I have realized over my many years of interaction with Zionists, that many among them genuinely believe what this anonymous person under the nom de plume “Ahmad Yaqeen”, has stated in his comment to Joseph Massad's Al-Ahram Weekly article 'The Language of Zionism' here. 
'The Arabs not only rejected partition, but attacked Israel from all sides. On the day that Israel declared its independence, the Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared “jihad”, a holy war. He said, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini stated, “I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!” ... The fact remains that Israel is a nation state that existed 2400 years before Islam where a Nation referred to as Palestine and the Palestinian people never existed. ... When the State of Israel was reborn in 1948 c.e., the “Palestinians” did not exist yet, the Arabs had still not discovered that "ancient" people. They were too busy with the purpose of annihilating the new Sovereign State and did not intend to create any Palestinian entity, but only to distribute the land among the already existing Arab states. They were defeated. They attempted again to destroy Israel in 1967, and were humiliated in only six days, in which they lost the lands that they had usurped in 1948. In those 19 years of Arab occupation of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, neither Jordan nor Egypt suggested to create a “Palestinian” state, since the still non-existing Palestinians would have never claimed their alleged right to have their own state… Paradoxically, during the British Mandate, it was not any Arab group but the Jews that were known as “Palestinians”! ' (Comment By Zionist robot “Ahmad Yaqeen”)
When strident young Jews imbued with the spirit of Zionism make their “Aalia” to reclaim their lost paradise from those 'untermensch' occupying their Promised Holy Lands, they are not just playing frivolous word games, or indulging in weekend protest marches shouting at the top of their lungs for justice to prevail in the Holy Lands only to go back to their own “bread and circuses” the next day. These young Zionists are actually quite dedicated, willing to sacrifice themselves for the categorical imperative inculcated into them since birth. To their mind, Israel Project is a moral self-defense to simply reclaim what has been theirs for 3000 years – as Shimon Perez remarked on the occasion of the 60th birthday celebration of Israel to George W. Bush: “Welcome to the new Israel: Three thousand years old, and going on sixty”. The underpinnings of the zealotry behind that celebration is examined here. 
As seen by these Zionist zealots, mankind throughout the ages had only usurped what was granted to the Jews by their god as a sacred gift – and the modern Zionists are merely reclaiming their own properties from the bad Goy, from the evil Amelekites divinely ordained to perdition at their hands anyway, and none shall stand in the holy way of their jihad. I personally know of no Palestinian in Diaspora who can match that zealotry and commitment to cause of the Zionists. Most Palestinians I know or have met in my life are content with shedding tears in silent remembrance, which of course breaks out in boisterous sloganeering every now and then, but ultimately take their Nakba “whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed to mankind”, as a divine test. “Hasbi-Allahu-wa-nai'mul-wakeel” is a common prayer on many a quivering Muslim lip. But I have seen many Jewish younglings in Zionists garb who have scared me by their Zionist fervor in no less a measure than perhaps any mind-controlled suicide bomber would scare me.
Acquiring this comprehension appears to be a limiting challenge for victims of Zionism. This is empirically in evidence even as I write this. For instance, take these conscionable peoples clamoring for BDS against Israel. I am sorry to suggest that they are being taken for the same sort of ride on a treadmill as I was when I answered the moral call of International ANSWER and participated in the protest marches in 2002-2003 hoping to avert the horrendously criminal invasion of Iraq. Since I am also an engineer by training, and performing postmortem of why things work and don't work is part of my analytical profession which itself relies on the intelligent use of “Mens et Manus” (i.e., mind and hand) to understand real world problems and engineer real world solutions that must work in order to continue collecting a paycheck, I applied that propensity borne of training to understand why the protests had not worked. How could millions of protesting peoples have been so trivially dismissed as a “focus group”? The same way that BDS will be dismissed. It was examined here. 
The postmortems were revealing to me. And that's when I stopped attending protest marches as a means to bringing change, and more as a means to meeting other activists, and perhaps venting my lungs off its burden. Just a little bit of independent thinking, away from the influence peddling of all the lauded dissent chiefs of the West, had showed me what had been staring me in the face all my life and I just hadn't seen it. It had indeed taken a catalyzing event like the “new pearl harbor”, not just for Brzezinski's “imperial mobilization”, but also for me to finally grasp that as a matter of Machiavellian statecraft in free societies, opposition to the exercise of hegemony by its conscionable peoples must be put on treadmills of inefficacy as a matter of governance. And this can only be accomplished by systematically instrumenting false leaders, false scholars, false dissent-chiefs, and glamorizing them enough for their public stances against hegemony, that energetic people of conscience rebelling against the tyranny of status quo will naturally gravitate towards them for moral guidance. When a pied piper leads you, how do you know where he or she is really taking you? How do you know what he really means by the words he uses to inform you? How do you know her motivation? This was explored here by this scribe, and here by Peter Schweizer, research fellow at the Hoover Institution. 
The Language of Zionism described by Joseph Massad, as are my examples drawn from PNAC and Brzezinski – such as “American peace”, “moral clarity”, “benevolent order” – quoted in my earlier comment to Massad's article on the same website, are only the most egregious but rather transparent examples. There are far more sophisticated mechanisms of deception, such as calculated omissions, half-truths, echoing the axioms of empire while appearing to critique its effects, and “neuro-linguistic programming”. This latter mechanism relies on subliminal manipulation and is explained here. 
Calculated omission is perhaps the most crafty tool of persuasion as it relies on ignorance – for who can have complete knowledge of every subject? Aldous Huxley aptly called it the “iron curtain”:
'The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.' (Aldous Huxley, 1946 Preface to Brave New World, 1931)
Keeping thinking peoples plausibly occupied lest they discover the real levers of power is much more complicated than mere manufacturing consent among the masses who are rather easily amenable to simple propaganda. That science of mass persuasion is already well understood, thanks to the pioneering work of Edward Bernays and the Mighty Wurlitzer, not to overlook Goebbels and Hitler, as the engineering of consent from the majority. The minority of thoughtful peoples however, also often the people of conscience, pose a different problem. They can actually think and not easily prone to the mass propaganda. If not craftily waylaid, they stand to acquire some real comprehension of the otherwise carefully hidden from the masses in plainsight, conspiratorial forces which actually shape their world. The rebels can also potentially figure out that the visible rulers whom they elect with such gravitas every four years, to presumably run their country on their behalf in a celebration of democracy which affords them the choice of twiddledee and twiddledum in a carefully choreographed Hegelian Dialectic, are actually not their public servants. To hide the fact that these psychopaths – at least on the prima facie evidence of their bizarre penchant for incessant war-mongering upon innocent peoples – whom they elect with such fanfare, are really the errand boys of an invisible oligarchy, manufacturing dissent is a necessary instrument of statecraft. It can be studied here. 
