My writings have thus far centred predominantly on neoconservatives, who are not merely threatening, but decimating British values. This is with good reason, because neoconservatives are also Zionists who protect Israel from criticism, render insignificance to the atrocities and crimes against humanity perpetrated against the Palestinians and architect phantom enemies to perpetuate the colonialist architecting of the Middle East. All the while, domestically promoting “moderate”, “modernist” and “progressive” Muslims who are pacifist in their protests against crimes perpetuated against Muslims globally.
The Deceit of the British and Zionists
It is worth noting the history around the topic of the deceptive and racist Zionism. Prior the Balfour Declaration, David Wolffsohn, the right-hand man of the founding father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl and second President of the World Zionist Organisation, in an attempt to calm the alarm regarding the perceived aims of the Zionists in the Ottoman Empire, wrote in the Times,
“While fully admitting the evident desire of your Correspondent to present an objective and impartial account of Zionism in the Ottoman Empire, I regret that his limited knowledge of our movement and the sources from which he appears to have derived it made it impossible for him to realize his desire. The cardinal defect of his article consists in the assumption that Zionism is a scheme for the foundation of a Jewish State in Palestine. This assumption is wrong. His comments upon our movement and his account of the views upon it in Turkish circles are mainly dependent upon this assumption…
“The object of Zionism is clearly defined in its programme adopted at our first Congress at Basel in 1897, and hence known as the Basel Programme… The aim thus formulated is essentially different from the aspiration to found a State and those who attribute to us such an aspiration misrepresent us in a very serious degree, as they are likely, however, unwittingly, to cause difficulties being put in our way.” (D.Wolffsohn, President of the Zionist Organisation, Cologne, May 1st.” (The Times, Wednesday, May 10, 1911; pg. 8; Issue 39581; col B.)
Upon the establishment of the Balfour Declaration soon after the drawing up of the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement, the Arab world was shook in dismay for its claim:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” (Balfour Declaration, 2nd November 1917.)
King Husain, who had allied himself with the British in the “Arab Revolt” against the Ottomans, sought an explanation. The historian George Antonius records,
“His [King Husain’s] request was met by the dispatch of Commander Hogarth, one of the heads of the Arab Bureau in Cairo, who arrived in Jedda in the first week of January, 1918, and had two interviews with the King.
“The message which Hogarth had been instructed to deliver had the effect of setting Husain’s mind completely at rest, and this was important from the standpoint of the morale of the Revolt. But what is equally important from the point of view of the historian is that the message he gave the King, on behalf of the British Government, was an explicit assurance that ‘Jewish settlement in Palestine would only be allowed in so far as would be consistent with the political and economic freedom of the Arab population.’ The message was delivered orally, but Husain took it down, and the quotation I have just given is my own rendering of the note made by him in Arabic at the time. The phrase I have italicised represents a fundamental departure from the text of the Balfour Declaration which purports to guarantee only the civil and religious rights of the Arab population. In that difference lay the difference between a peaceful and willing Arab Jew co-operation in Palestine and the abominable duel of the last twenty years. For it is beyond all reasonable doubt certain that, had the Balfour Declaration in fact safeguarded the political and economic freedom of the Arabs, as Hogarth solemnly assured King Husain it would, there would have been no Arab opposition, but indeed Arab welcome, to a humanitarian and judicious settlement of Jews in Palestine.” (Antonius, G., 1938, The Arab Awakening, pp. 267-270)
As King Hussain placated the Arabs based upon this great British assurance,
“In Egypt, the efforts of the British authorities to explain away the political implications of the Balfour Declaration had met with some success. In March, a Zionist commission headed by Dr. Weizmann arrived in Cairo on their way to Palestine; and they, too, went to no little trouble to allay Arab apprehensions. Dr. Weizmann, with his great gift of persuasion, scored a temporary success in interviews he had with several Arab personalities, and in this he was ably and zealously seconded by Major the Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore who was accompanying the commission as political officer delegated by the Foreign Office. They gave their hearers such a comforting account of Zionists’ aims and dispositions as dispelled their fears and brought them to a state of acquiescence in the idea of Zionist-Arab co-operation. Meetings were arranged and held between Zionist and Arab leaders. The proprietor of an influential newspaper in Cairo [Dr Faris Nimr Pasha] was so far impressed with Dr. Weizmann’s and Major Ormby-Gore’s assurances that he made use of the weighty columns of his journal to dispel Arab fears about their political future and advocate an understanding between the two races.” (Ibid.)
