Will Israel fall in five years?
"The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party, and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism."
-- Albert Einstein, The New York Times, 4 December 1948
Online reports of a study by the US Central Intelligence Agency cast doubt over the survival of Israel beyond the next two decades. Regardless of the validity of the report, with what is now known about the costs in blood and treasure that the US-Israeli relationship has imposed on the US, its key ally, Israel could fall within five years.
For more than six decades, American support for Israel has relied on the ability of pro-Israelis to dominate US media, enabling Tel Aviv to put a positive spin on even its most extreme behaviour, including its recent massacre in Gaza. With access to online news coverage, that Zionist bias is becoming apparent and the real facts exposed.
Though Americans seldom show a strong interest in foreign affairs that, too, is changing. While few of them grasp the subtleties of one state versus two state proposals, many have seen online the impact of a murderous Israeli assault on Palestinian civilians that was timed between Christmas and the inauguration of Barack Obama.
The leaders of the 9/11 Commission acknowledged that its members would not allow testimony on the impetus for that attack. Yet the report confirmed that the key motivation was the US-Israeli relationship. With access to online news, more Americans are asking why they are forced to support a colonial apartheid government.
With the election of yet another extremist Israeli government led by yet another rightwing Likud Party stalwart, it is clear that Tel Aviv intends to preclude peace by continuing to build more settlements. With that stance, Israel not only pushed Barack Obama into a corner, it also forced US national security to make a key strategic decision: Is Israel a credible partner for peace? By any criteria, the answer must be a resounding "No".
That inescapable conclusion leaves Americans with few options. After all, the US is largely responsible for the legitimacy granted this extremist enclave in May 1948 when Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist president, extended nation-state recognition. He did so over the strenuous objections of Secretary of State George Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the fledgling CIA and the bulk of the US diplomatic corps.
By December 1948, a distinguished contingent of Jewish scientists and intellectuals warned in The New York Times that those leading the effort to establish a Jewish state bear "the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party". Albert Einstein joined concerned Jews who cautioned Americans "not to support this latest manifestation of fascism".
Only in the past few weeks has the momentum emerged to subject Israel to the same external pressures that were brought to bear against apartheid South Africa. After more than six decades of consistent behaviour -- and clear evidence of no intent to change -- activists coalesced around the need to boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and impose sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others.
The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behaviour will not change. Absent pressure -- and likely force -- applied by the US as the nation that has long enabled this behaviour, colonial Zionism will continue to pose a threat to peace.
Occupying powers are not known to voluntarily relinquish lands they occupy. Likewise readiness to surrender nuclear arms.
The key issue need no longer be a subject of endless debate. There must be a one state solution consistent with democratic principles of full equality. Informed Americans are no longer willing to support a theocratic state in which full citizenship is limited to those deemed "Jewish" (whatever that means). If local birth rates suggest an eventual end to the "Jewish state" then so be it. Why wait two decades when this nightmare can be drawn to a close in less than five years?
Forget about a return to pre-1967 borders; instead return to pre-1948 borders. Designate Jerusalem an international city under UN protection and dispatch multinational forces to maintain peace. Palestinians should have a right of return, including the ability to recover properties from which they fled under an assault by Jewish terrorists. If colonial Zionists (aka settlers) want compensation for "their" property, let them seek restitution from the Diaspora that encouraged their unlawful occupation.
Those who consider themselves "Jewish" can remain as part of an inclusive democracy. Or they can depart. Americans must consider how many of these extremists it wants to welcome to a nation already straining under an immigration burden. A reported 500,000 Israelis hold US passports. With more than 300,000 dual-citizens residing in California alone, that state may require a referendum on just how many Zionists it wishes to receive.
Likewise for Russia, from which many Jews fled, including some 300,000 Russian émigrés who support the Likud Party but have yet to be certified as Jewish.
Zionists originally saw Argentina and Uganda as desirable venues to establish their enterprise. They may wish to apply there for resettlement. The question of why Palestinians (or Californians) should bear the cost of a problem created by Europeans six decades ago is one that Tel Aviv has yet to answer except by citing ancient claims that it insists should take precedence over two millennia of Palestinian residence.
By withdrawing Israel's status as a legitimate "state", those Jews long appalled by the behaviour of this extremist enclave can no longer be portrayed as guilty by association. That long overdue shift in status is certain to benefit the broader Jewish community. By shutting down Israel's nuclear arms programme and destroying its nuclear arsenal, the world can be spared the key impetus now driving a nuclear arms race in the region.