With that necessary detour to illustrate how the Western peoples are manipulated between the manufacturing of consent and manufacturing of dissent so that it can become really difficult to comprehend the choices one is making when one follows the pied piper, let's return to our main topic of understanding the forces which drive Zionism. While some think that Zionism is the invention of Theodor Herzl, it isn't. Hardly anyone among the Palestinians I know has ever heard of Rabbi Moses Hess, who was in fact the first modern Zionist. He invented the 'Roman Jerusalem' in 1828 with Rothschild's blessings, some suggest also fundings. The fact that the Balfour Declaration was addressed to a Rothschild elder, is very significant for understanding the uncanny power of Zionism. Read Zionism's own Moses' divine tablet Rome and Jerusalem here. 
Both Moses Hess' Zionism, as well as its offspring, the Jewish State, trace its theology of “will to normalize the existence of the Jewish people”, as Leo Strauss put it, to the Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism. Israel Shahak examined it in his book: Jewish History, Jewish Religion The Weight of Three Thousand Years. It can be read here. 
And here is Leo Strauss explaining a primacy which in reality is more than 2000 years old, rather than having only just invented it himself in the prominent atheism of the twentieth century after god was declared dead by Nietzsche in the previous century:
'Political Zionism has repeatedly characterized itself as the will to normalize the existence of the Jewish people, to normalize the Jewish people. By this self-definition it has exposed itself to a grave misunderstanding, namely, the misunderstanding that the will to normality was the first word of political Zionism; the most effective criticism of political Zionism rests on this misunderstanding. In truth, the presupposition of the Zionist will to normalization, that is, of the Zionist negation of galut [exile], is the conviction that “the power of religion has been broken”. Because the break with religion has been resolutely effected by many individual Jews, and only because of this reason, it is possible for these individuals to raise the question on behalf of their people, how the people is to live from now on. Not that they prostrate themselves before the idol of normality; on the contrary: they no longer see any reason for the lack of normality. And this is decisive: in the age of atheism, the Jewish people can no longer base its existence on God but only on itself alone, on its labor, on its land, and on its state. ...' (page 202, Leo Strauss, The Early Writings 1921-1932)
Look at that last sentence: “And this is decisive: in the age of atheism, the Jewish people can no longer base its existence on God but only on itself alone, on its labor, on its land, and on its state. ...”
With the negation of god in the above narratives, where did the Jewish people get its land, and its state?
So most thinking people tend to dismiss all this illogic of Zionism as gibberish of some sick minds, as double standards, and as hypocrisy. In my view, it is none of that, unless evil can be defined as “sick”. I don't a priori. A philosophy or an idea is only evil in relation to an absolute standard of good. Otherwise, like Justice Vinson of the U.S. Supreme Court had stated in 1951: “Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes, that a name, a phrases, a standard has meaning only when associated with the considerations which give birth to nomenclature. To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic strait-jacket, we must reply that all concepts are relative.” In other words, Zionism in the modern context is just another relative concept beyond the purview of absolute definitions of good and evil. It is whatever the reigning power wants it to be. If it says it's moral, then it's moral. In fact, it is seeded in respectable philosophy by Western standards. It is the philosophy of Spinoza and Nietzsche in modern times, and of Plato in ancient times. It is the philosophy of the ubermensch who by the very nature of being uber alles, are licensed to define their own standards of morality (and this is how the Straussian's read Plato's virtuous divine philosopher-king: since divine is dead, so philosopher is king, and therefore can create his own definition of virtue – which is effectively what you see Leo Strauss writing above). And this is also precisely how Vladimir Jabotinsky defined the morality of Zionism in his seminal 1923 article The Iron Wall. It can be read here. 
“Two brief remarks: In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true; either Zionism is moral and just or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative. We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not. There is no other morality.” (Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall).
This attitude of defining morality by one's own ubermensch definition is a very profoundly banal philosophy with direct Talmudic roots. It is banal because it's the philosophy of any godfather. It is profound because it has been turned into a respectable philosophy by great minds. A philosophy which bastardized the Biblical Moses' moral message to the Semitic Jews of Canaan of an absolute moral Covenant between God and its “Chosen Peoples” (perhaps for spreading the divine light among mankind – otherwise why else?), to an ubermensch 'chosen peoples' created to lord upon the “goy”. There is simply no other rational and commonsensical way of semantically capturing the rise and fall of Judaism from divine to uber alles, whether or not one believes in divinity. Judaism is empirical, as is Christianity, and so is Islam, Hinduism, and Bhuddism, the major surviving ancient dogmas and religions of mankind today. As a philosophy, all great religions of mankind have some universalistic spiritual and moral underpinnings. Only the 'ubermensch' Judaism of the three Abrahamic religions acquired this peculiar character of 'uber alles', meaning, above all the others, in its self-defined continuously evolving morality “to normalize the Jewish people”. While Leo Strauss attributes it to the age of atheism, empiricism indicates that this has in fact been the norm of the Rabbis throughout the past 3000 years!
If the existence of Moses isn't merely a mythology as some modern skeptics suggest, and the Jews did indeed receive a sensible moral code from the Prophet like the universalistic Ten Commandments, then, Judaism's corruption to that perversity of the 'ubermensch' was entirely the work of the Talmudic Rabbis. And it was this long historical perversion as the overarching ethos of the Jewish tradition, which enabled casting Zionism as a moral philosophy, a moral imperative of the Jews, and a moral pursuit. Hence anything in opposition to it is by definition immoral. Consequently, it is to be repulsed by any means possible, including 'Noble Lies' (Leo Strauss), and mercilessly killing any goy who might interfere with the existence of the Jewish State, or interfere with its imperatives. This lofty morality of Zionism can be seen in the recent Law Book of Israel, “The King's Torah” (or “The King’s Teaching”) for instance, written by a settler Rabbi occupying the West Bank, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira: “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created”. Read more about it here or here. 
This sort of perverse ethos ingrained among the 'chosen peoples' against the 'goy' has endured the vicissitudes of time for over two thousand of years. That's a lot of historical and cultural baggage in ancient to modern books to be carrying upon one's cultural, religious and philosophical back. Such entrenched ethos is the primal motivation for “Aalia” which none but the Jews who espouse Zionism can appreciate. One cannot underestimate this motivation. It forms the fundamental basis among world's Jewry for supporting the Jewish State no matter where they live. It enables recruiting agents, assets and sayanim from among them as described by Victor Ostrovsky in By Way of Deception. It can be read here. 
