Zionism and the Middle East
Thomas Allen
[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1988 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. Since this was originally written, nearly all changes in the US government’s policy in the Middle East have been for the worst.]
How long will it be before the South is sacrificed on the cross (or should that be the star) of Zionism? [The answer came soon after 9/11 when the US government declared a perpetual war against terrorism and in 2003 invaded Iraq — thus, began the US government’s war to protect Israeli imperialism.] The basic foreign policy of the US government in the Middle East has been that Israel can do no wrong. United States officials may occasionally scold Israel like a father scolding his child. On the whole, however, the US government treats Israel like a father trying to spoil his brat. Still, the US government does make a pretense of trying to create a balance of power in the Middle East by supporting some of the Arabic countries, primarily Saudi Arabia and Jordan. However, Israel has a veto over certain military aid to these countries, and Israel’s veto is seldom overridden. Israel effectively controls the foreign policy of the US government in the Middle East. With such Zionist control of the foreign policy of the United States, how long will it be before the South is crucified for Israel?
Zionist Jews (not all Jews are Zionists) have influence in the highest echelon of the US government far in excess of their number. But this is not their only source of power and influence. They are also aided by mainstream liberals and conservatives.
Liberals tend to support Israel because of Israel’s professed egalitarianism although they view Israel’s egalitarianism while wearing the typical liberal blinders. Moreover, most Jews are liberals. Also, Israel is a democratic state, if one ignores the disenfranchised Palestinians, in an area where nearly all other states are autocratic. To liberals, no form of government is superior to democracy — if the voters agree with them. No form of government is worse than an autocracy except of coarse when that autocracy is also a communist country in which instance it is a perfectly acceptable form of government. Israel is also a socialistic state, which is another virtue from the liberal point of view. In the area of social equality, liberals again view Israel favorably. The Jews express little objections to racial integration (except in Israel), which agrees with the self-destructive tendency of the liberals. Naturally, liberals generally overlook Israel’s discrimination against the Palestinians. This is partly because of the low value that liberals tend to place on religions other than secular humanism. Additionally, Jews are officially considered a minority. Palestinians are not. To the liberal mind, discrimination by an official minority against others is perfectly acceptable if not wholesome and desirable. On the other hand, discrimination by a nonofficial minority against an official minority can never be tolerated. Besides, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that personifies liberal equality. It has the unquestionable support of liberals.
That the Zionists have the support of liberals is not nearly as surprising as the Zionists having the support of conservatives. [This was written when the neoconservatives were beginning to capture American conservatism. For the neoconservatives, the most important values are Zionism, equality, and democracy. Many of their positions, especially on social issues, are almost indistinguishable from liberals.] After all, if it were not for those confounded Palestinians, Israel would come close to having the ideal egalitarian liberal society with democracy, socialism, and integration. In spite of the oxymoron “Judeo-Christian,” human secularism, the predominant religion of liberals, is closer to today’s Judaism than is Christianity, the religion of many conservatives.
There are several reasons for the conservative support of Israel. First, Israel has adopted an anticommunist foreign policy. The second reason, and this reason is the important one for the religious right, is Biblical prophecy. Israel also receives unquestionably support from both liberals and conservatives who fear being called “anti-Semitic” or who feel guilty about the Holocaust®.
Israel’s anticommunist foreign policy has more to do with the Soviet Union’s support of some of Israel’s Arabic neighbors than with any philosophical disagreement with communism or the Soviet Union. Israel’s economic and social policies have much more in common with the Soviet Union and Red China than do the economic and social policies of most of the surrounding Arabic countries and Egypt. [An anticommunist foreign policy carries little weight today. However, Israel’s economic and social policies are much closer to communism than most of the surrounding Arabic countries.]
The support that Israel has from the anticommunist element in America is primarily contingent on the fact that several of the Arabic countries in the region are allies of the Soviet Union [now Russia] in opposition to Israel. This element is also a strong supporter of the anticommunist Arabic countries, such as Saudi Arabia. If the military alliance in the Middle East were to shift, as they well could if the Soviet Union becomes serious about acquiring a port along the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea directly under its control, with the Soviet Union aligning itself with Israel against the Arabs, then most of the anticommunist, or at least those who are not fooled by the oxymoron “Judeo-Christian,” would become opponents of Israel. Israel’s anticommunist support in the United States is conditional. It is primarily predicated on the Soviet Union’s hostility toward Israel.
