Abbas dissolves Palestinian government

This commentary was originally published in IntelligentaIndigena Novajoservo:

Blissful Arrogance:

The exploitation of the legacy of the
European Holocaust and what it means for Jews as well as Arabs in Occupied
Palestine

6.15.2007

"Israel,
like South Africa,
is an apartheid state."

- Hendrik Verwoerd, prime minister of
South Africa
from 1958-1966

As if the situation in
occupied Palestine couldn’t get any worse, Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, cancelled out what was left of Palestinian political
representation by dissolving the coalition government citing the loss of Fatah
fighters as evidence that situation for Palestinians has gone totally out of
control.  In open and internationally-observed elections deemed
legitimate, Hamas garnered overwhelming support from the populace but still
faced mounting opposition despite the fact that they had won the right to deal
politically rather than purely via armed resistance against the colonial
Israeli government.  The Hamas government was prevented from attaining
actual power by a joint Israeli-U.S. government refusal to recognise Hamas as a
political entity, forcing Hamas and Fatah to negotiate a coalition government
that in effect, violates the expressed wishes of the Palestinian people who
voted Fatah out of power.

It is not a big secret that
the United States for the past several months has been arming
and funding Fatah, the very same organisation that was deemed
"illegal" and “terrorist” while led by Yasser Arafat.  In a desperate effort to prevent Hamas from
attaining political power within Israel’s claimed borders, The U.S. has
decided to align itself with an avowed enemy in an attempt to prevent what they
portray as a potentially unstable political situation in Israel.

Only the situation in the West Bank and the Gaza is already
unstable and has been for several years. 
If Hamas won the U.S. sanctioned elections it was because after years and years of territorial,
political and cultural concessions on the part of the Palestinians literally,
nothing has changed.  The moral deference
accorded to the political entity known as the State of Israel is still utilized
relentlessly when questions arise in regards to Israel’s
internal colonialist policy towards Arabs indigenous to Palestine and the
surrounding vicinities. 

The practise of Apartheid as it pertains to
Israel’s internal policies with appropriate consideration in light of its behaviour
towards indigenous Arabs is silently disregarded in favour of romanticism and selective
memory of the European holocaust.  In
nearly every discussion on the subject of the Palestinian occupation we are reminded
time and time again that Jews were once the subject of government ethnocide in 20th
century Europe.  

This is without credible dispute.  Only fools, American neo-conservatives and
dyed-in-the-wool Nazis argue against the empirical substantiations of fascist
atrocities in Europe.  Daft Holocaust revisionists
such as Britain’s professional Judeophobe David Irving and American quack execution-expert
Fred Leuchter vociferously assert that they present purely scientific and
psychological evidences that the systematic murder of more than 11 million
people did not and could not have occurred. 
While such stupidity is generally relegated to the banal confines of neo-Nazi
gatherings and American Militia meetings where participants target shoot with
automatic weaponry, racist websites like JewWatch.org tally more than one
million hits a month and their spurious falsehoods find their way into
mainstream corporative media outlets such as FOX and MSNBC.

The political organism that is Israel
and its passionate supporters worldwide concoct similar claims to moral objectivity
on the question of Palestinian survival within and without Israel’s
claimed territory.  They maintain they
are only protecting themselves from anti-Jewish terrorism and that when abuses
do occur, it is in relation to the threat Israel
faces from its myriad of Arabic enemies foreign and domestic.  In the meantime, thousands of Palestinians have
died from violence, preventable diseases and the crippling depression oppressed
people face in a world full of uncertainties and misery.

Of course this trip round the Mulberry bush
does not mention the fact that Israel
itself is a direct product of Zionist, anti-British, anti-Arab terrorism.  There is no mention of The King David Hotel
or Dir Yassin or even Folke Bernadotte.  There
are no remembrances for the victims of the Cairo-To-Haifa train
bombings or the inconvenient fatalities caused from Israeli Defence Forces bullets
fired by American made weaponry.  There
is no consideration in media nor “responsible” political discourse in respect
to human rights for anyone it seems except those actively loyal to the
political aspirations of Israel’s benevolent benefactors in Washington D.C.  It doesn't quite matter what brand of morality
Israel supposes to embody, it is not and has never been a moral country.  By employing an ethical fibre analogous to
the Ku Klux Klan, Israeli Zionists have violently carved a Jewish homeland in Arabia and justified it on the
basis of human rights denied them in Europe.    