As formidable and incomparable as that ethos is, it is still mere motivation. Not its enactment, and not its harvesting. Without a harnessing force, the motivation remains still-born. The only way Zionism could find empirical expression globally was with massive funding, massive political power, and massive alignment with ruling imperial powers. Where did all that magically come from? If the Western world was so anti-Semitic, how did the most hated and reviled people in Europe convince their own oppressors? The Zionist narrations tell us of this and that magical powers of persuasion of this or that Zionist leader. Without a prime-moving force backing them, and it being known that they represent that power, such magic is only for bed-time fiction. In the two hundred years since Moses Hess, Zionism's global expression is entirely manufactured with those three instruments mentioned above. Before that, the aspiration for Zion existed mainly in books and in prayers. Its ubermensch Talmudic philosophy only found expression in the Jews' local life among the goyem in various ad hoc forms, primarily as the underpinning of a battle of survival of the minority among an inimical majority who blamed that minority for having killed their lord Jesus. And the Jewish minority under the leadership of their dictatorial Rabbis, holding itself off as superior to all others and refusing integration with the majority. That dynamics was always local until the Zionism of the globalists made it global.
Be it left-wing Zionism or right-wing Zionism, be it diplomatic Zionism or fighting Zionism, be it political Zionism, synthetic Zionism, military Zionism, friendly Zionism, tough-Zionism, gentle-Zionism, hard Zionism, soft Zionism, nihilist Zionism, spiritual Zionism, Labor Zionism, Likud Zionism, pre-Jewish State Zionism, or post-Jewish State Zionism, all remain expressions of tactics for translating motivational Zionism into empirical Zionism.
Without the continuity of an immensely powerful financial prime-mover – from which all else follows – motivational Zionism would remain a theoretical idea in dusty old books to primarily torture young orthodox Jewish seminary students and secular atheists in Western universities with. Who'd ever pursue it as a categorical imperative in the enlightened modernity du jour where Jews can hardly draw on any empirical evidence of their oppression to motivate their flock? Before two hundred years ago, most Jews were not the Zionist of today, even though, they did harbor these same ubermensch underpinnings. The translation of a tortuous philosophy from ancient books to existential global enactment is entirely the premeditated act of fabrication. That requires a prime-moving force. It is the willful act of money, and the willful act of conniving power, a power which can systematically mold, manipulate, corrupt, and indoctrinate across generations, across countries, and across the barriers of time and space. This is not an organic natural spread of a plague – for it could not be sustained for 200 years un-abated! It is more akin to the deliberate spread of a biowarfare agent of maximum penetration. The Zionist robot commenter mentioned in the beginning of this article is a tragic victim of this plague.
That is the only reasonable explanation for how Zionism can simultaneously combine so many opposites without their turning on each other – from vehemently orthodox right-wing Zionist settlers bobbing at the wailing wall praying to their god with guns slung over their shoulders, to the secular atheist left-wing Zionist ideologue fanatics who still believe that being Jew means something divine, uber alles, a race with their own categorical imperatives of primacy.
Whereas antagonists within other religiosities of far less theological dispersion tend to turn their guns upon each other first! Why does that not happen among the Jews? We can have Protestants and Catholics on each others throat, we can have Sunni and Shia on each others throat, but I have never heard of the many different polarities of Zionists in the past 100 years on each others throat. Within just that epoch, we had a 100 million Christians barbarically kill each other, and many million Muslims barbarically kill each other! Not to forget the 6 million Jews of course, mercilessly HolocaustedTM by the Christians, but for which the Muslims are being compelled to pay the price by the Jews and the Christians now inexplicably and suddenly teaming up. If we simply examine the recorded facts of who were the major war-mongers who created and supported all the wars of the twentieth century – the Century of Wars – and who participated in the peace-conferences after each one and what was systematically achieved, a perspective which can finally begin to see the outlines of the trumpeting but apparently invisible elephant in the bedroom quickly emerges. In every single instance, there is only one common prime-mover without which, these synthetic clashes could not have materialized. The owners of the private central banks. As the pithy saying goes: “give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws”. That's because all else follows by simply controlling the instruments of money. Which is why, such a fundamental power is called the prime-mover. It is examined here and here.  Suffice it to say, the prime-mover force behind Zionism brings a lot more diabolicalness, and a lot more internal cohesion from its apparent random diversity, to the realization of the physical Jewish State in Palestine than meets the superficial eye. And they are even able to legalize it without causing any internecine bloodshed!
According to Lasse Wilhelmson, there was a law passed in Israel in the mid 1980s which made it illegal to challenge the character of the state of Israel. The nature of the Jewish State cannot be questioned. It is an axiom of Zionism, as well as an axiom of law by the fiat of legality. There can be no political party with a platform which seeks any transformation to the Jewish character of Israel, taking part in its political process. There can be no transformation by the way the axioms of the Jewish state are constructed – some articulated, such as Jabotinsky's assertion that Zionism is moral, and others not. Therefore, realistically, there can be no transformation so long as the prime-movers behind Israel wield the force of Zionism. The visible Zionists, whether in Israel or in the rest of the world, would be powerless without the prime-mover which unites them. Putting it another way, the many colored Zionist robots are merely the replaceable foot-soldiers fabricated in a 'Sony' factory and enacting the diabolical interests of the prime-movers. Perhaps they too are being made a patsy, as a Hegelian Dialectic, just as they routinely make the goyem a patsy. This was explored here.  While many reformed Jews who have weaned themselves away from Zionism will freely describe the real abhorrent character of the Jewish State in great honesty, few will dare to address the real prime-mover force behind Zionism. It is almost like a religion of pretense that such a prime-mover force does not exist. See for instance, Lasse Wilhelmson who does a good job on the former, but is inexplicably silent on the latter, in Zionism – more than traditional colonialism and apartheid here. 
The Zionist Jews, among all the other peoples on earth, are the ones being criminally forced to most closely live their own baggage of history by these prime-movers. That is an empirical fact which is often not considered by the victims of Zionism in understanding the uncanny forces which drive their formidable enemy. To liberate the Jews from the clutches of Zionism will be a major service to the Jews themselves – they can thank us later. But until that transpires, the motivations which drive Zionism have been made ubiquitous, and its power to mold primary loyalties is empirical and cannot be underestimated. And therefore, must be taken into account by dissecting it both up and down into its precise hierarchy of constituents in order for the struggle for the liberation of the Jews, and the Palestinians, from the clutches of the Zionists, to succeed.
Therefore, focussing on Jewish political action groups like AIPAC, ADL, JDL, Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, et. al., who put Israel first to influence the superpower's policies, or the hundred Jewish-dominated opaquely funded private think-tanks like the AEI, CFR, et. al., who ab initio construct the polices of war and hegemony favoring Israel, without betraying any comprehension of the actual prime-movers behind them, is not only an exercise in futility, but these visible magnets are deliberately there, and manifest themselves with their inexplicable arrogance, precisely in order to draw fire away from the prime-movers!