Although the religious right is anticommunist, its support of Israel is not based on communism or Israel’s relations with the Soviet Union. It comes from Biblical prophecy. A realignment of alliances in the Middle East would have little effect on their allegiance to Israel.
In spite of what Christ said about Jews and what Jewish rabbis have said about Him, the highly conservative religious right, surprisingly, is among the strongest supporters of Zionism. Much of this support arises, unfortunately, out of ignorance although the leaders should know better.
Most of the religious right believe that the oxymoron “Judeo-Christian” is not a contradiction of ideas, but are highly compatible ideas. (This misconception is also true of many other conservative and liberal supporters of Israel.) They believe that the principal difference between the two religions is that Christians look forward to the Messiah’s second coming while Jews look forward to the Messiah’s first coming. (Of course, they overlook the fact that the Christian Messiah comes to save or reward the Christians and destroy or punishing the non-Christians, which includes Jews, while the Jewish Messiah comes to save or reward the Jews and destroy or punish the non-Jews, which includes Christians.) This error apparently arises from both claiming the books of the Old Testament as part of their holy scriptures. However, this where their similarity ends. The Jewish Talmudic interpretation of the Old Testament differs more from the Christian New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament than a socialistic economy differs from a free market economy.
The religious right’s support for Israel arises out of a misinterpretation of Old Testament passages. It has adopted the interpretation that Zionists have used to justify their plunder of Palestine. In Genesis 15:18-21 and 17:8, God made a covenant with Abram (later called Abraham) and promised him that his descendants would possess the land from Egypt to the Euphrates. Some theologians believe that this promise has been fulfilled with the Empire of David and Solomon. Other theologians claim that God’s covenant with Abraham applies to his spiritual descendants, i.e., Christians, not to his physical descendants (Galatians 3:6-9 and 26-29). Zionists and the religious right interpret these passages to mean that Palestine has been promised by God to today’s Jews.
Even if the promise is intended to apply to Abraham’s descendants through Isaac, today’s Jews living in Israel do not fulfill the promise. Approximately 85 to 90 percent of today’s Jews are Ashkenazim. These Jews are descendants of the people of Khazaria, who were mostly Turanian Turks and Aryan Armenians and Alpines. They are not the descendants of the ancient Israelites, a Semitic people. The Sephardim, however, do have some claim to being Semitic. They are the descendants of the Jews of Palestine in the days of Jesus. If Jesus is to be believed, many of these Jews are not descendants of Isaac, for he told them that they were not of Abraham’s children (John 8:39-45 and Revelations 2:9 and 3:9). They were descendants of the Edomites.
Another error that the religious right and many others make is confusing Judaism as it is practiced today with Judaism described in the Old Testament. Most believe that these two religions are the same religion. They are not. Today’s Judaism differs as much from Old Testament Judaism as Christianity and Islam differ from Old Testament Judaism. Animal sacrifices offered to God in the prescribed manner in a properly built tabernacle or temple as described in the Old Testament is an essential and important part of Judaism. Today’s Jews do not offer God animal sacrifices. Therefore, today’s Jews are not practicing the same religion that the Jews practiced in the Old Testament or in the days of Jesus. God destroyed that religion in 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. In summary, Judaism without animal sacrifices in a tabernacle [or temple] as described in the Old Testament is like Christianity without the crucifixion of Christ and the work that he accomplished on the cross. It is just not the same religion. This error along with the false belief that today’s Jews are of the seed of Abraham may cost many Southerners their lives.
