Introduction: Distortion in Its Many Forms
No nation plagued by colonialism has been overwhelmed with ideological confusion and dramatic repercussions the way Palestine has. Unlike any other occupied people and their national liberation movements in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the Palestinians have experienced an additional layer of struggle and sacrifice, not to mention their pre-1948 struggles. This represents a 20-year fight for the people of this nation. Although all but forgotten, in the last four years, the Palestinians have embarked on a battle of armed resistance to convince, primarily, those who claim to be against colonialism that Palestine is for the Palestinians and that Israel is nothing but an occupying colonial power.
To understand the ideological confusion and its repercussions on the Palestinian issue, it suffices to use Jean-Paul Sartre as an example. This is a man who gave living proof of his aversion to colonialism. He supported the Algerian people in their fight for independence. He took part in the specialized courts that handled victims of imperialism in Vietnam. However, at the same time, Sartre defended Israel. He approved of the policies of Moshe Dayan, who ـــ on his return from Saigon ـــ recruited the criminal pilots who dropped the bomb in North Vietnam.
This example highlights the extent to which falsified facts have accumulated, especially since the end of the 19th century. These “facts” created part of what became known as leftist thinking in circles that claimed to be anti-colonial, both in Western Europe and North America. Among them emerged thinkers who claimed they would reconsider all the existing tenets accepted as ideological truths. The issue pertains to a series of events that began with the Dreyfus question and ended with the massacre of millions of Jews at the hands of the Nazis. These are events specific to Western European capitalist society, which both birthed Nazism and is a result of it. Supporting the existence and actions of Israel represents for the West, both left and right, a way to clear their conscience. However, as the truth of Zionism is exposed, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify and define the destiny of the Palestinian homeland from those who oppose outmoded Nazism.
The West, upholding the ideologies of imperialism and Zionism, may disagree over many conflicting theories and concepts that come and go but will always agree to focus on one goal, namely the means to justify and preserve the existence of Israel. This is clear from “the Western bridgehead” to Rodinson’s militant pacifism, through the theory of “actualism” and bitter reality as well as regional economic development. In fact, this notion of bitter reality is nothing but a constant strategy to confuse and misrepresent facts. It is a way to show the inflated effectiveness of Zionist control and to spread this narrative in Western media, particularly that which is considered leftist. Amongst those who fell victim to its culture and ideology, we have the North African cadres who received French colonial bourgeois indoctrination. It was easy to shape the mentality of this group through French circles who supported the North African liberation movements, circles known as the liberal left. In this context, we are reminded of Ahmed Ben Bella’s cries ‘We are Arabs, Arabs, Arabs’; we remember the multitude of North African intellectuals stunned by his cries, each trying to explain their meaning while French media took note. We remember the shock of June 1967 and the Palestinian resistance and how these intellectuals then reassessed false concepts from Western civilization, that had been bred from historic events specific to the West, events that are entirely alien to them. However, this reassessment did not focus on the essence [of these concepts]; analyses and behavior continued to be derived from Western concepts and an “actualism” that strives to ignore the embodied truth and feigned “objectivism” that denied the subject blithely referred to as an Arab-Israeli conflict, a Middle East crisis, or a Palestinian issue. For any reassessment that solely recognizes Palestinian resistance as a new event, alters old data which brings up the true problem, the problem of the existence of Israel. This North African stance coincided with developments in Zionist ideology and Leftist European thought wherein proponents were satisfied with the new reality [i.e., the existence of the State of Israel] while condemning the destruction of houses and criticizing the victims of Nazis for exploiting Nazi tactics and measures. And they used all of this to recommend meetings, establish peace committees, and encourage federal and confederal solutions, etc… Among the early proponents of this stance were Rodinson and Uri Avnery (who was a famous Israeli politician and claimed to be an anti-Zionist).
These revolutionaries are, in effect, clever Zionist tools, effective for propaganda. They do not discuss the existence of Israel as a nation, and none raised the issue of the violation of the Palestinian homeland. They merely discussed the structure of their present Israel and denouce the expasion of its leaders, etc… However, they expect them to discard their Zionism in order to establish a nation of dual citizenship and a host of cooperative and confederate considerations. These people, for Zionism and the politics of Israeli, are the equivalent of the “French conscience” that offered protection during our arduous quest for independence. The “French conscience” and presence are phenomena that appeared and created conflict when the people’s national resistance movement seriously undermined the colonial edifice. In truth, the seeds of neocolonialism grew under the pretext of a “humanizing patriarchy,” and this paved the way for future conditions that would protect [neocolonialism’s] essence and oppose interests deemed backward, interests that exposed [neocolonialism’s] barbarism from despair and a foreboding sense that the end is near.