Despite these assurances, both from the Zionist Jews and the British Colonialists, given to the Muslims, both Arab and Ottoman, the infogram below depicts what followed:
Israel became the State which is now perpetrating extremist violence, unleashing disproportionate force against an invaded, oppressed people. This stems from the racist Zionist ideology which is so ardently adhered to by British neocons, who are the ideological inheritors of the abovementioned deceitful legacy.
Zionism, A Racist Ideology
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 established that, given Zionism was already condemned as an “unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism”, and given its basis in “colonialist origins”,
“zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.”
The chief British delegate, Ivor Richard stated,
“[the resolution] can only serve to undermine the right of the state of Israel to exist.. it risks bringing the whole organisation into dire peril”.
Quite a shift in discourse.
The resolution was repealed, however this was forced as a condition set by Israel, who was being urged by the US and the Soviet Union to attend the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference.
Despite the repeal, the effect of Zionism remains racist. As the contemporary Jewish historian Illan Pappe, who deems Zionism “as a racist and quite evil philosophy of morality and life” ((Ilan Pappe, Out of the Frame, p.x)), notes,
“In February 1948, within a year of the British decision to leave Palestine, the Zionist leadership began ethnically cleansing it. Three months later, when the British left, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were already refugees, pressuring the Arab world to take action, which it did on 15 May 1948…
“The ethnic cleansing continued and at the end of it almost a million Palestinians became refugees (half of Palestine’s population) and with them disappeared half of the country’s villages and towns, erased from the face of the earth by the Jewish forces… The use of force against the Palestinians as means of achieving control over territory and containment of population continued after 1948. It was used in 1956 to massacre Palestinian villagers who were part of the small minority who had survived the 1 948 ethnic cleansing and became Israeli citizens” (Ilan Pappe, Out of the Frame, p.187)
The effect of Zionism is visible most recently, as can be seen in the campaigns by Israelis to murder Palestinians, and the call of Rabbi Noam Perel, secretary-general of the world youth movement, to the Israeli government to turn IDF into an,
“army of avengers, which will not stop at 300 Philistine foreskins.”
Concluding Remarks: The Reform of Islam
The above contextualises the calls for reforming Islam. Al-Aqsa, as well as Al-Quds, reverberates in the hearts of a fifth of the world’s population when the Qur’an is recited and the centrality of this land and sanctuary in Islam is attested to. Islam stands in the way of both neoconservative and Zionist agendas, as articulated in for example, the neoconservative roadmap, Clean Break: A new Strategy in Securing the Realm. Pushed by Benjamin Netanyahu, this document, as well as influencing the removal of Saddam Hussein, outlined the way in which the areas of Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria could be “remade”.
The neoconservative policy in Britain is to advocate reformist/pacifist “progressive” and “modernist” voices. Almost entirely, these voices find synchrony with extremist anti-Muslim neoconservative rhetoric. The RAND corporation policy document which inspired the PREVENT strategy encourages the promotion of “modernists”:
“The modernists actively seek far-reaching changes to the current orthodox understanding and practice of Islam… They further believe in the historicity of Islam, i.e., that Islam as it was practiced in the days of the Prophet reflected eternal truths as well as historical circumstances that were appropriate to that time but are no longer valid.”
By removing the authority of the Ulama who protect the faith, by instilling doubt in the “historicity” of the Qur’an, Hadith and opening up the “interpretation” of the foundational texts, thus decimating the entire corpus of the Islamic sciences, as advocated by the Quilliams, Usama Hasans, Rashad Alis, Taj Hargeys and Yasmin Alibhais of the reformist industry, the borderless connection to Al-Quds and the Muslims is easy to pacify, temper and eventually sever.
It is a colonialist tactic; it was employed by the British and Western colonialists in India and the Middle East, and is employed in Europe and Britain by the neocons against the Muslim minorities today.