Another tactic that the Zionists like to use is guilt. They are continuously reminding the world of the Holocaust®. (That the official government line throughout the world for the last four and a half decades [now 75 years] has been that the Holocaust® is a historical fact without question and even to the point of making statements that the Holocaust® did not occur [or even that less than six million Jews died in it] a crime, should make any person with any libertarian inclinations highly suspicious. When was the last time that a government consistently told the truth about anything for half a century? Governments can be consistent with lies for decades but not with the truth — a good reason to outlaw public education.) To the extent that Zionists can make people feel guilty about the Holocaust® and can make people, even those born after World War II, believe that the Holocaust® was somehow their fault, is the extent that the Zionists gain unquestionable support.
Another tactic enjoyed by the Zionists is name-calling. If anyone does not support Zionist extermination of the Palestinians, then he is guilty of antisemitism. (These name-callers ignore that Palestinians have a much stronger argument of being Semitic than do Jews, and, therefore, to persecute Palestinians is a true act of antisemitism.) To be called “antisemitic” is as horrible and terrifying as being called a “racist bigot.” Such a label will surely ruin a political career. With name-calling and through guilt, Zionists are able to control most political leaders and the gullible, ignorant masses.
With such support in the United States, how long is it before the Zionists are sacrificing American lives to fulfill the Zionist dream in the Middle East? Israel has nuclear weapons and missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Unlike the United States, it has the will and the desire to use them. How long is it before Israel uses these weapons against its Arabic neighbors in a surprise strike? Or more likely, to launch a surprise conventional attack while having nuclear weapons ready to use if the war does not go well? As it has in the past, Israel would naturally claim that it has acted defensively with a pre-emptive strike by attacking the Arabs before they attack Israel. Propaganda is already appearing in the American press about the Arabs acquiring nuclear weapons to use against Israel. [Iran has now replaced the surrounding Arabic countries as the big bugbear of nuclear weaponry.] Israel can rely on the government of the United States to support Israeli aggression with military materiel as they have in the past although the United State may publicly denounce Israel’s actions. The US government’s support of Israel in such a war would cause the Soviet Union [now Russia and maybe China] to provide more support to the Arabs. Then the US government’s support of Israel would become more open and aggressive as the US government would claim that Israel is the only anticommunist country in the region, and by fighting communism, it is defending the interest of the United States in the Middle East. If the war were to go badly for Israel, as it probably would if the Arabs were able to drag it out for several months, or if the Arabs were to retaliate with nuclear or chemical weapons, US troops may well be committed to the war in the name of democracy and freedom. If the war were fought as a war should be fought instead of the way the Vietnam War was fought, the joint Israeli-American forces would quickly defeat the Arabs. [The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought more like the Vietnam War.] Then, the question would become one of Soviet [now Russian and possibly Chinese] troops entering the war. If they were to enter, the war would surely escalate into a global conflict. With the threat of Soviet troops becoming involved, presumably, Congress would press for peace [with the war hawks now controlling Congress, Congress would press for escalating war instead of peace, but without any backbone to declare war]. However, considering Zionist control of the US government, it might not. Claiming that God promised them the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, the Israelis would refuse to talk peace. Israel thus would seal its fate to perish. Then, the United States would face the choice of listening to the Zionists and going to war with the Soviet Union [Russian and possibly China] or ignoring the Zionists and abandoning Israel to the Soviet Union. If the United States were to listen to the Zionists, World War III and perhaps Armageddon would become a strong possibility. If the United States were to act rationally and abandon Israel, then the Jews in Israel would face the fate that the Jews faced when the Romans sieged and captured Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Can the likelihood of going to war with the Soviet Union to defend Israel in a war that Israel starts break the hole that Zionists have on the United States?
As long as the Southern States remain colonies of the United States, there is a high probability that the deserts of the Middle East will become soaked with Southern blood. There is also a good chance that Southern cities will be destroyed with nuclear blasts. The only way such destruction can be prevented is through a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States. Then the South would have a chance to adopt a sane policy of neutrality and nonintervention in the Middle East in which the rights of the Palestinians and Israelis are respected, a policy not controlled or guided by Zionism or antisemitism. Only then can the Zionist foreign policy of Israel first, which is the foreign policy of the United States, be abandon and numerous Southern lives saved.
Copyright © 1988, 2021 by Thomas C. Allen.
More political articles.