The presence and conscience of Zionism are the resolution of objective work that aims to preserve their essence: “I do not want a liberal society that is hostile to colonialism and war, for it would be dead.” This was the response Golda Meir gave a journalist when he pitied Jewish society for showing a lack of values through its use of Nazi methods against the Arabs.
We do not know what the alleged values of this so-called society are, a society whose very existence originates from the biggest theft in history, the theft of another’s homeland. A thief who has no entity, who did not want to say the boundaries of the land he intends to steal, who declared, on behalf of his leaders, that Israel itself must define its own borders. Which Jew would claim that he is against Zionism, gladly exposing this theft without reservation? Which Jew would raise the question of Israel’s existence without devoting the most significant portion of his discussion to his own case by first reminding us of the injustices faced by Jews, followed by the question of the fate of 2,000,000 Jewish immigrants? With this deviation and in this twisted way, he projects the problem and raises it for the Arabs, the Palestinians, the very victims of dispossession. He will come with his ‘yes buts’ and say: ‘I know the rights of the Palestinian people and the legitimacy of the resistance, but what is the solution? Do not tell me under any circumstances what Al-Shukeiri said, that they must be thrown in the sea.’
These peaceful principles, with the exception of the simplest ـــ that we should not ask for a solution from the victims of theft ـــ persist. This opinion, characterized by sincerity, preserves an affect of uniformity and the tone of Marxist-Leninism. However, the issue reaches its most venomous when psychology and sociology intervene. When opposers of Zionism try to say that “Israel is not a state,” and instead of projecting the fundamental problem, the choices are laid out to the victims instead of the colonizer, the latter works to change the direction of the discussion, indulging in a artificial discussion with controlled parameters. The peoples’ bloody struggle, their land forcibly taken from them to become an imperial base and a stronghold of Zionism, becomes an old topic of history. In reality, we cannot ask more of Jewish intellectuals as long as we hold on to the critical idea that this is a small-scale example of the means of pressure used by Zionist networks in all fields. In fact, the issue here does not have to do with these intellectuals – their subjectivity or sincerity as human beings - because the above observations aim to give a preliminary idea of the many aspects of confusion and distortion surrounding the Palestinian issue and the diverse viewpoints and attitudes of North African intellectuals, shaped by French colonial capitalism. For this [issue] requires that,
1. Understanding how Zionism was the first to benefit from all overruling bourgeois ideologies, those pertaining to neocolonial literature and specifically discussing backwardness. In order to highlight the falsified facts therein, we must stop at the characteristics of the Palestinian issue that are not exclusive to the Palestinian question itself;
2. [understanding] how Zionism has allowed itself to directly influence our nations and workforce, benefitting from the cultural, technological, and economic circumstances that are linked to old colonial powers and their leftism, as well as various geographical and historical circumstances (such as our distance in relation to the Middle East and phenomena that we in North Africa know nothing about or only know what is harmful and external); and
3. From this, we can deduce that the political developments post-1967 that led to reconsideration of ingrained ideas did not happen at a fundamental level because confusion around the basic issue remains. Even “defeatism,” otherwise known as ‘being realistic’ or ‘objective,’ continued to derive its basis from appearances, given that commitment to the Palestinian people ought to have been part and parcel of commitment to any liberation movement.
1- Zionism Was the First to Benefit from the False Narrative of Colonialism and Neocolonialism Before and After 1967.
At this point, we must highlight the characteristics of capitalist bourgeois ideology in the Arab world, seen in concepts, thoughts, and behaviors of the majority of North Africans who received a French education and were influenced by French culture and post-colonial literature that discusses progress and backwardness. Accordingly, we can say that the concepts and analysis around the Palestinian question form an indivisible part of the culture and practical conduct of every intellectual in North Africa in the face of liberalism and neocolonialism in general. However, the link between both may not be apparent unless we document and reinforce our analysis with tangible examples that reveal the actual extent of falsified facts and how they shaped neocolonialism.
First, we must remember that bourgeois Western ideology, in all its related social sciences, is purely descriptive, born of and built upon the means of capitalism. Accordingly, its role is to justify and enhance these means by scrutinizing their external attributes or studying them piecemeal, thus avoiding an interpretation of their true fundamental purpose, that is, pure exploitation upon which the comprehensive system is based.
We must credit Marx, who discussed and exposed the descriptive and misleading nature of the ideology, beginning with the basic principle that ‘every form of prominence is a form of hypocrisy.’ Accordingly, we understand that bourgeois thought focuses on the trees so that you cannot see the forest, which is basically the savage law of capitalism. Moreover, following models of capitalist production, this ideology emerged from a homogenous system whose uniformity and logic are crude.