While many betray that they are aware of the motto “wage war by way of deception”, I am sorely disappointed that very few in the West, never mind among the victimized beleaguered Palestinians, actually betray what it means when it comes to understanding front-men and front-organizations representing a powerful oligarchy. Only as the representatives of some mighty force not in the public eye, do the foot-soldiers in the public eye acquire the immense power that we see them wielding. When the White House and the Congress pays obeisance to AIPAC for instance, they are paying homage to the king behind them. If unfamiliar with this state of affairs, see Colonel Edward Mandell House's depiction in Philip Dru: Administrator. Rather than betray the acuity of having forensically recognized this modern mechanism of statecraft, of wielding power from behind the scenes, recording ex post facto narratives is the epitome of Western scholarship. Not all of it manufactured of course – but much of it suffering from psychological cataracts which enable seeding the faits accomplis of these front-men as “history's actors”:
'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.' (Senior Bush Advisor, The New York Times, October 17, 2004)
This is why neither protest marches, nor BDS, nor tea-parties, nor sailing to Gaza, nor the ISM's taking bullets to their head in the holy land of oppression, nor bearing witness, nor attempts at reforms, nor end the fed campaign, etceteras, can ever work. Because, these address the symptoms, the mere incantations and projections of power, and not the prime-mover forces behind them. To the extent that these symptomatic motivators are able to rally conscionable well-intentioned thinking peoples behind them, is the extent of the success of fabricated dissent, of putting people on the treadmills of inefficacy. As an engineer, a systems architect bringing a systems analysis perspective to deconstructing political science and social engineering, this is my commonsensical, technical, and empirical assessment. One has to go straight for the jugular of the tiny misanthropic coterie wielding the immense prime-mover force to be effective in overcoming all the abhorrences being seeded by their numerous psychopathic errand boys across the planet, including in Zionistan. See for instance, Who is more guilty of monumental war crimes – the prime-movers or trigger pullers?, here. 
It is important to reemphasize: it is not their thoughts or their motivations which are a crime. People are free to have any thoughts, and entitled to believe any crap they want. It is only their acts, or when their motivations lead to, or sustain, or otherwise in any way interfere in redressing the crimes perpetuated against an innocent peoples, which are a crime. The Nuremberg Military Tribunals aptly emphasized that core principle before hanging the old Nazis, military men, civilians, propagandists and philosophers alike (while setting free the principal financial architect of the Third Reich, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, explored here ).
“The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes.” (Robert H. Jackson, Last Day Closing Speech, Nuremberg).
But as Bernard Lewis also convincingly argues in “Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror”:
“Terrorism requires only a few. Obviously the West must defend itself by whatever means will be effective. But in devising means to fight the terrorist, it would surely be useful to understand the forces that drive them.” (page xxxii)
That's one shrewd empirical wisdom I have never contended with Bernard Lewis on. And I apply it myself to understand the motivations of the superterrorists. And not just Zionists, but all hectoring hegemons. For truly, “in devising means to fight the [super]terrorists, it would surely be useful to understand the forces that drive them.” However, it is not just the examination of motivational forces of history and philosophy, but also the dynamic contemporary prime-mover forces which empirically wield such an immense power that none can interfere with Zionistan in its genocide of the Palestinians, and yet themselves remain practically invisible to the victims.
Exactly like an invisible “Iron Wall”, which the victims simply cannot breach! These words of Jabotinsky have far more import than has been accorded them:
“This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through.”
What is that “force independent of the local population”? Hitherto. almost all students of the “Iron Wall” have described it as the Jewish military power. I perceive that “Iron Wall” is referring to something far more fundamental than merely an effect. It can only be referring to a prime-mover. Only that empirically explains the inscrutable and indomitable power of Zionism. This understanding also enables looking for that prime-mover and to elevate the battle where it can actually have some efficacy. And this has been the power of the prime-mover – it's ability to stay hidden from the public eye and leave the people merely grappling with the effects!
When a people believe something, whatever may be the merits of the belief, and acquire the power to enact that belief, what is the primary enemy to address in order to effectively counter it: 1) the visible expression of that power; 2) the hidden motivations that drive that visible expression of power; 3) the hidden prime-movers who ab initio fabricate and harness that motivation into a political goal and orchestrates it with all their financial and political might through those errand boys we see in the visible expressions of power while they themselves remain hidden from public view?
I leave it for the reader to explore those simple questions for themselves. A reasoned determination of causality, the forensic distinction between cause and effect, and an understanding that people have deliberately been led to focus on the effects, then logically ought to define their next pursuits. I wager that following logic and rationalism, as opposed to religion, feel-goods, and other emotionalisms, the reader will come to the same logical conclusions as reached by this scribe. Either kill the golem with a thousand cuts, but that does require administering a thousand cuts and preventing each wound from coagulating, or, directly reach for its heavily protected heart and yank it out. All else is touchy-feely spiritualism.
Returning to focus on Zionism and the forces which drive it, initially, as a young man tremendously angered by the horrendous Zionist oppression of Palestinians, I didn't comprehend this motivational mindset. And over a period of three decades of earnest interlocution with Zionists of all shades, both friendly, and not so friendly, even including with my own teacher Noam Chomsky, I still haven't figured out how to address such ingrained zealotry borne of systematic indoctrination that commences from the time when they are in their mother's womb, with any measure of efficacy. Wait just a minute you might well ask at this point if you haven't been entirely dozing off, Noam Chomsky indoctrinated? Well, I am just giving him a non-criminal way out for his support of Zionism, because I can't see why would he otherwise, as a left-wing atheist, even be a self-proclaimed Zionist? He is not of Semitic Middle Eastern origin, and like his ancestors, he was not born in Palestine. In most likelihood, he is a Khazar in origin. Why would he even aspire to be an idealist Zionist of the “1940s'” variety, even if only seeking its expression in a “binational state”? There is simply no explanation for this irrationality coming from an uber-rational scholar who is even anointed “arguably the most important intellectual alive”.
To make the absurdity of this manifest, it is somewhat like my aspiring to be Semitic like the Arabs when I am from the Indian sub-continent, and arguing that the Arabs should gratuitously live with me in a binational state on their own land! Isn't that absurd? What makes Chomsky a Zionist aspiring for a binational state for himself in someone else's Semitic homeland? There is simply no rational basis for such an aspiration – except, either being a colonizer, or being indoctrinated since birth, and in either case arguing the legitimacy of power and the reality on the ground, instead of moral right, to back it up. The fact that this criminal absurdity of validating the legitimacy of force to create unjust rights which do not naturally belong to one, is not visible to a scholar like Chomsky, can only be attributed to the psychological cataracts due to indoctrination. I can't really believe that a teacher of morality otherwise, like the Golden Rule, and always demonstrating a repugnance for hypocrites time and again in public talks, can also be a hypocrite colonizer himself. To his credit, he did not live in Israel, and moved back to the United States after being there in the 1950s and recognizing the injustices that had been purveyed upon the indigenous peoples in order to create a homeland for the Jews. But having profoundly recognized that reality, why justify it as an act of “international” agreement among nations endorsed by the United Nations? Why not principally call for Israel's outright dismantling as an Apartheid state, for permitting the Palestinian refugees to return, for paying restitution and compensation in the same measure as the Jews are extracting for Nazi crimes?
