The intellectual foundation of Zionist racism against Jews and Arabs (2/4)
According to Weizmann’s view, the Arab is
described in terms similar to those previously mentioned: a degenerate element
who tries to run before he can walk. He is a people unfit for democracy and
easily influenced by the Bolsheviks and Catholics [sic], as stated in
Weizmann’s letter to Einstein dated November 30, 1929.
As
for the American philosopher Horace Kallen, he saw the Arab only as a tribal
sheikh from the Negev desert, wearing imported watches that do not tell time,
along with his sons, carrying pens they do not use, and donning Western jackets
over their traditional robes. Naturally, their primary occupation is smuggling
hashish. In a public opinion poll (whose results were published in 1971), 76%
of Israelis believed that Arabs would never reach the level of advancement
achieved by the Jews.
We
believe that bringing more evidence, references, and proofs from the works of
Ben-Gurion, Jabotinsky, or other Zionist writers would not add much value. Such
an effort would amount to mere quantitative documentation and horizontal
expansion that does not significantly alter the overall picture.
Within
this context, we observe that the "new Arab"—the structural
counterpart of the white Jew—is rarely mentioned. One of those rare instances
appears in Herzl’s diaries, when he was in Cairo negotiating one of his settlement
projects. The Zionist leader attended a lecture on irrigation, and it seems he
saw some Egyptians and heard their questions. He wrote: “[The Egyptians] are
the masters of the future here. It is astonishing that the English do not see
this; they believe they will be dealing with peasants forever.”
Herzl
then went on to describe how colonialism itself creates the very germ that will
ultimately destroy it, as it teaches peasants the art of revolution. He
expressed his astonishment at the British failure to grasp this simple truth.
Yet one might just as well wonder at his own failure to recognize it—especially
since the very next day he went to negotiate over the Al-Arish region as a
potential site for Zionist settlement. It appears that what occurred was a rare
historical moment of awareness on the part of the Zionist leader, in which he
understood British colonialism as a human historical phenomenon, subject to
change. But once again, he sank into the mythical, organic, redemptive Zionist
narrative, exempting the “sacred” and “absolute” Zionist colonial project from
this universal historical law. That moment of awareness did not translate into
human wisdom or rational behavior.
Horace
Kallen painted a vision of the Palestinian of the future as he wished to see
him. He said: “If the refugees were given passports and other documents
enabling them to move freely, and if they were provided with enough money to
make their way to a place where they could reasonably be expected to make a
living — and were told that this is all they would ever get, and nothing more —
then they would begin to rely on themselves.” In other words, modernizing the
Arab personality would lead Arabs to understand Jewish rights in their
redemptive, organic framework — as sacred, eternal rights that are beyond
debate or change.
The
Zionist perception also holds that modernizing the Arab personality may, in
fact, lead to the dissolution of that very personality—or that it will reveal
the absence of a true Arab identity, exposing instead a Sunni, Shiite, or
Egyptian (Pharaonic) identity. In this way, Arab nationalism would evaporate,
giving way to sectarian and ethnic mini-states modeled after the Israeli
example. However, discussions about the future Arab individual remain, in the
end, quite rare in Zionist writings.
The Arab as a Representative of the
Goyim (The Dehumanization of the Arab)
This
perception stems from the Zionist view of the Jew as a purely Jewish being—one
who alone embodies the divine presence and exists within the sacred circle.
Consequently, the Arab becomes a representative of all the goyim (those
outside the realm of divine presence and sanctity). In other words, it is a
perception rooted in a rigid redemptive dualism.
In
Zionist literature, the goyim have been described as wolves, murderers,
lurking enemies of the Jews, and eternal anti-Semites. The term goyim is
an abstract category—indeed, even more abstract than the term “Jew” in Nazi
literature, or “Negro” in white supremacist discourse. It is more abstract
because it does not refer to a single minority, several minorities, or even an
entire human race, but rather to all others, in every time and place. Zionists
have placed the Arab—generally speaking—and the Palestinian in particular,
within the category of the goyim, rendering him faceless and
featureless.
The
concept of the goyim
appears clearly in the Balfour Declaration—one of the most important Zionist
documents—where the Arabs (who made up more than approximately 93% of the total
population) were referred to simply as the “non-Jewish communities,” without
specifying who these communities were or even naming them. This deliberate
vagueness kept them at a high level of abstraction. These non-Jewish
communities could be any human group occupying the land where the Jewish people
were to settle. Similarly, when Herzl was negotiating over Crete as a possible
site for Zionist settlement, he referred to its non-Jewish inhabitants in a
tone of indifference and abstraction, describing them as “Arabs, Greeks, that
mixed crowd of the East.”
As
for Tchernichovsky, in his poem “The Time of the Watch” written in Tel
Aviv in 1936, he did not even bother to mention the Arabs by name. He spoke
only of the goyim, portraying them as savage desert men. In doing so,
they become a generalized, abstract entity devoid of sanctity—merely part of
nature, something that can be easily dealt with, hunted, and exterminated.
In
“Israel,” people do not speak of “Jews and Arabs,” but rather of “Jews and
non-Jews.” As Israel Shahak notes, everything in Israel is divided into Jewish
and non-Jewish. This division applies to all aspects of life—even to what
vegetables are grown, such as tomatoes and potatoes. In this context, it is
worth remembering that when Rabbi Avraham Avidan urged Israeli soldiers to kill
non-Jewish civilians—or goyim—he was, in fact, referring specifically to
Arabs. There is no doubt that the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces clearly
understood what the rabbi meant
This
is the Zionist perception of the Arab—as the representative of the goyim—in
both the past and the present. But what about the Arab individual as
representative of the goyim in the future? Here, we find that time has
been frozen and effectively abolished, as is typical in Zionist writings: the goyim
are wolves in the past, present, and future. The submissive Arab who yields to
Zionist violence is the same as the Arab who eternally fights the Jews—both are
part of an eternal melodramatic narrative.
Former
President of Israel, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, described the Arab resistance in the early
20th century as nothing more than a massacre carried out by the enemies of the
Jews in Palestine, allegedly incited by the consul of Tsarist Russia. In his
view, anti-Jewish sentiment remains unchanged—manifesting as pogroms in Russia
or as Arab resistance in Palestine. At the Seventh Zionist Congress (1905), one
of the Zionists presented a view similar to Herzl’s regarding the future Arab
individual. He warned that Palestinian peasants would rise up against Zionist
colonization and urged Zionist settlers to behave differently in order to avoid
escalating the conflict with the Arabs.
One
of the Zionist settlers responded by claiming that the Arab peasants would turn
against the Jews no matter how the Jews treated them. The Palestinian revolt,
in this view, was not an attempt to resist aggression and injustice, but rather
an expression of the eternal hostility that the goyim show toward the
Jews—“this people who were expelled from their land.” This simplistic
explanation, which claims to explain everything, remains common in Israel, even
among intellectuals. The Israeli writer Yehoshua interprets Arab resistance as
something incomprehensible, driven largely by irrational motives—suggesting
that there is something in the Jewish identity that triggers madness among the goyim.
And Arabs, as goyim, are no exception to this rule. In fact, the concept
of the goyim (i.e., the Arabs) conveniently absolves the Zionists of any
responsibility for the specific direction taken by the Palestinian question or
the condition of the Arab individual.
__________________________________
Source:
Encyclopedia of Jews, Judaism, and Zionism – Volume Three: Racism and Zionist
Terrorism.
You may also like:
The Evasive Zionist Discourse (Part 1 of 4)
The Zionist racism against Palestinians... "Lahava" as a model.
Follow us
