The Hands That Hold the Strings

"We're all puppets...I'm just a puppet who can see the strings."

These words were penned by the illustrious Alan Moore in the centennial classic Watchmen, a graphic novel about adults in colorful spandex bemoaning the constant threat of nuclear war, much like a good amount of my social circle. They inspire me every time I am compelled to learn about something, especially when it's related to politics.

I can go on and on about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with regards to its legality and illegality, but if there's one thing I know about rights and the law, it's that they're most often treated as just another set of strings. The recognition of Palestine as a state by many member of the United Nations is proof enough of that. What's worth discussing, in my view, are the hands that hold the strings.

Two primary tenets of political science are power and legitimacy. In order for a state, here meaning the legal and political boundaries of a polity, to be sovereign, it needs to have a monopoly of legitimate violence over a given area, according to political scientist Max Weber. Now, Weber clarifies that "legitimate" can mean one of three things. Firstly, it can mean traditional legitimacy, like a monarch or ayatollah who inherits their power through cultural customs. Secondly, it can mean charismatic legitimacy, like that of a revolutionary or military leader. Thirdly, it can mean legal legitimacy: that of a president, prime minister, or any other freely and fairly elected leader. Anyone who seeks a definition of freedom or fairness has already missed the point, passed our stop, and ended up in the boonies.

It should be noted here that the oft-recognized State of Palestine, ostensibly consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has no monopoly of violence over its own territory, legitimate or otherwise. The Palestinian Authority, a self-imposed government with dubious legitimacy, governs the West Bank while the terrorist group Hamas, with legal legitimacy stemming from its democratic election, governs the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, international recognition is given to it anyway, clearly indicating an ulterior motive.

The hands that hold the strings of Zionism are well-established: they are not Orthodox, or even religious, but secular Jewish hands that sought to escape the state-sanctioned antisemitic riots of 19th-century Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Many alternatives to Zionism were proposed, some predating any mention of the Middle East, but all were rejected because they were infeasible. The most common complaint was pre-existing populations, and the fact that no alternative to Zionism was enacted speaks volumes about Israel's (non-)status as a colonial state. This common bit of slander is supported by the idea that Israel's formation was a colonial endeavor, which it was while the Brits owned it between 1917 and 1948. Since then, not only have the Brits fully withdrawn from Israel but it is their only Middle Eastern colony to have fully shed the British institution of monarchy. Instead, Israel has not only become the Middle East's only democracy but one of the freest democracies in the world. More importantly, it has successfully supplemented the Jewish people with the nation they are entitled to under the UN Charter, per the universally guaranteed right to self-determination. This makes anti-Zionism, the idea that there should be no Jewish state in the Middle East, a violation of international law and, in some but not all cases, antisemitic. Zionism has historically been opposed by many Jewish groups and, strange as it may seem, anti-Zionism today is driven by antisemitic sentiments regardless of its history. Opponents of anti-Zionism may say that this is a natural turn of events, but it's especially to supporters of anti-Zionism that I say your movement has been hijacked by (or, perhaps, destined for) racist intentions.

While some argue that anti-Zionism equals antisemitism, I sing the same song in a different key by stating, in no uncertain terms, that the idea of a sovereign Palestinian state is a weapon against the Jewish people. Gaza's Hamas is the clearest example of this, as its constitution is explicitly antisemitic and calls for the death of the Jews, quoting from the Quran in Article 7 that "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees." To make Hamas' fundamentalist motivation clear, Article 8 clarifies that "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution."

However, even the comparatively moderate Palestinian Authority outlines its desire to kill Jews in the Palestinian National Charter. Article 9 states that "armed struggle is the only way to free Palestine" and Article 19 calls Israel's existence "illegal" on the grounds that it is "contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; particularly the right to self-determination." This is not only incorrect but hypocritical to the point of delusion and bigotry. After all, throughout the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has never struck first without prior provocation.

So what drove Palestine and the Palestinians to be this way? The name is of Roman origin, stemming from Israel's conquest by the emperor Hadrian in the year 135 CE. Its etymology stems from the Philistines, the Biblical enemies of the Jews who lived in what is now called the Gaza Strip. The concept of Palestinian nationality was first mentioned in the public eye in 1960. The former leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which represents the Palestinians in the UN and abroad, commented on this in an interview in 1977. This man, named Zuheir Mohsen, stated this directly:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

Those are Zuheir Mohsen's words, not mine!

Worst of all was the chief instigator of Arab riots in Israel and Jerusalem's highest Islamic leader in the 1920s, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Responding to the Jews immigrating into the Middle East for Zionist purposes and taking the local farming jobs, al-Husseini started riots, sought help from the Axis Powers when World War II started, and--no joke--became a Nazi propagandist.

The hands that hold the strings of Zionism are secular, persecuted, and irredentist.

The hands that hold the strings of Palestinian identity belong to Roman colonizers and Nazi collaborators.