See my essay which has already deconstructed the convoluted theologies of the so called “soft Zionists” who ostensibly support the Palestinians for an hypothetical severely emasculated “Palestinian state” carved out of their own vast indigenous homeland gratuitously gifted away to the Jews; who boldly speak-out against the Israeli aggression; who at times even longingly speak of an hypothetical binational state, which some progressive Zionists today also pitch as “onestate” without fully explaining the semantics of what they actually mean by it – and it invariably does not include Palestinian refugees returning home; but all the while making continuous fools of the victims with red herrings a plenty in the best mold of “beneficial cognitive diversity” to buy time until realities on the ground become impractical to reverse. Then, they glibly claim that the realities on the ground are impractical to reverse! The analysis can be read here and here. 
Recognizing such convolutions for what they are, is such a crucial and contemporary matter that it requires further elaboration. Professor Sholmo Sand is the new rage in the Palestinian town. Who hasn't heard of him or his book: The Invention of the Jewish People. He is a new hero among the Palestinians – well, among some at least, and like Professor Noam Chomsky before him, some excitedly carry him upon their head and shoulders just like they carry Professor Norm Finkelstein and many others. In fact, anyone from among the Jews who will sympathize with them becomes a new showcase for the Palestinians. Anna Baltzer is only the most recent example of that. Her leading performance with Dr. Mustafa Barghouti on American television left much to be desired. It is deconstructed here.  The indiscriminate attachment to Jewish sympathizers of Palestinian plight and permitting them to become the leading spokespersons for the Palestinians has been great for ensuring that the Palestinian narrative before the Western public is also controlled by the Jews – even though they be most earnest in their sympathy. This is a rather murky area and it is not easy to always know where to draw the line. Or whether there should even be a line in a common struggle when one sees enormously courageous Jews of conscience laying down their own precious lives on a matter of principle, like those in the ISM bearing witness to crimes against humanity and being shot dead by the Israelis. But let's just stay with the imposing Jewish academic in this article.
Look what Professor Shlomo Sand says in the following interview – and incidentally, after reading this interview, I lost all interest in reading his book which doesn't contain anything new for me anyway beyond what was revealed in The Thirteenth Tribe: Khazar Jews – The revelation of another Jewish hoax, By Arthur Koestler, 1976. It can be read here. 
Shlomo Sand's statements in Ha'aretz, 21/03/2008, Shattering a 'national mythology' By Ofri Ilani, can be read here. 
“My initial intention was to take certain kinds of modern historiographic materials and examine how they invented the 'figment' of the Jewish people. But when I began to confront the historiographic sources, I suddenly found contradictions. And then that urged me on: I started to work, without knowing where I would end up. I took primary sources and I tried to examine authors' references in the ancient period – what they wrote about conversion.”
“The supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was posited as the direct continuation of 'the people of the Bible' that preceded it,”
“I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land – a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled.”
[Interviewer]: If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?
“No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'”
[Interviewer] Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?
“It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us. Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no longer been able to say simply: 'We came, we won and now we are here' the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right to exist.”
If Professor Sand himself argues that there is no such thing as a Jewish people, and the Arab Palestinians are the original inhabitants of Palestine, then on what basis does he say the following:
[Interviewer] Is there no justification for this fear?
“No. I don't think that the historical myth of the exile and the wanderings is the source of the legitimization for me being here, and therefore I don't mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins. I am not afraid of the undermining of our existence, because I think that the character of the State of Israel undermines it in a much more serious way. What would constitute the basis for our existence here is not mythological historical right, but rather would be for us to start to establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.” (emphasis added)
It is common among this breed of scholarly Zionists – which is perhaps why they also remain light-years ahead of the Palestinians – to argue among themselves not just whether Palestinians are a people (as both Moshe Katsav, Israel's former President, and Raphael Eitan, former Chief of Staff of the IDF, have variously pondered; it can be read here ), but also whether even Jews are a people. It's even reported in the New York Times: Scholars Debate Roots of Yiddish, Migration of Jews, October 29, 1996, which can be read here. 
There is nothing new Professor Shlomo Sand has to offer Palestinians in the Zionist's endless cycle of their own myth-constructions and their own myth-destruction, except a new twisted justification for the invaders to continue to occupy Palestine, despite himself arguing that he does not have any roots there! But wait, he is not packing up to leave as a matter of conscience, as a matter of principle, after learning all that truth about the myths he had been fed. Now, it is the new mantra of “establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.”!
It's akin to a robber comes into my house, takes over on the pretext of an asinine justification that god gave this land to his ancestors and I am the illegal occupant of his house; me and my children spend all our lives trying to show that world that the robber is not only criminal taking over my house but also an expert liar; then, a few years later, the robbers' children and grandchildren create a different drama, some showcasing books variously showing a) that there is no god and “in the age of atheism, the Jewish people can no longer base its existence on God but only on itself alone, on its labor, on its land, and on its state”, and b) that even there is no Jewish people; but the current crop of legatees still want to stay in my house which he illegally occupied to start with?
Is that absurd? But not in Alice in Wonderland.
Surely the following reaction is not absurd. It is understandable psychologically: Now my beleaguered family members are overjoyed by that statement of the robber, who is thus far forcibly living in my house, that yaaay, we can all finally live together in the house in relief because now we will have the same rights to go to our own bathrooms and roam inside our own entire house without having to first beg permission from the invaders occupying my house!
Yes, I can well imagine my children saying that to me excitedly, but in hushed whispers if I was in that position and Shlomo Sand's proposal was about to become a political reality. Then, the reconciliation would become the new mantra to legitimize the conquest. And I can also well imagine just being grateful for that bit of relief – that, I will now, finally, be able to roam in my own house without checkpoints and a suffocating wall, even if I might be still stuck with the invader and his oppressive alien culture and civilization, his hijacking of my culture, and his decimation of my previous history, culture, civilization, records, libraries, books, artifacts, and most of all, my ancestors and some of my children.
Apart from the fact that this strategy of temporary relief after enormous stress being the obvious Jabotinsky's “Iron Wall” method of getting the victims to acquiesce to their predicament when they have no other choice, and then the “compromise” even comes as a relief to them, the reconciliation will also be only as advantageous for the Palestinians as it has been for the Blacks in South Africa. They can vote and travel anywhere they want, while still living in their slums, and that's a good enough start – better than staring down the gun-turrets 24x7, not to mention being daily showered in Shoah. And in that reconciliation, there will be, practicably, no Right of Return. Take careful note of it – any compensations will be with only funny-accounting and funny-money. The Palestinians in Diaspora will remain holding the keys to their homes forever, outside Israel in this new Israeli open society. That's what I suspect Shlomo Sands means by his “establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens”. He could also have straightforwardly stated that in his new open Israeli society, all displaced Palestinians would be permitted to return home, and all victims of Zionism would be compensated by the same measure as the Jews have sought from the Nazis! And the Diasporans celebrate his book? Absurd!
