How can one explain the degradation of an entire people who, yesterday, were per­secuted and yet who, today, approve al­most unanimously (90% according to the polls) of the murder of many times the number of civilians killed by the ‘terror­ist’ Hezbollah? This is the question cur­rently torturing people all over the world , as they watch Zionists every day behav­ing like neo-Nazis, who do not hesitate to inflict collective punishment to thousands of civilians, who see their homes being systematically destroyed and themselves being buried alive under the ruins, simply because they have had the misfortune to live in cities and towns from which the Hezbollah missiles were launched:[1] A similar question being asked is: how does one account for the fact that the various peace organizations and ‘Leftwing’ in­tellectuals of the Amos-Oz and David-Grossman variety consider this criminal war to be ‘moral’, if they do not actually participate themselves (e.g. Isaac Herzog) in the bloodthirsty government? On the other hand, some analysts of the reform­ist Left and some Greens still pretend that they do not understand that it is not just Bush (‘who lives in a world of his own’[2]) and his toy-poodle in the UK who are be­hind this bestial ‘war’, but the entire trans­national elite, under the leadership of the US/UK elites and the tacit support of the rest of its members. It is, in other words, a ‘war’ (if this is the appropriate word for a completely asymmetrical conflict between one of the most powerful and technologi­cally advanced armies in the world and a regular guerrilla force with no planes, no helicopters, no ships, no tanks etc) aiming at the absolute control of the area’s ener­gy resources by the transnational elite and its allies in Russia and China. This is a goal which cannot possibly be achieved with­out the prior stabilisation of the client re­gimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, as well as those of the protectorates in the area (old -the Gulf states- and new, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan). In turn, this implies the crushing of the resistance organisations and their supporters in the ‘rogue-states’ (Syria and Iran).
The answers to the above questions cannot, of course, be given in terms of Goebbelian Zionist propaganda referring to the ‘right of self-defence’ that is being exercised by a peaceful people who “sud­denly” came under attack by the Hezbol­lah ‘terrorists’ from Lebanon. Particularly so when this ‘suddenly’ forgets the previ­ous occupation of parts of Lebanon for many years, the continuing bestial occu­pation of the West Bank and of the sup­posedly-liberated Gaza, the gradual ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, the occupation of the Golan Heights etc. Nor, of course, is an adequate explanation offered by the re­cent study by two American professors[3], adopted by the entire reformist Left, ac­cording to which US foreign policy has been driven by a powerful 'Israel Lobby’ whose influence is incompatible with the national interests of the US. Although this research methodically reveals the mecha­nisms used by this lobby in the determi­nation of US foreign policy, through its control of Congress and the US adminis­tration, in fact, it simply explains the func­tioning of an instrument of the US-based Zionist elite. The described mechanisms themselves would not be able to func­tion without the control of key positions in the economic and cultural (mass me­dia etc) sectors by the same elite -a fact which radically differentiates this lobby from a regular lobby like, for instance, the Greek- American one, which is powerless to exercise any real influence on US for­eign policy. On these grounds, the view of Noam Chomsky (who, despite his power­ful critique of Zionist policies against Pal­estinians, has never questioned the Zion­ist state itself -as the radical Jewish Left has done in the past) that the pro-Israel Lobby is just like any other lobby with no special influence or place in US politics, was disorienting, justly attracting severe criticism from parts of the US radical Left.[4] Furthermore, the authors of the above-mentioned study, indirectly adopt­ing the post-modern theory that there are no class divisions[5] today, are unable to realise that a state’s foreign policy is not determined by an abstract ‘national in­terest’ but by the interests of the ruling elite and its supporters. And it could eas­ily be shown that the US elite’s interests in the Middle East are not only absolutely compatible with the interests of the US-based Zionist elite, but they are also best served by the State Department’s policies; let us only consider for a moment what the present position of US transnational corporations - particularly those related to the oil industry- would have been had the area been ruled by Nasserite or Baathist regimes!
The explanation, therefore, for both the present degradation of the Israeli people and their Left should be sought, instead, in their adoption of the criminal Zionist ideology, which is not simply a nationalist ideology, as Zionists and pro-Zionist ana­lysts present it, but a purely racist ideology which presupposes the ethnic cleansing of historical Palestine through the mass uprooting of Palestinians, and the mas­sive migration of millions of supporters of this ideology from all over the world. On the basis of this ideology, the area was colonised and -with the huge help of the British and US elites and the well-known UN resolution in the aftermath of the Second World War -the Zionist state was created, which kept expanding after every victory against neighbouring Arab states. These victories were not, of course, due to superior Israeli knowledge of the “art of war”, but to massive finan­cial and military US aid which amounts to a total of well over $140bn, in 2003 dol­lars. Thus, Israel receives about $3bn in direct foreign assistance each year and has been the largest annual recipient of direct US economic and military assistance since 1976, and the largest total recipient since the Sec-ond World War.[6]
As Oren Ben-Dor[7], an ex-Israeli po­litical philosopher puts it, the violence to which Israel has resorted since its creation has not been used to defend Israeli citi­zens, but the nature of the Israeli state:

Israel's statehood is based on an unjust ide­ology which causes indignity and suffering for those who are classified as non-Jewish by either a religious or ethnic test. To hide this primor­dial immorality, Israel fosters an image of victimhood. Provoking violence, consciously or unconsciously, against which one must defend oneself is a key feature of the victim-mental­ity. By perpetuating such a tragic cycle, Israel is a terrorist state like no other…The very creation of Israel required an act of terror. In 1948, most of the non-Jewish indigenous people were ethnically cleansed from the part of Palestine which became Israel.

This action was carefully planned. With­out it, no state with a Jewish majority and character would have been possible. What is particularly interesting is Ben-Dor’s stand on the Zionist and pro-Zionist Left which adopts the two-state “solution”: ‘Many who wish to hide the immorality of the Israeli state do so by restricting atten­tion to the horrors of the post-1967 oc­cupation and talking about a two-state so­lution, since endorsing a Palestinian state implicitly endorses the ideology behind a Jewish one.’[8] This, despite the fact that, as I have tried to show in the past[9], a Palestinian state would have been nothing more than a Zionist protectorate in the form of Bantustan, given the present bal­ance of power in the Middle East.

The only real solution: a multicultural state in Palestine
John McCarthy, a British analyst, once wrote: "There are few signs that the Is­raeli establishment, fully committed to the Zionist goals of creating Eretz Israel (a Greater Israel that stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Jordan), plans to relinquish very much land at all: 250,000 Israelis already live on the West Bank. On the contrary, Israel’s road and settlement building programmes contin­ue apace. Israel’s policy has always been to build “facts on the ground” while de­laying accepting any final borders. Her founding father and first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, summed this up with the phrase “where we plough our last fur­row is where we put our border”. Ben-Gurion’s political heirs are still ploughing. While conceding that a Palestinian state of some sort is necessary to ensure Israel is kept as purely Jewish as possible, they will put off delineating that state until Is­rael ends up with as much land and as few Palestinians as possible on that land. As Israel continues to create ever more “facts on the ground”, the prospects of the Pal­estinians being offered a reasonable share of what was meant to be their homeland become ever more remote. The Israelis presumably will count on Palestinians be­coming so desperate for their own state, amid international weariness and ineffec­tiveness, that they will achieve their terri­torial and demographic goals."
This confirms the conclusion that the historical crime of creating a “pure Jew­ish” state in Palestine would have been prevented, and hundreds of thousands of lives (the overwhelming majority of them Palestinian) would have been saved, if the condemnation of such a move by promi­nent Left-wing Jews like Hannah Arendt and Isaac Deutscher and the Left Zion­ists, who demanded a bi-nationalist state, had been heard. In other words, if the Palestinian land had not been divided (un­equally from the very beginning in favour of the Zionists!) with the aim of creating two states but, instead, had been used as the foundation for a single multicultural secular state, which would have housed both the Palestinians and those Jewish refugees, particularly from Europe, who had wished to move there. In fact, this is the type of solution which is now gain­ing increasing support among progressive anti-Zionist Jews and Palestinians, who recognise that the “two-state” solution ef­fectively leads to a Zionist monster and a Palestinian Bantustan.

Endnotes:
[1] Both absolutely and relatively. According to official data, 508 Lebanese civilians, 46 Hizbullah guerrillas, 26 Lebanese soldiers, 36 Israeli soldiers and 19 Israeli ci­vilians were killed up to the beginning of August [see The Independent (3/8/06)]. These data imply that the victims of Israeli bombings are 87% civilians, whereas the victims of Hezbollah missiles are 33% civilians.
[2] G. Monbiot, ‘The king of fairyland will never grasp the realities of the Middle East’, The Guardian (1/8/2006).
[3] J. Mearsheimer & S. Walt, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” London Review of Books (2006).
[4] James Petras, “Noam Chomsky and the Pro-Israel Lobby: Fourteen Erroneous Theses,” Canadian Dimen­sion (April 2006).
[5] See ‘Class divisions today.’ Democracy & Nature, Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 2000).
[6] J. Mearsheimer & S. Walt, ibid.
[7] “Who are the real terrorists in the Middle East?,” The Independent (26/7/2006).
[8] Ibid.
[9] See ‘Palestine: the hour of truth’, International Jour­nal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 2, No 2 (Jan. 2006).
Zionism and the transnational elite
Takis Fotopoulos