Descriptive Western ideology did not indoctrinate our current reality; that was pollinated through colonial education, supported by neocolonial literature that emphasizes our backwardness. To clarify, and without digressing, we start with an important, albeit irrelevant event, almost 50 years earlier, when old Moroccan intellectuals, alumni of College d’Azrou, met at a summer conference and refused to take a stance regarding the Palestinian issue, other than considering it a struggle for independence like any other in the world, such as in Angola or Mozambique. This [stance] did not state that it is a colonial problem, but, on the contrary, confirmed it is an “Arab” issue that does not concern them directly any more so than the issue of Guinea produced by Portugal. As such, this example embodies opportunism in its first stage. However, it also highlights to what extent Zionism has benefited in our lands from all forms of thought spread through colonialism and the extent to which it can grow while appearing neutral or even by becoming an ally to the impartial frameworks of our countries.
The dangerous, far-reaching outcome of colonial capitalist thought has been our self-deprecation because we are an Arab nation. The imperialist has painted the Arab as an Arab, with characteristics and “facts” that imperialism invented and instilled this image via their local agents. As as result, announcements in Arabic made by Moroccan intellectuals regarding Zionist losses, for example, are met with suspicion and doubt. We alert them that they should not always believe Zionist news and reject news from Arab countries and resistance because, culturally, this implies siding with Israel, their unwavering response is: “After 1967, I cannot believe anything.” We see how Le Monde magazine embodies the opinion of those functionary thinkers, teaching them pragmatism and moderation and instilling in them a desire to end the ‘issue’ and to make peace, in addition to publishing and encouraging discussions around a solution or creating an outline of one, defining it as an “Arab – Israeli conflict.”
The second example highlights the extent to which Zionism benefits not only from the influence of colonial thought or the interdependence of countries culturally, technologically, and linguistically, but also from a connection to the colonizer’s long-standing power. This connection has allowed for the spread of news agencies penetrated or monitored by Zionism in one way or another (regardless of relationship between control and economic exploitation that rendered Arab nations a space for financial manipulation).
To discuss the effects of the lies spread by colonial capitalists amongst our professionals, particularly concerning Palestine, we must examine neocolonialism and imperialism. This is because events have forced Zionism to show us, little by little, its true nature, not just how it is protected by the imperialist or how it has been a tool of imperialism in the Middle East, but also how it functions as imperialism’s fifth column in various realms, especially in Africa. We should know that some independence movements in various central African nations now fight, upholding the slogan ‘against imperialism and Zionism’ because they are aware that Israeli technical support is instrumental in working within the framework of imperialism and imperial strategy. We are left with smart, effective scheming that becomes part of neocolonial literature, especially regarding backwardness. Israel has gained inside knowledge through this literature and can disseminate technical support in different countries. In turn, these countries like ours, defined by purely descriptive political-economic ideologies, were deceived by appearances and convinced that Israel had made outstanding achievements as a model for problem-solving and a template for overcoming the vicious cycle of backwardness. These admirers focused on a single pebble and overlooked an ocean of issues, such as the fact that Israel’s consumption far outweighed its production five-fold and that it survived only through the growth and resources it grabbed for itself from these admiring nations.