I am making only an argument here of sensibly what's morally right and what's morally Just. I am not arguing what a Palestinian ought to settle for to make peace at any price. They will first and foremost, be sold out by their own House Negro leadership, perhaps under the sound of the white man's trumpets and Hallelujah-Arabic songs singing during Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies. In that latter space, of resignation to fate and gratefully receiving whatever charity the oppressor hands them out of the generosity of its cold-blooded calculating heart, the victims are suffering from their own natural victimhood. To understand that side of the picture, of the victims echoing their victimizers' message in long-running traumas of mental colonization, I refer the reader to the writings and speeches of MLK and Malcolm X. It can also be gleaned in the FAQ here.  My letter to documentary-maker Wendy Campbell highlights the most recent aspect of it, the case of Dr. Mustafa Barghouti basking in the glory as the 2010 Nobel Peace nominee. This chap shows not an ounce of dignity and self-respect in adopting the language of Zionism and happily receiving the victimizer's applause – and yet, he too is a victimized Palestinian who has bravely suffered the Israeli occupation. Putting such co-opted learned peoples in-charge of the Palestinian leadership is part and parcel of the colonization process. The letter can be read here. 
This article is not about the cracks and lacunae among the beleaguered victims and their lack of wherewithal in dealing with an infinitely more sophisticated enemy who appears to be light-years ahead of them in Machiavelli, all of which has been addressed elsewhere.
This article is entirely about understanding the forces behind the oppressors, cued off from the comment of a Zionist robot, to find a way forward through the maze of Zionist robots of different types, shapes, and lethality that are sent by the prime-mover forces to implement the colonization process by means so deceptive, that it can only be accurately described in the diction of their own intelligence motto: Waging war by way of Deception!
Conversations with indoctrinated robots of all types, Evangelical Christians, to Zionists, to also Muslims, even atheists, once upon a time as an energetic young student, used to consume enormous amounts of my time. I could never quite comprehend the inability of “others” to see what's right in front of their nose. Until I realized that indoctrination and socialization into a world view is part of the general human condition and plagues people quite democratically. It creates the “psychological cataracts” (borrowing MLK's terminology) which cannot be seen by the afflicted if they think there is no problems with their sight!
Therefore, I no longer indulge in such futility of dialog when it's obvious that the conversation is merely a power-play and not a genuine quest for knowledge or discovering truth. Indoctrination cannot be argued nor debated with. In point of fact, in political Machiavelli, such interlocutions become a clever tactic for keeping the Goy busy in idle pursuits, sort of the “bread and circuses” equivalent for those among the Goyem who like to think. It is used to defocus attention of the genuine truth-seekers; the real moral activists who seek to learn; who discuss not to orchestrate an a priori agenda, but to know for themselves and by knowing, to affect the cause of justice and fairness. And that's why “cognitive infiltration” is used to distract the real truth-seekers. That's what “beneficial cognitive diversity” is for, and it permeates the Israel-Palestine discourses in the West. The word “beneficial” is in the language of Zionism, like “American Peace”. See for instance, its exposition in President Obama's Information Czar, Harvard's Cass Sunstein's 2008 paper on “Conspiracy Theories”. The official dictionary for the Language of Zionism, titled: Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, is here. 
Nowadays when faced with indoctrinated zombies, which is most of the time, I pertinently point to what their own ilk have written in counterpoint, and remain silent. Let all indoctrinated peoples play with each other and with themselves in the cesspool of their own endless academic theses, which in this instance of Palestine, is whether the Palestinian peoples are an invention or not, whether they are even human or not, and whether they are actually from another planet or not.
Palestinians do not have to partake in the immanent orgies of imbeciles being used as foot soldiers and canon fodder by their elite. Their battle for survival is not with the robotic indoctrinated foot soldiers of Zionism, but with its prime-movers – the common financiers of all hectoring hegemons who are primarily responsible for translating political philosophies from the realm of immanence, tortuous or not, into the realm of empiricism. Those first-cause enablers of translation from theory into practice are thus culpable before any of their indoctrinated foot-soldiers can be held culpable.
Thus while one must understand the motivation which drive these robots of Zionism, to counter them effectively, one must counter their prime-movers! That is the only way. And so long as the prime-movers remain hidden, how can they ever be countered? The role of the House of Rothschild in fabricating Zionism, and also being the prime-mover force behind one-world government, is introduced here, here, and here. 
Interestingly, that rule of ascribing culpability is also the message of Islam to create amity among mankind that is despoiled by the corrupt and the war-mongers among us who set the entire society ablaze with their matches and fuel. It is also the basis of an enduring inner-peace for the Palestinians – they will not suffer from the psychological scars past their suffering-generations like the Jews have endured the baggage of 2000-3000 years. Islam is a very spiritually-cleansing force as both a psychology, and a philosophy. And I do believe so is Christianity, minus the mumbo-jumbo of its church's officialdom. And through both of them, the Jews can reclaim their own lofty teachings of the real Prophet Moses – the universal Ten Commandments which is a proper subset of both the teachings of Christianity and the teachings of Islam. As Edward Said had stated in the The Mirage of Peace:
“Palestine/Israel is no ordinary bit of geography; it is more saturated in religious, historical and cultural significance than any place on earth. It is also now the place where two peoples, whether they like it or not, live together tied by history, war, daily contact and suffering. To speak only in geopolitical clichés (as the Clinton Administration does) or to speak about "separating" them (as Rabin does) is to call forth more violence and degradation. These two communities must be seen as equal to each other in rights and expectations; only from such a beginning can justice then proceed.” (Edward Said, The Nation, October 16, 1995)
Was Edward Said kidding that: “These two communities must be seen as equal to each other in rights and expectations; only from such a beginning can justice then proceed”? Am I kidding when I suggest that all the fundamental seeds for sowing such a fair Justice already exist among the peoples?
Let me just show it from the religion of Islam's teachings to imagine what can transpire in the presently aggrieved Arab-Muslim ethos within the passage of a single generation or less if the calamity that has befallen us is lifted with actual fairness and equity, and not merely in the Language of Zionism:
“It was We who revealed the Torah (to Moses); therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophet who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the Rabbis and the Doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's Book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. (44) We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) wrong-doers. (45) And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. (46) Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (47) To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety; so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute. (48)” (Holy Qur'an, Surah Al-Maeda 5:44-48)
Okay, returning back to the hard realities of the present but with an acute eye to the future direction, we do have a rational way forward to defang the snake of Zionism and its prime-mover harbingers. It is the calculated division of labor. A division which unfortunately has not transpired as yet.
While it is obviously necessary to withstand the incessant onslaught of the aggressive foot-soldiers of the hectoring hegemons by the straightforward existential demands of daily survival – whether they come wielding their mighty guns and their soulless Drones and F-16s to exterminate us; or they come wielding their favorite everyday signatured torpedo, their Hasbara, i.e., their phenomenal endless argumentative skills of introducing “beneficial cognitive diversity” in endless narratives to exterminate the moral commonsense of the world's public that as much as it grieves the Zionists to inform the spectating world, Palestinians really do deserve to extinguish themselves from the Land of the Jews without the slightest hint of protest as the moral right belong to the Jews – some still have to concentrate on the prime-movers who are behind this robotic machine of the Jewish Lebensraum.
