It is often that Palestine, and those who have defended its people’s right to sit themselves sovereign on the land which they inherited from their forefathers — and their fathers before that — have limited their calls for justice to the denunciation of Zionism, thus failing to see that other parties have had a hand in that genocide we all seldom attest to.
If Palestinians remain a “hot topic” of discussion, mainstream media has yet to frame this struggle within its true parameters: that of a people robbed of their national identity, their history, their tradition, their religious freedom, and more importantly, their rights to a dignified future away from oppression.
It needs to be said that Palestine is not a symbol of anti-semitism!
Palestine’s existence does in no way, shape or form equate to the negation of Judaism!
Those arguing against Palestine are really making the case of its disappearance.
The truth of this conflict lies beyond any and all religious or political spats. The truth of this conflict lies in this blood mighty men choose to shed so that empires could be risen and ambitions fed.
Palestine, we should realize, is where fascism came to reinvent itself a grand enemy of democratic pluralism and freedom at a time when new systems of governance were being formulated away from western imperialism. Beyond that, one may posit that Palestine has become together a neo-fascist project and a blueprint for future genocides.
In his address to Parliament on Al-Quds Day, Iran’s Parliament Chairman, Ali Larijani, referred to Israel as “the source of all terrorism in the world,” pointing to the ideological construct beyond the political agenda.
Zionism, we ought now to grasp, exists beyond Palestine. The Middle Eastern country was but the first victim of a vengeful ideology which seeks to bow men to its will.
In the same vein, Zionism has had many expressions to its hatred — not all linked to Judaism, but rather the political reality it has worked to manifest in the Greater Middle East.
What do I mean? Simply that Zionism is not a Jewish monopoly, it is a way of thinking anchored in supremacism and exclusionism, not a religion. Whereas Judaism exists as a faith, a belief system inspired by Zionism came to claim the religion to justify its intolerance while calling it “holy.”
Zionism cannot be fully understood if divorced from its other expression: Wahhabism. Just like Israel’s military occupation of Palestine cannot be divorced from attempts by Saudi Arabia to occupy Palestine’s civil space by laying siege to its non-governmental organizations.
I will quote here the work of Vanessa Beeley, an investigative journalist whose courage and dedication have permitted for the rise a new narrative — one weaved around the idea that Freedom is a natural and inalienable right to our human condition.
“We live in a world governed by propaganda where the majority of media mouthpieces are gagged by those who own them and only permitted to release information that serves the narrative of the ruling elite or imperialist powers,” Beeley said.
“So what does the machine create? It creates a power for good in its own image. It creates the non-government organizations and the not-for-profit industrial complex to give us the illusion, not only of this power for good, but of our own empowerment, our own stakeholding in reducing the misery being inflicted upon humanity.”
In Palestine, this has manifested in a covert campaign for control of civil development.
Beyond Israeli pointed guns and barbwires extends another shadow, one just as nefarious and insidious since it has precluded Palestinians from asserting themselves outside the narrative of occupation. Worse still, Saudi Arabia’s philanthropy in Palestine has more often than not been tied to hyper-radicalisation, or as you may prefer to call it, wahhabization.
There is a pattern here that should not escape us. Saudi Arabia’s humanitarian efforts are not motivated by an imperious need to offer relief to the victims of Israel’s brutality, but rather a mean to assert financial dependency to buy loyalties and indoctrinate communities.
Beeley argues that “when the ‘soft power’ missionary complex is in the same hands as the ‘hard power industrial/military’ complex…they are two sides of the same coin, overtly opposing and covertly combining to achieve imperialist aims in any given target region or nation. The NGO complex is the most insidious tool of empire and arguably the most damaging.”
Such modern day “humanitarians” have played misery with unparalleled cynicism and cruelty, exploiting needs to advance, promote and accelerate the disappearance of a people.
Palestine is no longer Zionism and Wahhabism’s only war theater. Others have fallen prey to such hunger. Many others still stand to fall should we fail to reframe conflicts within the reality of a system we refuse to formulate for fear of facing it.
Imperialism is really but the branding behind which neo-fascists have come to hide.
The real game, the only game that has been played and continues to be played, is that of socio-political enslavement and sovereign erosion.
Again, Palestine sits together a cautionary tale and the tip of the iceberg. It is what lays below, what we wish not to see, that should command our attention.
Last week’s announcement that Saudi Arabia — easily one of the world’s most brutally repressive regimes — was chosen to head a U.N. Human Rights Council panel provoked indignation around the world. That reaction was triggered for obvious reasons. Not only has Saudi Arabia executed more than 100 people already this year, mostly by beheading (a rate of 1 execution every two days), and not only is it serially flogging dissidents, but it is reaching new levels of tyrannical depravity as it is about to behead and then crucify the 21-year-old son of a prominent regime critic, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was convicted at the age of 17 of engaging in demonstrations against the government.
Most of the world may be horrified at the selection of Saudi Arabia to head a key U.N. human rights panel, but the U.S. State Department most certainly is not. Quite the contrary: its officials seem quite pleased about the news. At a State Department briefing yesterday afternoon, Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner was questioned by the invaluable Matt Lee of AP, and this is the exchange that resulted:
QUESTION: Change topic? Saudi Arabia.
MR. TONER: Saudi Arabia.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Saudi Arabia was named to head the Human Rights Council, and today I think they announced they are about to behead a 21-year-old Shia activist named Muhammed al-Nimr. Are you aware of that?
MR. TONER: I’m not aware of the trial that you — or the verdict — death sentence.
QUESTION: Well, apparently, he was arrested when was 17 years old and kept in juvenile detention, then moved on. And now, he’s been scheduled to be executed.
MR. TONER: Right. I mean, we’ve talked about our concerns about some of the capital punishment cases in Saudi Arabia in our Human Rights Report, but I don’t have any more to add to it.
QUESTION: So you —
QUESTION: Well, how about a reaction to them heading the council?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t have any comment, don’t have any reaction to it. I mean, frankly, it’s — we would welcome it. We’re close allies. If we —
QUESTION: Do you think that they’re an appropriate choice given — I mean, how many pages is — does Saudi Arabia get in the Human Rights Report annually?
MR. TONER: I can’t give that off the top of my head, Matt.
QUESTION: I can’t either, but let’s just say that there’s a lot to write about Saudi Arabia and human rights in that report. I’m just wondering if you — that it’s appropriate for them to have a leadership position.
MR. TONER: We have a strong dialogue, obviously a partnership with Saudi Arabia that spans, obviously, many issues. We talk about human rights concerns with them. As to this leadership role, we hope that it’s an occasion for them to look at human rights around the world but also within their own borders.
QUESTION: But you said that you welcome them in this position. Is it based on [an] improved record? I mean, can you show or point to anything where there is a sort of stark improvement in their human rights record?
MR. TONER: I mean, we have an ongoing discussion with them about all these human rights issues, like we do with every country. We make our concerns clear when we do have concerns, but that dialogue continues. But I don’t have anything to point to in terms of progress.
QUESTION: Would you welcome as a — would you welcome a decision to commute the sentence of this young man?
MR. TONER: Again, I’m not aware of the case, so it’s hard for me to comment on it other than that we believe that any kind of verdict like that should come at the end of a legal process that is just and in accordance with international legal standards.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
That’s about as clear as it gets. The U.S. government “welcomes” the appointment of Saudi Arabia to a leadership position on this Human Rights panel because it’s a “close ally.” As I documented two weeks ago courtesy of an equally candid admission from an anonymous “senior U.S. official”: “The U.S. loves human-rights-abusing regimes and always has, provided they ‘cooperate.’ … The only time the U.S. government pretends to care in the slightest about human rights abuses is when they’re carried out by ‘countries that don’t cooperate.’”
It’s difficult to know whether Mark Toner is lying when he claims ignorance about the case of al-Nimr, the regime critic about to be beheaded and crucified for dissident activism, which he engaged in as a teen. Indeed, it’s hard to know which would be worse: active lying or actual ignorance, given that much of the world has been talking about this case. The government of France formally requested that the Saudis rescind the death penalty. Is it really possible that the deputy spokesperson of the U.S. State Department is ignorant of this controversy? Either way, the reluctance of the U.S. government to utter a peep about the grotesque abuses of its “close ally” is in itself grotesque.
But it’s also profoundly revealing. The close U.S./Saudi alliance and the massive amount of weapons and intelligence lavished on the regime in Riyadh by the West is one of the great unmentionables in Western discourse. (The Guardian last week published an editorial oh-so-earnestly lamenting the war in Yemen being waged by what it called the “Saudi-led coalition,” yet never once mentioned the rather important fact that the Saudis are being armed in this heinous war by the U.S. and U.K.; it took a letter to the editor from an Oxfam official to tell The Guardian that the West is not being “complacent” about the war crimes being committed in Yemen, as The Guardian misleadingly claimed, but rather actively complicit.)
It’s not hard to understand why so many of the elite sectors of the West want everyone to avert their eyes from this deep and close relationship with the Saudis. It’s because that alliance single-handedly destroys almost every propagandistic narrative told to the Western public about that region.
As the always-expanding “War on Terror” enters its 14th year, the ostensible target — radical, violent versions of Islam — is fueled far more by the U.S.’s closest allies than any of the countries the U.S. has been fighting under the “War on Terror” banner. Beyond that, the alliance proves the complete absurdity of believing that the U.S. and U.K.’s foreign policies, let alone their various wars, have anything to do with protecting human rights or subverting tyranny and fanaticism. And it renders a complete laughingstock any attempts to depict the U.S. government as some sort of crusader for freedom and democracy or whatever other pretty goals are regularly attributed to it by its helpful press.
Caption: President Barack Obama, right, meets with King Salman of Saudi Arabia in the Oval Office of the White House, on Friday, Sept. 4, 2015, in Washington.