As we have already mentioned, Zionism is always the first to benefit from imperialism. We see this in the publication of fake facts in Third World Magazine about backwardness in our region, for example. This magazine, run by famous Zionists, is a tool of neocolonialism that is the most precise and effective and the clearest example of how the ideology of neocolonialism can adapt using the power of progress. For it to convince our professionals, it advocated pragmatism and the essential stages of escaping the rings of terrifying backwardness, explaining that the way forward requires agricultural reforms and some nationalizing of property, and so forth. The methods springboard from the same principles and essentially meet in the adaptability of Zionist ideology that is in line with the growth of Israel’s material ideas. Israel, after all, is the one who suggested peace committees, denouncing Moshe Dayan’s expansionist tendencies with the intent of maintaining the essential idea, that is, the presence of Israel as a nation first and foremost. In this way, the issue of Palestine is presented as the Middle Eastern crisis between neighboring countries, not an issue of a country’s freedom. In addition, these ideologists have placed Palestinian resistance on one side and Israel and neighboring countries on another, in the same way that they have placed agriculture and education counterpoint to the balance of payments in a backward country. Moreover, Arabs are divided, unprepared, and tend towards improvisations, so regarding the Palestinian question, they represent a stagnant demography or one that is ‘growing in backwardness.’ This justification and acknowledgment lead us back to one known principle: that we must look deep into ourselves, rethink our realities, and resolve our own problems. This analysis belies the “specialist” training and mindset of one who sincerely desires progress, for how is it possible to doubt the intentions of someone suggesting that nationalizing our railways will serve colonial capitalism as long as the latter continues to exploit raw materials and benefit from exporting industrial products? At the same time, the victims of such exploitation continue to pay the price of the deficit, that is, a portion of the general expenses of the national investment. Likewise, there is no doubt that agricultural reform, otherwise known as the distribution of lands among colonial hands, do not disadvantage the colonial capitalist as long as he acquires the same product at meager prices and is able to preserve his position in the long run. This observation applies to reforms and solutions that appear nationalistic and have the characteristic of advancement and progress because the real and fundamental issue has not been raised; that is, the essence of colonialism is to define our socio-economic systems as backward. Every effort is made by neocolonial ideology to distort the problem, turning the tables on the victim of their imperial exploitation, using technical evidence and facts and figures to emphasize the importance of self-questioning. Even the words “realism,” “objectivity,” and “rationalism,” which are supposedly scientific and the basis of colonial literature, have altered meanings for our professionals and intellectuals as essentials for every analysis and judgment made of them.
An Iraqi intellectual wrote a study, giving figures, that supports the opinion that Arabs should overcome their own backwardness before fighting Israel or eradicating it. This study, of course, received a place of honor in Le Monde magazine. This opinion is not by any means a singular or isolated one. When a scholar presents such a work backed by figures, then consider that he supports America’s unconditional imperialist stance on Israel as the pervasive Zionist power across the world. This is a sign of actualism, a sign of defeat, marked by logic. This incidental actualism is the position held by those who consider a struggle against imperialism impossible or not relevant. It is the position of those who back descriptive bourgeois ideology. To them, the Arab nations that fight Israel do so because Israel is an independent, self-sufficient entity, not because it is another imperial base. For this reason, the culture and ideological presence of neocolonialism and Zionism in our countries are one and the same thing, directly influencing our intellectuals. As a consequence, the viewpoint of these intellectuals is harmful to the Palestinian cause and no different from their attitude towards internal issues related to socio-economic independence or the struggle against imperialism. It is important to note that neocolonial and Zionist influence is more potent in environments where the events of the Middle East and their historical and geographical circumstances have allowed for confusion and apathy.
2- Apathy and Disdain for Pre-1967 Events are Merely the Outcome of Zionism Directly at Work for 20 years, Plus a Lack of Understanding of the Internal Features of the Middle East.
Zionism has not limited itself to benefiting from the effects of neocolonialism on the behavior
and thinking of our people; it has in itself been a source of continuous venom among us. Zionism has taken advantage of specific circumstances in North Africa to transmit all forms of apathy that have been harmful to the Palestinian people, as seen post-1967. It has done this by spreading confusion and disorder. Two factors helped Zionism directly:
On the one hand, the process was facilitated through French circles of the so-called left, who supported national independence; on the other hand, is North Africa’s isolation and the fact that its ideological and political shifts were only marginal after the establishment of Israel, compared to those in the Middle East.
The reactions towards Ahmed Ben Bella’s cry ‘We are Arabs, Arabs, Arabs’ demonstrated the extent to which the above two factors were able to stupefy us within 20 years and how they planted in us a sense of self-loathing.
A. Zionism’s Direct Action via the French Left
In this portion, we will only discuss the development of Zionism’s venomous tactics from the establishment of Israel until the end of the 1967 war.
In the first stage, after World War II, Israel had the fabled reputation of being the source of all progress, alongside principalities, feudal systems, and guilds. Because of known severe strategic and diplomatic considerations, socialist countries pretended to be convinced that this was, in fact, the case. There was nothing to prevent the literature and journalism of the supposed left from praising the merits of “specific socialism” in its raw form embodied in Kibbutzim.
For a long time, North African students had been deceived by these merits, owing to the fact that they did not have the chance to investigate and scrutinize the dark circumstances under which Israel and the kibbutz had been created. Israel’s socialism is nothing but a form of material organization that was required for the function of the kibbutz since its inception. It began as a base to propagate Zionism, through violence, with the manner in which it was organized being in no way related to the socialist method of production and consumption. In fact, it was controlled and dependent on military needs and requirements. These Zionist bases needed to continue functioning as they waited for the right time when Israel would be established. In this way, it would be possible to apply the organizational life in the barracks to an entity in the process of occupying a country. Once the occupation of Palestine had taken place, there began the process of erasing the principle of ‘occupation’ itself. It became an inevitable thing, justified as “specific socialism,” inspired by the principles of David and the wisdom of Solomon, giving rise to the myth of the self-sacrificing, empathic colonizer.