Unless pro-Israelis can create another crisis by inducing an invasion of Iran (or a race war), Americans will soon realise that only one "state" had the means, motivation, opportunity and stable nation-state intelligence required to fix the intelligence that led the US to invade Iraq consistent with the expansionist goals of colonial Zionism.
Intelligence now working its way to transparency will soon confirm that, but for Zionists within the US government, 9/11 could have been prevented and war in Iraq avoided. To date, Zionist extremism has been enabled by a series of weak US presidents. For the US to restore its credibility requires that it not only lead the effort to shut down the Zionist enterprise, but that it also share responsibility for its behaviour to date.
Will this millennium be characterized by the demise of the former British Empire’s only surviving colonial legacy: the Jewish State of Israel?
Political pundits appear to recoil at the very thought of such a possibility and never ever engage in any serious discourse on it. It is more likely that these pundits, many of whom pose as consultants and advisors with briefs to formulate policies, would be completely reticent to the point of viewing such an idea as utterly blasphemous.
This million dollar question, nevertheless, features very prominently in the political, religious and social discussions of the world wide Islamic Movement, as well as in the ordinary day-to day tete-a tete of Muslims.
The question is not about whether Israel will fall; instead it is about when will Israel fall? There are no ifs and buts about this.
And the paradox is that while Western politicians, statesman and commentators are constantly on the look out for Arafat-type clones to supply and equip the slave’s master with legitimacy, Muslims find the very notion of Israel in Islam’s heartland extremely reprehensible.
Their revulsion is not only reserved for the zionist occupiers of Palestine, but also for the willing tools of Israel made up of fellow Muslim individuals as well as pro-West monarchies and dictatorships dressed up as ‘Islamic States’.
At a recent rally of thousands of volunteers in Iran, pledging their support for the Intifada and jihad to liberate Palestine, the leader of the Islamic Republic, Sayyid Ali Khameni reiterated his country’s opposition to Israel, which he described as a "false notion", made up of "a group of migrant and wandering tramps, opportunists and profit seekers from different parts of the world."
Confirming Iran’s position of non negotiability of al Quds [Palestine] and more importantly, non recognition of Israel, a position which has been a consistent corner-stone of Iran since the Islamic Revolution led by Imam Khomeini more than two decades ago, the current leader declared that no power on earth can "extinguish the aspirations of the Palestinians – or indeed those of the Muslims of the world as a whole- to achieve freedom of Palestine."
He also poured cold water over the so-called 2-state theory position and instead reaffirmed the fundamentals of justice as advocated by the overwhelming majority of Palestinans as the only basis for freedom. Addressing the concerns of those who regard the Middle East problem as a critical international issue, Khameni said that there is only one cure:
"The only possible resolution is to destroy the root and cause of the crisis. What is this root? The zionist state, an artificial and baseless state that has been imposed on the region."
As Ramadan dawned upon Palestine, the Intifada entered its third consecutive month, with no signs of fatigue. In fact, with Fatah closing ranks with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, not only has the Intifada gained momentum, it has thrown Israel into complete disarray. The sheer power of the struggle waged on the ground has been a nightmare for Ehud Barak’s fragmented coalition, forcing him to resign. The shambles in which the see- saw seat of Zionist power, the Knesset finds itself, is indicative of the grave crisis that Israel is facing.
The political gamble whereby Israel transformed it’s hitherto arch-foe, Yasser Arafat from ‘terrorist’ to ‘partner’, notwithstanding the fact that the power granted to him was no more than that of a ‘night watchman’, has failed dismally. Indeed, none of the perks allied to the ‘partnership’, such as casinos, were of any consequences. The bitter lesson spelt out by the Intifada is that the Palestinians want out of bondage.
Nothing less than a free, independent Palestine- not of the Bantustan type which is being offered to them under the guise of ‘two nations, two states’-will serve the interests of justice.
It goes without saying therefore, that Israel is an oppressive impediment, which until it falls, will continue to use brutal force to perpetuate it’s illegitimate reign. The Intifada, just as the Soweto uprising of 1976 proved to be apartheid’s death knell, holds the promise of finally removing Europe’s Zionist intrusion in Palestine.
Israel has no choice but to fall!
Mr. Iqbal Jasarat is Chairman of the Media Review Network, which is an advocacy group based in Pretoria, South Africa.