In order to be effective in dealing with such a multifaceted and unique adversary, a division of labor between those compelled to face the live ammunitions and checkpoints on Ground Zero, and those in Diaspora living in the comforts of the West with the luxury of time and liberty to effectively focus on the prime-movers, is the rational demand of the hour.
Furthermore, by reframing the struggle for Palestine, from the struggle against the European Jewry's quest for Lebensraum on Arab soil for its Roman Jerusalem, to the struggle against the common enemy, the hectoring hegemon seeking one-world government, the Palestinians can harness the entire world's 'untermenschen' struggles against the primal global enemy of mankind.
Unless that reframing is done quickly, beginning in the intellectual space and rapidly moving into the courts and public relations space as a prelude to the political space, the struggle for Palestine will remain boxed within the unbreachable invisible “Iron Wall” until acquisition of the entire Promised Land of Eretz Yisrael depicted in Herzl's plan for the Jewish State is completed.  It isn't obvious to me however, that when motivational Zionism required an indomitable prime-mover force to transform it from an idea into empirical Zionism, that without an equivalent prime-mover force on the side of the Palestinians, how can such a reframing practicably ever transpire? Serendipitously though, this very realization that without a backing prime-mover force it is next to impossible to wage an effective global struggle, also reinforces the idea that Zionism too could not have possibly flourished without it, and that the only way to dismantle Zionism is to effectively disable its prime-mover. Zionism would have remained moribund in the immanent spaces of the mind without the owners of central banks driving it!
With all the preceding as the backdrop highlighting the realpolitik challenges to the way forward, let's return to the robot “Ahmad Yaqeen” so that we can keep it busy playing with itself while thinking peoples can get focussed on figuring out the challenges of elevating the struggle directly up to the prime-movers who created the robots. First, on the issue of indoctrination, that many a Zionist is indeed a robot programmed at birth, by their own admission:
“The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba – the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time – 1,380,000 people – were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the danger of another holocaust.” (Tanya Reinhart: “Israel/Palestine – How to End the War of 1948”)
As for the robot's other question of Why did Arabs reject the proposed UN GA partition plan which split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, here is what Avi Shlaim says in the Prologue of his book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.
THE STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD
The struggle for statehood was accompanied by many disagreements, but these were more about tactics than about the long-term goal. Ben-Gurion's own commitment to statehood did no waver in the face of the Arab opposition or British prevarication. Having taken the initiate in proposing the partition in 1937, the British government began to retreat from partition with the approach of World War II. The support of the Arab states and the Muslim world generally was much more crucial for Britain in the conflict with Axis power than the support of the Jews. A white paper of 17 May 1939 abruptly reversed British support for Zionism and for a Jewish state. It condemned the Jews to a status of permanent minority in a future independent Palestinian state. So the Zionist movement was driven to develop its own military power, through the paramilitary organization called Haganah (which in Hebrew means defense), in order to combat Arab resistance. Having subscribed to a defensive ethos that had served it so well on the public relations front, it adopted a policy based on force in order to counter the use and the threat of force by its Arab opponents. The offensive ethos that had always been embedded in the defensive ethos had in any case become more prominent following the outbreak of the Arab Revolt.
At the same time that Yishuv mounted its own active resistance to the policy of the white paper that restricted Jewish land purchase and Jewish immigration to Palestine. The outbreak of World War II in September 1939 placed the Yishuv in an acute dilemma: it was behind Britain in the struggle against Nazi Germany but at loggerheads with Britain in the struggle for Palestine. A way out of the dilemma was found, however, succinctly summed up in Ben-Gurion's slogan: "We will fight with the British against Hitler as if there were no white paper; we will fight the white paper as if there were no war."
During the war Ben-Gurion became ever more assertive about the Jewish right to political sovereignty, while denying this right to Arab majority in Palestine. His solution to the Yishuv's demographic problem involved the migration to Palestine of two to three million Jews immediately following the end of the war. The Arab problem, he claimed, paled in significance compared with the Jewish problem because the Arabs had vast spaces outside Palestine, whereas for the Jews, who were being persecuted in Europe, Palestine constituted the only possible haven. He thus came to treat the Arab problem as merely on of status for the Arab minority with a state with a large Jewish majority.
The new concept of a Jewish state over the whole of Palestine found expression in the so-called Biltmore Program. At an extraordinary meeting of the American Zionists, attended by both Wiezmann and Ben-Gurion, in the Biltmore Hotel in New York in May 1942, a resolution was adopted urging "that Palestine be constituted as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world" after World War II. With this resolution the Zionist movement for the first time openly staked a claim to the whole of mandatory Palestine. The goal of a Jewish Arab agreement was not abandoned, but it was now clearly expected to follow rather than to precede the establishment of a Jewish state or commonwealth.
The Biltmore Program was adopted before the full scale and the horror of the Nazi campaign for the extermination of European Jewry became known. Zionist leaders assumed that at the end of the war there would be millions of Jewish refugees in Europe whose plight would strengthen the case for a large Jewish state in Palestine. None of them foresaw the Holocaust, the most calamitous event in the annals of Jewish history, in which six million Jews would perish. In the end, however, the tragedy of European Jewry became the source of strength for Zionism. The moral case for a home for the Jewish people in Palestine wa widely accepted from the beginning; after the Holocaust it became unassailable. The poet Robert Frost defined a home as the place where, if you have to go there, they have to let you in. Few people disputed the right of the Jew to a home after the trauma to which they had been subjected in Central Europe.
A much tougher kind of Zionism was forged in the course of World War II, and the commitment to Jewish statehood became deeper and more desperate in the shadow of the Holocaust. On the one hand, the Holocaust confirmed the conviction of the Zionists that they had justice on their side in the struggle for Palestine; on the other, it converted international public opinion to the idea of an independent Jewish state.
Ben-Gurion embodied the "fighting Zionism" that rose out of the ashes of World War II, and he wrested the leadership from the hands of Wiezmann, who still adhered to "diplomatic Zionism" and to the alliance with Britain. Against Wiezmann's advice the Zionist conference of August 1945 decided on a policy of active opposition to British rule, and in October an armed uprising was launched. The Haganah was instructed to cooperate with the dissident groups spawned by the Revisionist movement. The main group was the National Military Organization (the Irgun), which began to direct its operations against the British administration in Palestine after the publication of the white paper in 1939. Later that year, when the Irgun called off its campaign against the British, a split took place. The more militant wing, led by Avraham Stern, seceded from the Irgun to form Lohamei Herut Yisrael (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), better known as Lehi, after its Hebrew acronym, or the Stern Gang. The Stern Gang was so hostile to the British that it sought to contact with the Axis powers in order to drive the British out of Palestine. Although its members never exceeded three hundred, the Stern Gang was a considerable thorn in the flesh of the British. Between November 1945 and July 1946, the three underground organizations joined armed in what became known as "the movement of the Hebrew revolt."