Nationalizing the Suez Canal and the colonizer’s work on behalf of the Anglo-French, weakened by the 1956 Tripartite Aggression against the United Arab Republic, exposed the true face and function of this supposed socialism. It became essential to transcend slogans and mask the goal of the only nation that was able to dismantle medieval feudalism and build progressive politics. Thus begins the next stage of Zionist tactics: the ability of Jews to transform the desert into a heaven right before the eyes of the incompetent Arabs. This coincided with the campaign to resolve the issue of Jewish minorities in Arab countries.
When Mehdi Ben Barka came up with the idea of establishing a headquarters for human rights in Morocco, Rony Meir, the head of the International Federation for Human Rights, responded with the condition that the National Union of Popular Forces (UNFP) allowed Moroccan Jews the right of departure, providing them with passports without distinguishing marks, or an indication of their religion. After this, Moroccan Jewish intellectuals, who rallied for Zionism, began a campaign to facilitate mass immigration, requesting that several ‘principles’ be applied. Democracy was an essential requirement in our country, as was the need to rethink all aspects of independence so that more and more Moroccan Jews could be exported democratically to Israel, beginning with teenagers, then young men and fathers, to camps specifically designed for immigrants. The “greatest advocate” for democracy in Tunisia did not need the World Jewish Congress or American intervention to allow this export.
Perhaps all this was to irritate Nasser.
The third stage of Zionist propaganda and conditioning against our people is in the example of men like Bourguiba, who spoke widely of actualism, suggesting the acknowledgment of Israel’s reality and existence. Such individuals had already contributed to strengthening and supporting Israel with either their complicit passiveness or active politics that sympathized with imperialism. During this stage, colonialism was not seen as the socialism of the kibbutz or the genius of Jews turning the desert into heaven; in fact, it took the shape of disheartened weakness that can be summarized as follows:
Arab nations were weakened due to massive military expenditure to compensate for the burden of economic backwardness.
Israel was a small country of brave, resolute men surrounded by enemies whom Moscow armed.
Since 1956, feudal systems had begun to collapse, one after the other. Aggression and imperialism could no longer dictate politics to the region’s governments as they did in the past.
Zionist leaders failed to redirect the waters of the Jordan River without a backlash. The preparation for the 1967 war and the campaign that followed began two years earlier before a vast number of advanced organizations in the United Arab Republic, Syria, and Algeria, for the first time, discussed Palestinian liberation on behalf of the Palestinians themselves. However, the Palestinians did not wait for their issue to be raised. The armed resistance moved without restraint at the beginning of 1965, bombing the centers designed to redirect the waters of the Jordan River.
At this time, North Africa was still influenced by the Zionist slogans mentioned above, finding in them a confirmation of the totalitarianism of the people and leaders of the Middle East.
B. Lack of Understanding of the Internal Affairs and Events in the Middle East
North Africa’s distance from the Middle East meant that it was not at the center of the problematic events experienced from 1948 onwards, ones presented to us in Western media and by Western newspapers in a way that was sympathetic to Zionism. These events can be divided into three currents:
The first current was that of the young military officers who realized while they were on the Palestinian front that those responsible for the establishment of Israel were a band of treacherous leaders (what is meant by the motto “Israel is in Cairo”). After the leaders had seized power, and after military conspiracies, and while the political and ideological structure was still weak, the young Egyptian officers, followed by their Iraqi and Syrian counterparts, hoped to make the Palestinian issue an international one by creating an official army. In this way, they fell into the enemy’s trap. The absolute goal of imperialism and Zionism was to present the issue as a conflict between neighboring countries in the hope that the existence of the Palestinian people would be forgotten. However, the idea suggested by the young rebellious officers propelled Zionists to accept a Palestinian direction provided that it was under their supervision and that they themselves could determine the hour for the deployment of trained armies.
The second current was the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that had lost its importance but was, between 1948 and 1960, a powerful, active movement. The Brotherhood discussed the Palestinian issue from a religious perspective as a religious duty that requires an ongoing struggle, even if it is a desperate and disorganized one. Gradually, their measures led them to act as enemies to newly established governments and to ignore the Palestinian question to stand against these governments using violent action. This did not escape the imperialists who placed “technical assistance” at the disposal of the leaders of the Brotherhood, who sacrificed agents and notable members for imperialism from the ocean to Indonesia.
The third current is the rise of the Baathist Socialist Party. Its founder, Michel Aflaq, attempted to discuss the Palestinian question as part of a larger, comprehensive conflict in ideology and politics across the Arab world through socialist transformation that would liberate it from feudalism, Zionism, and colonialism. Baathist socialism, however, relied on old glory and, in principle, rejected the scientific facts of socialism. It was inevitable that the movement would be organized in hidden political societies and semi-secret cells connected to limited social sectors, especially intellectual circles and military officers. However, since it was considered a movement in the whole Arab world, its Syrian leaders explored the possibility of forming a Baathist office in other Arab nations.
These three currents conflicted with each other. Arab communists limited themselves to exposing the opportunistic petite bourgeois, the conservatives, or the leftists, except for Iraq, a neighbor of the Soviet Union, which remained on the periphery of events, mainly since their proletariat society can be summed up as a justification of diplomacy and Soviet strategy.
Despite the intense disagreements among these three currents, each fought against feudalism and contributed to its eradication. Accordingly, if the remaining feudal governments were roused and wished to cooperate, they had to form proper alliances with the imperialists.
We are not interested in all of these details, except for their external aspects, the intense disputes and disagreements, and divisions. Imperialists claimed that these divisions were always part of the Arab mentality as if a feudal lord of the empire could join a freedom movement!
North African intellectuals only paid attention to superficial aspects, judging the East collectively, dumping governments with the populace, convinced and satisfied that North Africans have the best mentality and are different from the Arabs of the East, who are incapable of being rational or Cartesian. In truth, this Eastern Arab was more wary of leftists and the culture of neocolonialism, which is actively allied with Zionism. His objectivity stems from the fact that he directly experienced the Palestinian issue and has never strayed from his patriotic self, without which no one can claim to think patriotically.
The 1967 war had to happen so that many issues could be rethought. However, it has been a partial rethinking, as we have said. It would have been impossible to achieve more than this due to the cultural modes of colonial capitalism and the constant political sedation by Zionists, either directly or despite themselves, through French leftists. Then there is the reality of the Arab world, which our frameworks only examine negatively or superficially.
The rise of the Palestinian resistance movement and its growth led to the reevaluation of prevailing thoughts; however, doubts still dominate the most important of issues, with serious consequences, while the current matter is not about the solidarity of intellectual or moral thought, but a daily, bloody battle.
3. New Distortions and Their Current Outcomes
We have spoken at great length about the cultural and ideological constants that have shaped our behavior and from which Zionism has profited until now. We then highlighted the slogans that Zionism propagated via the French left before 1967 and the reasons for Moroccan disinterest in all but the external negative aspects of the deeply rooted events that shook the Middle East since the first defeat of 1947/48.
We must now analyze today’s outcomes of an ideological befuddlement that has lasted for 20 years. Then we should ask: why did the landslide majority of our people, those influenced by French culture and education, show only marginal interest in the fight against Zionism and Israel, even though it gave rise to endless discussions around past errors, old and new, around tactics, the balance of power, the solution and its fortunes, etc…?
A. Freedom and its Means
The decisive principle of freedom that embodies the specific means for a solution was born of the 1967 war, and the astounding growth of Palestinian resistance that followed. Reevaluating this critical situation is linked to developments well known to both Arab and international public opinion, namely, Israel’s increased defiance and the eruption of world Zionism. What is distressing is, in fact, the ongoing distortion of the Palestinian issue as we continue to consider it a Middle East crisis or an Arab-Israeli conflict. As long as this confusion exists, our standpoint towards the Palestinian revolution can only be harmful to the cause. This the Zionists know only too well, as does the colonizer; it is part of their combined effort to present the Middle East issue as a conflict between neighboring countries.
We can tangibly demonstrate the consequences of long-term distortion through the example of Vietnam. Those who supported or claimed to support the Vietnamese people in their fight for freedom never allowed themselves to discuss “actualism” or opportunistic decisions. Each was satisfied with decision-making and the heroic sacrifices of the people, all of which they noticed were tied to one principle: ‘Vietnam for the Vietnamese,’ even if this meant the extinction of every last one of them. This principle holds the solution and the measures required to achieve it. Practical solutions are required to organize and develop the fight against the aggressor. These solutions are inspired not only by actual experience and an understanding of the means and strategies of the enemy but, importantly, by a deep-rooted belief in the legitimacy of the cause, a belief that strengthens the desire for victory. This principle carries the solution and the means of reaching the solution. When the fight for freedom grows to a certain point, discussions spread among the freedom fighters around the solution, the rights of the resisting people, and how to preserve dignity within them. At this point, there spreads a sense of discord among the fighters, and boundaries arise between ‘eagles and doves,’ between the French conscience and the French existence, and between the Zionist conscience and the Zionist existence. Nevertheless, the ‘dove’ belongs to the fighter, he who thinks of his greatest, long-term interests, and this is the mission of the so-called progressive current that resists Zionism, represented by individuals like Rodinson, whose role is to convey the aggressor’s perspective to the ranks of the victims—the Arabs. It is a role that they succeeded in entirely.
We call this inverse problem-solving, that is, discussing an issue not in terms of the perpetrator but in terms of the victim. People who do not know Rodinson and Anaser Magazine will not fall into the trap of volunteering to fight (14,000 Moroccans enlisted), like the 27-year-old Egyptian doctor who was martyred in Haifa, or the Kuwaiti prince who abandoned his children, wealth, and women to receive training, gradually sneaking away to Palestine, vowing to either die or return with a Palestinian passport.
The expression’ Palestine for Palestinians’ is a robust and unwavering statement. It is the decisive principle that holds the solution and the means of arriving at it. The issue of national self-interest and the hatred of the aggressor and his crimes, without which reason and strategic analysis are simply a way of spreading meaningless chatter among victims, is not in the aggressor’s interest. Such chatter exists among Moroccan circles, keeping them spectators, albeit alert and anxious. This signals that they are Arabs and not ashamed of their Arabism.
‘We are Arabs, Arabs, Arabs.’ We are not posing the question of Israel’s safety to the Zionists, nor do we discuss solutions with the aggressor. The Palestinian revolution is expected to clinch the solution of ‘Palestine for Palestinians,’ including the consequences that come with freeing an occupied nation. The occupier must give grounds for why he should remain or leave. He must determine whether or not he is capable of adjusting to the new situation and whatever follows. Why should the Jewish camp in Palestine be any different from the Jews that were in Algeria 100 years earlier?
In liberal circles in Western Europe, it is expected that men like Jean-Paul Sartre will contrast between actualism and perspective. We began with history and concepts that such men refuse to take into consideration so that they are not required to ask if there is a contradiction in supporting Moshe Dayan, who embodies both freedom and colonial occupation. When the contradiction becomes evident, and its true meaning is ripe, it is sufficient for them to reword their discussions about the Palestinian issue as if it is of secondary importance as a ‘Middle East crisis’ or an ‘Arab-Israeli conflict.’
Because of its literary domination, the West has managed to establish never-ending discussions among us regarding ‘the solution.’ For example, they say that the issue is not as easy as Vietnam because Palestine is not Vietnam, and the Arabs are not Vietnamese. We do not have the same experiences or environment. On the other hand, American soldiers cannot wait to leave, but the same cannot be said of the Jews in Palestine, who have nowhere to go. Moreover, the Vietnamese do not have anyone meddling in their affairs, nor do they have divisions between government and parties, as is the case in the Middle East.
Perhaps we can seek a solution by examining the challenges of the Arab League and the strategies of the Soviet Union. The Palestinian resistance is regarded as a ‘new cell’ born of the 1967 war. Changes prevented King Hussein from negotiating; closed circles emerged. It became the embodiment of absolute despair. Slowly, we returned to the law itself, one refined by 20 years of intellectual numbing. Each moral sensibility triumphed by isolating itself as an alert but anxious spectator.
Accordingly, we reiterate that the re-examination of the Palestinian issue post-1967, spurred by the rise of the Palestinian resistance, remains only partial in nature and does not cover the most essential aspects. The decisive principle of ‘Palestine for Palestinians’ should be the sought-after legacy. In the eyes of European liberals, the Arab remains an Arab, regardless of the progress offered to him through the ranks of the invaders. Let us not forget that this is merely the intellectual aspect of the issue.
B. Practical Outcomes.
We must remember that the ideological support of the Palestinian people is inconsequential if not augmented with the bare minimum action, such as campaigning for their cause and fundraising. Next, there is the problematic and hazardous work of documenting the interests of Zionists in different countries to expose them and struggle against them. This can lead to severe challenges, especially in internal politics. To recap: Our commitment to the Palestinian cause is organically connected to, and indivisible from, an intellectual and practical commitment to the freedom movement, both internally and externally (in some cases, there is some concern that Zionists will take over and control the economic activities of specific sectors).
Nevertheless, standing by a principle is critical in every work for national freedom. It holds the solution and the means for freedom. For the Palestinians, both in theory and practice, it is a stance to eradicate Arab feudalism, which is the root of imperialism and, through its complicit passiveness, a major contributor to the formation of Israel. Indeed, Hussein attempted to raise the issue of Palestinian rights at the Islamic summit, but without success. The representative of the Palestinian people tried to intervene from seats reserved for the Jordanians. We may highlight the meaning here: it is a choice between two camps, two theories, and two types of conflicting interests: the feudal camp and all the backward people in the Arab world who made King Hussein a hero after June 1967, dumping all their bitter resentment onto Egypt’s Nasser, striving to present the crisis as a conflict between neighboring countries.
Israel focused all its efforts on achieving such a significant level of influence and vagueness. It did so by increasing operations on the borders and demanding that negotiations lead to the following:
- Not raising discussions around the existence of a Palestinian resistance movement or handling the topic as an insignificant one or an extension of the war of determination or psychological warfare tactics used by the official Arab armies.
- Justifying claims related to strategic elevations on safe borders while requesting that neighboring Arab countries take on the role of the Zionist police against the Palestinians. If not, then Israel would not need to recognize it as a country amongst Arab nations.
- A spike in violent operations along the ceasefire lines as a form of aggression against Arab nations, with the aim of stomping out the Palestinian freedom movement.
In this way, Arab nations are still deceived. Their ambitions are limited to ending the effects of the aggression, though the aggression is ongoing. Their behavior makes them come across as moderate or realistic.
Suppose we add to the above points the political considerations of the international community, talks among superpowers, and the known strategies of the Soviet Union. In that case, we find that the Palestinian struggle takes on the appearance of a conflict between neighboring countries. Accordingly, the State of Israel exists and is at war with its neighbors. It continues to receive support from imperial states and international Zionist networks in the form of arms and funds, sufficient to control its neighbors.
Let us keep in mind that the current situation radically differs from what it was 18 months ago; therefore, if we restrict ourselves to the balance of power and the existential relationships between nations, we will find that the balance quickly changes, quantitatively and qualitatively. Remember that only two years ago, the army of the United Arab Republic did not exist, and how it has slowly gained prominence, improving significantly through strategic assault.
Nevertheless, whether this war is a war of determination or whether it is psychological warfare, the liberation of Palestine will not take place at the hands of official Arab armies. This is no secret to the United Arab Republic, not Syria, Iraq, or Algeria. Likewise, none of the governments in these countries nor the progressive Arab movements claim that the issue is about eradicating the efforts of the aggressor, as when Israel withdrew from land it occupied in 1967, leaving the Palestinian people to their own means. On the contrary, these governments and movements exposed these claims or anyone who spoke of ‘freeing the holy land’’ while saying the same thing and simultaneously disguising the advantage of a conflict against imperialism.
The Palestinian people must liberate their land, including the holy land. To support their quest, we first need to acknowledge that they have a right to decide the means by which to seek their freedom. It is the national patriotic duty of every Arab to acknowledge the Palestinians expelled from their land and to recognize their right to every inch of their Arab homeland as a material and military basis for reform and organization as they wage war. We must consider the ongoing connection between the liberation of Palestine by its people and the military relations that attract Israel and its neighboring Arab nations, as follows:
§ The real aggressor is Israel itself, and this primary aggressor is the cause of the current conflict, whatever its name may be.
§ This aggression remains part of the imperialist strategy, operating in the Middle East in order to establish an ongoing situation that suits the exploitation of petroleum wealth.
§ Based on this, freeing Palestine requires the cessation of Israel, that is, a war against Zionism by the Arab nations.
Discussing the issue in such a framework is neither extreme nor moderate; it is not actualism or idealism. It is only primary objectivity, observing indisputable facts that are evident and that reverberate truth. Above all else, the outcome is freedom from the shackles of neocolonial thought. It allows us to view the events of the Middle East internally rather than limiting ourselves to external negative aspects.
We have taken much time to display Palestine’s freedom. Only its freedom. However, first, we must free our own thoughts. We must comprehensively re-examine how we envision representational bourgeois ideology. Finally, our responsibility towards the Palestinian cause is part of a comprehensive attitude of thought and practice for any freedom movement in general.
Anfas, no. 15, 1969
Al-Muqadima, no. 2, 1982
Translated from Arabic by Ibrahim Sayed Fawzi
The citation for the Arabic version of this piece that was used for translation is as follows:
Benjelloun, Omar. “sulūk uṭurinā itijāha al-mushkil al-falasṭīnī.” In al-maghrib wa falasṭīn:
falasṭīn qadiya waṭniya, Abdessamad Belkbir, ed, 70-86. al-dār al-baydhā’: al-Najāḥ al-
Jadidah, 2021.