Following the assassination of Baron Moyne,
self-acknowledged British imperialist Winston Churchill opined to the House of
Commons, "If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of an
assassin's pistol, and the labours for its future produce a new set of
gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, then many like myself will have to reconsider
the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past."  He was not wrong, Avraham Stern, leader of the
ultra-Zionist terrorist organisation Lehi twice attempted to liaison with the
Third Reich in Palestine as well as Europe as did the Arab Mufti of Jerusalem
who went so far as to organise Bosnian Muslims in the name of the German Nazi
Party. 

The point I’m making is this; when established
populations are faced with unsolicited invasion, persistent agitation and aggravated
ethnocide from external forces, nationalistic chauvinism is an instinctive component
of what they perceive to be a matter of survival. 

This explains Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah, but
Israel does not neatly fit into this analysis as they are not the oppressed
faction but the entity in question that makes existence nearly impossible for
another people.  What has happened within
the Jewish experience to engender such extreme ethno-nationalist sentiments
such as Zionism?  Is it simply the tradition
of Judeophobic bias or is it something deeper?

I take the position that modern anti-Arab
Zionism is a direct result of the fact that the entire European world sat idle
while Jews were marginalised, hunted and often killed by bigots wielding a
religion created by the Hebrew followers of a Jewish mystic from Palestine.  While pogroms were not unheard of in Europe, the Nazis took it to
another level and with the support of the Catholic Church ran roughshod over
the very concept of humanity as a universal bond.  And while children were burned and gassed to
death, the Master Race watched in silence. 

Compelling unwarranted advantage of the fact
that the Eurocentric world did little, if anything, to save them at their
darkest hour, Israel works this fact to its benefit. 
Europeans and Euroamericans in particular zealously harbour profound shame
for not caring enough to stop the genocide when they knew that minorities in Germany
were at risk.  In fact, American Nazi sympathisers
such as Charles Lindbergh, (who proclaimed that, "Racial strength is
vital– politics, a luxury") Henry Ford and Prescott Bush actively
supported Germany before, during and after the war. 
Even the Duke of Windsor expressed his admiration of the Hitlerian opera
that was spreading across Europe like many other of the English upper-class.  It’s not that they were unaware of what was happening,
they just never assumed that at some point it was ever going to develop into
something they were expected to denounce, at least in public.     

The utter refusal of the State of Israel
and the United States of America to recognise the right of the Palestinian
people to exist as Palestinians as the world community now does concerning the right
of Israelis to exist as Jews in lands they have not occupied since 70 C.E. when
they were ejected by a European power is entirety at the root of this issue.  Yet, one would never know that thanks to the jaundiced
reportage and revisionist history surrounding the circumstances.  Jew and Gentile alike, the subject of
Palestinian rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of dignity is a non-issue precisely
because it is presented as a non-issue.  But
not everyone accepts this biased arrangement of necessary illusions.  The intellectual framers of secular Jewish political
ideology unlike today’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) were
much more honest about the situation and its long-term implications for Jews as
well as Arabs.  Their analysis stands in striking
contrast to the theological deceptions bandied about at present and reaches
into the core of the quandary showing that they understood at the outset what Jewish
statehood in Palestine would cost and decided it was worth the price.    

I wish to end this commentary with an
extract from the The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs.  Written by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in 1923, this paper
makes clear that many Zionists expected and were prepared to deal with a
long-term war of attrition against the Aboriginal population.  They never expected the Palestinian people to
abate their struggle to exist in their own lands and are not surprised in the
least that their resilience to Western domination continues to shape the entire
scope of Arabian political realities. 

An extremely active Zionist, Jabotinsky had
earned his reputation acting on his convictions organising Jewish defence
groups to defend their communities in Russia.  He knew full well what was at stake and
modern readers would do well to review the document at length if they are at
all serious about understanding why Palestinians and other Arabs can be
subjected to a genocide that is never registered as such in polite
neo-conservative, quasi-religious circles.   

American Aboriginals are advised to take
special note.

From The Iron Wall:

“Another point which had no effect at all was whether or not there existed a
suspicion that the settler wished to remove the inhabitant from his land. The
vast areas of the U.S.
never contained more than one or two million Indians. The inhabitants fought
the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply
because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time
who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native
people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their
country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete
masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new
partner.

And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to
convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a
softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will
abandon their birth right to Palestine
for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the
Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do
not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the
internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions;
but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine
with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico
or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily
consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic
benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our
“Arabo-philes” comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some
kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to
sell out their homeland for a railroad network.

This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought
off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel
are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every
indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of
ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in
doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able
to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel”.

-----------------------------------------------------------------