A massive British military crackdown forced the Zionist leaders to call off the Hebrew revolt, and they instead tried to drive a wedge between Britain and the United States on the diplomatic front. Britain sought American support for its plan for self-governing Jewish and Arab cantons, a plan categorically rejected by the Zionists. To get America on their side, members of the Jewish Agency Executive decided in August 1946 to agree to consider the establishment of a Jewish state on an adequate part of Palestine. This decision signified the abandonment of the Biltmore Program and a return to the principle of partition. The decision was viewed not as a concession to the Arabs but as a mean of gaining American support for the idea of a Jewish state. In February 1947 the British government, unable to come up with a solution on which both sides could agree, referred the Palestine problem to the United Nations.
On 29 November 1947 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed its historic Resolution 181 in favor of the partition of Palestine. In a rare instance of agreement during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union voted for the resolution while Britain abstained. The resolution laid down a timetable for the establishment of a Jewish state and an Arab state linked by economic union, and an international regime for Jerusalem. Exceptionally long and winding borders separated the Jewish state from the Arab one, with vulnerable crossing points to link its isolated areas in the eastern Galilee, the coastal plain, and the Negev. The borders of these two oddly shaped states, resembling two fighting serpents, were a strategic nightmare (see map 3). No less anomalous and scarcely more visible was the demographic structure of the proposed Jewish state, consisting as it did of roughly 500,000 Jews and 40,000 Arabs.
Despite all its limitations and anomalies, the UN resolution represented a major triumph for Zionist diplomacy. While failing far short of the full-blown Zionist aspiration for a state comprising the whole of Palestine and Jerusalem, it provided an invaluable charter of international legitimacy for the creation of an independent Jewish state. News of the UN vote was greeted by Jews everywhere with jubilation and rejoicing. But the followers of Ze'ev Jabotinsky in the Irgun and the Stern Gang did not join in the celebrations. A day after the UN vote, Menachem Begin, the commander of Irgun, proclaimed the credo of the underground fighters: "The partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized. ... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever."
The Jewish Agency officially accepted the UN partition plan, but most of its leaders did so with a heavy heart. They did not like the idea of an independent Palestinian state, they were disappointed with the exclusion of Jerusalem, and they had grave doubts about the viability of the Jewish state within the UN borders. Nevertheless, the UN resolution represented a tremendous gain of international support for the establishment of a Jewish state – hence their decision to go along with it.
(map of the United Nations partition plan, 1947, page 26)
The Palestine Arabs, who unlike the Jews had done very little to prepare themselves for statehood, rejected the UN partition plan out of hand. The Arab Higher Committee, which represented them, denounced the plan as "absurd, impracticable, and unjust.". The Arab states, loosely organized since 1945 in the Arab League, also claimed that the UN plan was illegal and threatened to resist its implementation by force. On 1 December the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, which was accompanied by violent attacks on the Jewish civilians. The UN vote in favor of partition thus provided not just international legitimacy for creating Jewish and Arab states, but unintentionally, the signal for a savage for between the two communities in Palestine. (Avi Shlaim The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, pages 22-26)
Further elaboration upon that exposition of Avi Shlaim, with copious references in the Zionists' own eloquence, is here. 
As it will be demonstrated below, the decision by the Zionist leadership to accept the 1947 proposed UN GA Partition plan was nothing but a smoke screen, which was done solely to gain international recognition and support. This deception was a political ploy to gain initial international legitimacy for the existence of the "Jewish state", and this was well known to the Palestinian people. The reader is urged to contemplate the following Zionist leaders' quotes in an open mind. Note that most, if not all, of the quotes below are dated before the entry of any single Arab Army into British Mandated Palestine:
* In a letter Chaim Weizmann sent to the Palestine-British high Commissioner, while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937, he stated:
"We shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ..... this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66)
* Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future "Jewish state". In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote:
"No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country." (Righteous Victims, p. 138)
* In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the "Jewish state" on part of Palestine was only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest. He wrote:
"[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete, p. 403)
* One day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun gang and Israel's future Prime Minister between 1977-1983, proclaimed:
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." (Iron Wall p. 25)
* Ben-Gurion was happy and sad when the U.N. voted to partition Palestine into two states, Palestinian and Jewish. He was happy because "finally" Jews could have a "country" of their own. On the other hand, he was sad because they have "lost" almost half of Palestine, and because they would have to contend with a sizable Palestinian minority, well over 45% of the total population. In the following few quotes, you will see how he also stated that a "Jewish state" cannot survive being 60% Jewish; implying that something aught to be done to remedy the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated on November 30, 1947:
"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 190)
* While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947, Ben-Gurion stated:
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)
* Ben-Gurion commented on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan as follows in 1937:
"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66). Note the premeditated plan to ethnically cleanse the Negev and Transjordan which were not allocated to the Jewish State by the Peel Commission, click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the Peel Commission in 1937.
* Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department who later became Israel's first foreign minister, declared:
"[W]hen the Jewish state is established--it is very possible that the result will be [population] transfer of [the Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 254)
* While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30th, 1947, Ben-Gurion said:
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%."(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)
* On February 7th, 1948, while addressing the Mapai Council he responded to a remark that the "Jews have no land in the Jerusalem corridor" with the following:
"The war will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." (Benny Morris, p. 170 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180)
* And on February 8th, 1948 Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai Council:
"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)
* In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6, 1948, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that war could be used as an instrument to solve the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated:
"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny Morris, p. 181 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)
Note the premeditated plan to occupy and ethically cleanse areas, such as Galilee and Jerusalem, which were not allotted to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 UN GA Partition plan. Click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 UN GA partition plan.
 Brian Gerrish, 2009 Lawful Rebellion Conference, UK http://www.tpuc.org/node/564
“... people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to different galaxy.” (Moshe Katsav)
“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” and “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” (Raphael Eitan)
THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY" (World Superstate) part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4430543376785758889
Image source http://radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/kivunim.htm
by Zahir Ebrahim Written April 17, 2008 - Updated April 22, 2008. The abominable shared fates that unite Iran (“Bush and Iran,...
by Zahir Ebrahim Written April 26, 2008 - Revised May 2, 2008. Douglas J. Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, in his Hearing...
by Zahir Ebrahim March 31, 2007: I wrote this essay as the Preface to "Prisoners of the Cave" during 2003. That was four years ago....
by Zahir Ebrahim It appears that a majority of conscionable peoples opposed to their nation's war mongering for “imperial mobilization” in...
by Zahir Ebrahim Sunday April 06, 2008. It is à propos to begin this brief observation in 2008, on a cloudy Sunday morning while...
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites