Where The Zionist Ideology Leads

I’m reproducing here an email I received from a reader. Like many others in the West, the reader had been exposed to pro-Zionist narratives for many decades. Recent events have led to heart searching and reevaluation. I include my response.

Mark, I just read your update on what’s going on in the Middle East.

I think that if Israel attacks that before that attack has taken place or shortly after Iran will launch every hypersonic missile they have and target Israel, regardless of whether it’s civilian or military. I believe that Hezbollah will also do the same.

Israel will be biting off more than it can chew here. Let’s say this were to happen and there was a lot of devastation and casualties in Israel. Would that be enough to bring the United States into this war? Will an attack on Iran be enough to bring Russia and China into this on some type of limited basis? Could we even have a limited nuclear war in the Middle East where nobody wins?

My reading on the Zionist movement and the founding of Israel tells me that they’re only interested in expanding their territory regardless they would like to take in Jordan also. They are not interested in any of those people—they don’t care whether they live or die. They have an agenda and they are going to stick to it regardless of how immoral and illogical it is.

I can truly say Mark, that my eyes have been totally opened on the real truth of the Zionist movement and the founding of Israel and the absolute lies we have been told and the myth created around the state of Israel. As I have pointed out before people look at this and confuse it and connect it to the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible and none of this is true. There is absolutely no connection there whatsoever.

But you have a lot of people lockstep in there, thinking that Israel must be supported no matter what but if you ask him why they can’t tell you. They cheer all of the killing going on and rationalize it as this must happen because all of these people are against Israel, but did they ever stop to think why all of these people hate Israel in the Middle East.

From what I could gather before the Zionist movement started, the Middle East seems to have been a fairly stable, peaceful region. People seemed to be living together in some type of harmony. There wasn’t all of this killing and hate that is been propagated because of the design of this movement starting in the late 19 century. The absolute arrogance of Zionist movement and their single-mindedness is probably the most amazing thing I’ve read in history in a long time. I have been a student history most of my life.

I wonder how many of the people in this country who seem to support all of this chaos and genocide would be willing to send their children and grandchildren to fight over there or will they just practice their own hypocrisy and mendacity when it comes to this?

I responded:

Obviously I agree with what you're saying, and I suspect--from the polling data over time--that others are waking up to the reality behind the propaganda we've been fed.

One of the reasons I regularly refer to the Russian and Chinese angle is because Iran clearly consults with them--especially with Russia on military matters. I also stress the connection to the war on Russia because I'm quite sure Russia sees it that way, too. Russia actually has a long history of involvement with Iran, and the West--especially the Brits--have a long historical obsession with preventing Russian access to any "warm water port". The idea that Russia will sit back and watch this happen is naive in the extreme, and the same goes--perhaps in different ways--with regard to China. They see what's going on as part of what Maria Zakharova recently called a "double encirclement" that they are determined to break free from--because it's an existential threat to their full sovereignty.

This is also why I have reservations about Mearsheimer's views, despite his undoubted expertise regarding the Israel Lobby. The roots go further back than the Zionist movement and continue to drive events today, albeit with new factors (e.g., Zionism) involved.

Regarding the Zionist mentality, I also agree with you and offer this transcript from the Greenwald - Mearsheimer video last night:

GG: I recall very vividly--because it was such a remarkable statement--that shortly after October 7th, when the Israelis were saying, 'Oh, we need to destroy Hamas and get our hostages back, and that's the goal of our military operation,' the former Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennet, gave an interview to The Economist. And he was much more candid, I think, about what at least he and his group of allies were thinking--and they're pretty close to the Netanyahu government. What he said was, 'What we really need to do now, what we intend to do now, is to show the region that there are no limits on what we're willing to do. No one can stop us. There's nothing anyone can do to stop us, and there are no moral or ethical limits that we will observe in order to defend ourselves, and what we intend to do is to put the fear of God--or the fear of Jews, is how he described it--into the hearts and minds of every Arab in the region that they will remember for generations and that they will be too afraid to ever again oppose us or attack us.' That's at least a coherent rationale, whatever you think of the morality or ethics of it, but is it something that you think is a viable strategy for achieving that goal--namely, making people simply too scared, to watch what the Israelis are gonna do and not want that to be done to them?

JM: No.

The reader also mentioned that Israel has its eyes on territory in Jordan. Many readers may not be aware that Israel has never defined its borders. In other words, the possibility is left open for expansion by conquest. Back in June, 2022, back in the heady days when Jake Sullivan was touting how peaceful the Middle East was, Zionists were considering the question of how much territory Israel should take from its Arab neighbors. Not in private, mind you. Mandel

the director of the Middle East Political Information Network, who regularly briefs members of Congress and their foreign policy aides and is the Jerusalem Report’s senior security editor and a regular contributor to The Hill.

pondered this question in public, in the Jerusalem Post:

When will be the right time for Israel to define its borders? - analysis

IF YOU ARE someone who prioritizes Israel’s security above all else, the answer is more complex.

