was magnified by the weakness of
the Arabs in the Middle East. Unlike Algerians in
the nineteenth century or Libyans between the two
World Wars, the Palestinians were slow in
resisting Jewish colonization the first serious
resistance was mounted in 1936 and, once
beaten, in 1939, they could not reorganize for
more than two decades. More fatefully, the Jewish
colonization of Palestine did not evoke a
response in the larger Arab/Islamicate world that
was commensurate with the scale of the Zionist
threat to the Islamicate. This period is marked
by the absence of any concerted efforts in Syria,
Egypt, Iraq, or the Arabian Peninsula to resist
Jewish colonization before it would become
undefeatable. The Arab nationalists began to stir
when it was too late, after Israel had
established itself and soon would be in a
position to smash them before they could build their strength.
Anxious to conceal the power of the Jewish lobby,
Zionists often argue that the Western powers
supported Zionism only because the Jewish state
served their strategic interests in the Middle
East. We have shown that Zionism was in conflict
with the long-term interests of Britain and the
United States. Exigencies of war and the presence
of a strong contingency of Christian Zionists in
the cabinet of Lloyd George explain British
support for the Balfour Declaration in 1917. On
the other hand, the strong U.S. support in 1948
for the partition of Palestine and later was
the product of a domestic Jewish lobby.
In the 1940s and even later the United States
commanded considerable goodwill in the Arab
world. The populist movements in the Arab world
directed their anticolonial animus against the
British and the French, not the Americans. In
addition, the Arab dynasties and petit
bourgeoisie, who expected to gain power after the
departure of the colonial rulers, would have been
quite happy to work with their former rulers and
the United States. Arab and local
nationalismsweakly founded, in any case had no
radical thrust. It takes little prescience to see
that the insertion of Israel in the Middle East
far from serving Western strategic interests
was certain to create threats to these interests,
where none existed before. Nor was this
prescience lacking in Washington. The officials
at the State and Defense Departments saw this
clearly, but they were overruled by the exigencies of presidential politics.
Once created, however, Israel had the resources
to create and entrench the perception that it is
a strategic asset, that it defends the vital
interests of Western powers in the Middle East.
The creation of a Jewish colonial settler state
in the Arab world one that would have to engage
in massive ethnic cleansing was the perfect
incitement for starting a rising spiral of anger
against Israel's Western backers, chiefly, the
United States. Arab anger over Israel,
exacerbated by Israels truculent policies, would
continue to fuel Arab nationalism and push it in
a radical, anti-Western direction. Even so, the
United States persisted in its doomed efforts,
during the 1950s, to bring about peace between
the Arabs and Israel. Israel would ensure that
these efforts would not succeed, forcing the Arab
nationalist states to turn to the Soviet Union.
Inevitably, at this stage, Washington would see
radicalized Arab nationalism as a threat to its
interests in the Middle East. The first circle
was complete. Israel had manufactured the threats
that would make it look like a strategic asset.
In a preemptive strike in June 1967, Israel
confirmed this by defeating Egypt and Syria, the
two leading Arab nationalist states.
Once this paradigm was in place, Israel and its
Jewish allies in the United States worked hard to
ensure that it stayed in place. Jewish Zionists
in the United States, working both inside and
outside the Jewish community, worked to whittle
down the ability of the American political system
to take any positions contrary to the interests
of Israel. In the aftermath of the victory in the
June War, and Israels new policy of expanding
its frontiers to incorporate the West Bank, Gaza
and the Golan Heights, a new, more aggressively
pro-Israel cadre of Jews took over the leadership
of the mainstream Jewish organizations in the
United States. They worked to suppress dissent
within the Jewish community, used campaign
contributions to elect the strongest pro-Israeli
candidates to the Congress, and maintained
discipline inside the Congress by punishing
dissenters at the next election. They cultivated
the Christian Zionists, who were being energized
by Israeli successes. At the same time,
pro-Israeli think tanks produced hundreds of
position papers, journal articles, magazines,
reports, and books, resurrecting atavistic fears
of a dangerous, resurgent, anti-Western Islam
that was the greatest threat to the power of the United States.
The secret of Zionist success, then, lies in the
manner in which it overcame the chief flaw in its
design: it did not have a natural mother country
to support its colonial project. By winning over
the Jews in the Western diaspora, and galvanizing
them to use their wealth, intellect, and activism
to promote Zionist causes, the Zionists succeeded
in substituting the West for the missing natural
mother country. Over time, nearly every major
Western country (including the Soviet Union) has
offered critical help in the creation, survival
and success of Israel. Most importantly, the two
greatest Western powers, Britain and the United
States, successively, have placed their military
might squarely behind the Zionist project despite
the damage that this inflicted on their vital interests in the Middle East.
The United States has already paid dearly for its
pro-Zionist policies since 1948. Over time, these
costs would include the hundreds of billions of
dollars in subsidies to Israel and its Arab
allies, the alienation of the Arab world, an oil
embargo, higher oil prices, the rise of Islamic
radicalism, and several close confrontations with
the Soviet Union in the Middle East. After
September 11, 2001, under strong pressure from
Israel working in league with their
neoconservatives allies the United States
launched a costly but unnecessary war against
Iraq. In turn, this war galvanized the Islamist
radicals, giving them a new theater where they
could engage the United States. The United States
has financed this war and the war in
Afghanistan by borrowing from China and the
oil-rich Arabs. We must also add two other
consequences of the Iraq War to the debit in
Americas Israeli account: the rise of Iran and
the growing challenge to U.S. hegemony in Latin America.
The costs that the United States and the rest
of the Western world might incur in the future
are likely to be much greater. We can only
speculate about these costs, or when they will
come due. The repressive, pro-American regimes in
the Arab world are not sustainable. When these
unpopular regimes begin to fall, and are replaced
by Islamist governments, it may become difficult
for the United States to maintain its presence in
the region. Indeed, it is likely that the United
States itself or Israel might trigger this
outcome with an attack on Iran. In the opinion of
some, this is an accident waiting to happen.
Should Israel wither away, the United States will
bear much of the collateral damage of this
collapse. The withering of the Jewish state could
occur due to international pressures against its
apartheid regime, a slow loss of nerve as Jewish
settlers lose their demographic war with the
Palestinians, or loss of deterrence as Israel
continues to engage in failed attempts to destroy
the Hizbullah and Hamas. Israel and the United
States have been joined at the hip for many
years. In Americas public discourse, the two
have become more and more like each other: they
are two exceptional societies, marked by destiny,
chosen by God, created by brave pioneers, who
have shaped and continue to shape their common
destiny through territorial expansion and ethnic
cleansing. Should the Jewish state wither away,
its much larger twin may begin to wobble.
Some consequences of the withering away of Israel
might be easy to predict. Over the past century,
the successes of the Zionist movement have
galvanized many American Jews and Zionist
Christians; they will now be disillusioned, in
despair, confused, and angry. Probably, most
Israeli Jews will want to migrate to the United
States, which most Americans will be loath to
refuse. Yet, this will give rise to frictions
between some sections of Gentiles and Jews and
may give rise to pockets of anti-Semitism.
Tensions will also rise between Jews and Muslims
in the United States. The disillusioned Christian
Zionists too may seek to scapegoat all peoples of
color, but especially Arab-Americans and Muslims.
In all likelihood, the United States will
experience growing conflicts among different
sections of its population; there will be more
racism, hate crimes, and, perhaps, worse. None of
this will be good for Americas image as a great country.
Although the domestic fallout of the withering of
the Israeli state will be serious, the more
serious losses for the United States will flow
from the erosion of its control over the oil-rich
states in the Persian Gulf. It would be foolhardy
to predict the contours of the new map that will
eventually emerge in the Middle East and the
Islamicate. Whatever new structures emerge, these
transformations are likely to be violent. On the
one hand, the fragmentation imposed on the
Islamicate has created local interests that will
seek to maintain the status quo. These local
interests now will confront Islamist movements
that seek to create more integrated structures
across the Islamicate. These conflicts will be
deeply destabilizing, as India, China, Europe and
Russia may choose sides, each eager to replace
the United States. Once the U.S.-Israeli
straitjacket over the region has been loosened,
it will not be easy to fashion a new one made in
Moscow, Beijing, Brussels or New Delhi. The
Islamicate world today is not what it was during
World War I. It is noticeably less inclined to
let foreigners draw their maps for them.
M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at
Northeastern University. He is author of
Challenging Orientalism (IPI: 2007). Contact him
at
<mailto:alqalam02760 at yahoo.com>alqalam02760 at yahoo.com.
Visit his website at <http://qreason.com/>http://qreason.com.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20100921/b2a66f45/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list