Mark with an X

According to annefrank.org, one mustn’t liken “what Israel is doing to the Palestinians” with the “systematic extermination of Jews by the Nazis”. Such a comparison is “not only inappropriate, it is also wrong and offensive”. Well, golly gee, we wouldn’t want to offend a state engaged in genocide by implying their strategy is just not as efficient as the Nazis.

DW.com, the German international broadcaster, informs us that the reputation for efficiency is an “international stereotype with holding power”, apparently, according to historian James Hawes, stretching back to medieval times. Like all stereotypes, it probably isn’t strictly accurate of either Germans or Germany generally, but likely does reveal something of the character of both. Certainly, during the Nazi regime, the world witnessed just how terribly efficient Germany can be when it puts its mind to it.

Most nations are bound to fall short in any comparison with German efficiency, resulting in a distinct blow to one’s self-esteem. Little wonder, then, that Israel doesn’t want its policy of genocide compared to the Nazi equivalent. No authoritarian state could accept any comparison which makes it appear inferior to any other. It is the very nature of authoritarianism that it always be seen to be superior to all alternatives and without weakness or fault.

So, annefrank.org is right to say that a comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is inappropriate. Israel is not nearly as efficient as its Fatherland!

No doubt Israel will have some difficulty recognising Nazi Germany as its father but, clearly, this is undeniable. The Balfour Declaration may have been published in 1917, followed almost immediately by the “Zionist seizure of indigenous land”, but it wasn’t until 1948, when the Western powers felt the need to do something after years of ignoring the horror stories coming out of Germany, that Israel became a reality. So, if Britannia is the mother of Israel, then the Third Reich is definitely the father.  As a direct result of the actions of the Nazis, Israel became a recognised nation. There may not have been many wise men present but it was, to be sure, a miracle birth.

With such a parentage, it shouldn’t be too surprising that the child grew up to be abusive. It isn’t unknown, after all, for children who suffer abuse to become abusers themselves. Even annefrank.org admits that Israel is “doing” something to the Palestinians.

This something began with Plan Dalet (Plan D) or the launch of “successive offenses” across Palestine with the sole purpose of expulsion and pauperisation of the Palestinian Arabs. In some cases, as in Tantura in 1948, this amounted to all “of the men [being] taken to the cemetery of the village, and they put them in lines, and they ordered them to begin digging, and every line that finished digging just was shot and fell down to the holes.” (cf. Palestine: A Socialist Introduction, eds. Awad, Sumaya & Bean, Brian)

Easy to see, isn’t it, why Israel finds it offensive to be compared with Nazi Germany?

Fortunately for Israel, it seems no one has anything to gain by allying with the Palestinian Arabs. Consequently, they are a doomed people no one is coming to their aid.

It is simple political and economic expediency – Israel is of value to the West and Palestine is not. Therefore, the Palestinians will never be given back what was taken from them on the whim of a former colonial power. Britain, by right of conquest, had the inclination to provide a homeland to the Jews and they, in turn, felt inclined to take what was given to them – for a second time.

One could almost ask if both God and the British apportioned this land to the Jews, who should stand against them? 

There is an object lesson here for any who would fight for the rights of the oppressed. If one really wants to improve the fortunes of oppressed peoples, make them politically and/or economically valuable. Women began to receive rights and freedoms as soon as they were able to show their value to the economy. 

When T.E. Lawrence was inducing the Arabs to revolt against their Turkish overlords, Britain had no intention of honouring promises made. The Arabs fought for freedom while the British schemed their ongoing servitude to the Empire. It wasn’t until after WWII that the Arabs were finally able to wrest their own oil out of the hands of the British. Once they had the oil, well, everything changed.

One can see why Britain might have need of a non-Arab ally in the Middle East – even if the only oil it produces is of the Olive variety.

That the West is able to maintain cordial, if sometimes strained, relations with both Saudi Arabia and Israel gives proof to the idea that it was purely a matter of politics and economics that stole the land land from the Palestinians – or, as the Corleone family might say, it was only business, not personal.

It is the Palestinian’s misfortune to, first, be in the wrong place at the wrong time and, second, to be of no value to anyone.

What is admirable about the Palestinians, in these days of mass running away from inhospitable homelands, is their determination to stand their ground and their refusal to give up the struggle for freedom (though their tactics might not always be so admirable). One may question the wisdom of refusing the United Nation’s proposal to partition the land into a part for the Jews and another for the Arabs – but only because it was really the only option once the decision had been made to take their land away from them. One can, however, fully understand and sympathise with the Palestinians’ decision – why should they agree to such a proposal?

At a point in history when so many people run away, deserting their homes in search of an easy life, leaving their birth places in the hands of tyrants and despots, one can not but admire the Palestinians’ continued struggle (while, to repeat, in no way condoning all the methods employed).

The Palestinians are a doomed people; they will eventually be shot down in flames – but what an ending they have made!