John Mearsheimer knows all about this relationship—how persons (because Mandel is not a lone wolf wacked out Zionist) who prioritize Israel’s security above all else have extensive and privileged access to the people who make US policy. I assume that “above all else” includes above US foreign policy interests. Nor are these disturbing reflections taking place only in the Zionist fever swamps of the United States—it has long been on the mind of Israeli officialdom. Consider the tone of what follows. The theme, repeated over and over, is: What does Israel want? How will Israel choose to define itself. What non-Jews may want or prefer or claim as their human right doesn’t enter in to consideration. Which fits in very much with what Greenwald quotes Naftali Bennet as saying. Note, too, in what follows, that while Mandel acknowledges that Palestinians dispute the right of Jews to expel them from their land, at no time does Mandel actually defend the right of Jews to do exactly that. He does, however, acknowledge that Western officials have consistently tried to ignore Palestinian insistence upon their rights—except, of course, Mandel sees that insistence simply as an obstacle to be overcome, not as representing a reality that needs to be acknowledged, an injustice to be redressed. One way or another, Zionism must win. It’s a question simply of tactics.

Tamir Pardo, former head of the Mossad, said Israel has never defined its territory. We need to talk about what we want – a Jewish majority or a binational state. He asked: “Why do Israeli governments not define the territorial border we want? It is clear to everyone on the globe that annexation (of the West Bank) brings the Jews to a situation where they are a minority. Our politicians chose to sedate the public, thus deciding the country’s fate while escaping reality, and the clock is ticking.”

And, of course, the question inevitably arises: If we choose to have, if what we want, is a Jewish majority state, what do we do with the unwanted or excess Gentiles? We seem to be seeing just how far Zionists are willing to go in answering that question—as far as Bennet suggested.

General Udi Dekel, head of the Israeli negotiating team under Ehud Olmert in Annapolis, said there are two groups. The status quo says establishing a Palestinian state would be a disaster. The other group is afraid of the demographic map where Israelis are a minority, and the main idea should be a separation between the peoples. He said 60% of Israelis think we should start separation now, including 55% of the Right. Unfortunately, no government can survive and implement what the people want. 

Trump’s much touted “Abraham Accords” were, in fact, a back door to legitimizing land grabbing.

Last October, at a ceremony promoting the Abraham Accords caucus in the Knesset, Defense Minister Benny Gantz said these agreements only materialized because Israel deferred annexing disputed areas of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). 

While true, it sidesteps one of the reasons Israel considered annexation, declaring a defensible border that incorporates the majority of Jews residing over the Green Line. With Iran in the process of fulfilling its strategic goal to surround Israel from three sides (Lebanon, Syria and Jordan), defining the borders not only has tactical but strategic significance. 

Speaking to the UN last fall, President Mahmoud Abbas said demographics would inevitably impose full political rights for all on the land of historical Palestine within one state. Israel has to choose between a binational state or Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem. 

Let’s leave aside Israel’s disastrous withdrawal from Gaza and the five wars that followed. Perhaps Abbas has a point, not what he meant, but maybe Israel should delineate its borders sooner rather than later. 

Either now or in the near future, Israel may be able to define its security borders in cooperation with the Gulf states, especially if the Palestinians remain intransigent and Israeli-Arab interests supersede the Palestinian issue. What is for sure is that this American administration and the EU would exact a heavy price if Israel annexed a centimeter of land over the 1949 armistice line. 

So, is the status quo a more dangerous option over the long term than declaring Israel’s borders?

During the Trump administration, Israel turned down the opportunity to assert its borders in exchange for diplomatic relations with the Gulf nations, Sudan and Morocco. That was a wise choice. A powerful argument can be made not to upset the status quo, especially with the Saudis on the verge of improving relations with the Jewish state. 

The evolving relationships with the Sunni Arab states may, in time, afford unexpected opportunities to coordinate an Israeli delineation of borders. Not likely, you say, but nobody foresaw the Arab Winter, the Abraham Accords, or the fall of the Berlin Wall, so being prepared for unforeseen opportunities is a worthwhile exercise. 

There is no shortage of pro-and anti-Israel groups who know what the future borders should be. Palestinians would like a state from “the river to the sea,” eliminating the question of Israeli borders. On the flip side, one segment of the national-religious Jewish community also wants a state from the river to the sea.

If you are a liberal Zionist, the answer to borders is clear. To this faction, boundaries should be determined to create a Jewish and democratic state that disengages from the 2.5 million Arabs who live in the West Bank and Gaza, based on the 1967 lines. Unfortunately, you cannot guarantee that Hamas will take over the West Bank or that it will remain demilitarized. Israel needs freedom of action to enter if security breaks down, to control the air, sea, and the Jordan River Valley, something no Palestinian leader would accept. 

Israeli negotiator Tal Becker, who has advised Israeli governments for over 30 years, said the conflict is what makes you a Palestinian. Palestinian identity is primarily about opposition to Zionism. To Palestinians, the Abraham Accords, which acknowledge that Jews have a right to be here, conflict with their negation of Jewish national rights. Palestinian society glorifies a narrative even if they don’t believe it. 

Palestinian-Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh said if Palestinians have an election, they will vote for the guy who wants to destroy Israel. He went on to say that if you watch Palestinian TV for five minutes, you would like to grab an ax and kill a Jew. I can’t find one Palestinian willing to talk about concessions. Palestinian education starts at home; Jews don’t belong here, Jews stole the land, and Palestine is compensation for the Holocaust. 

This is what Europeans and many American foreign policy experts purposely ignore, and why there is no partner to mutually agree to a defensible Israeli border for the foreseeable future. 

If you are someone who prioritizes Israel’s security above all else, the answer is more complex. The security-oriented group prioritizes Israel’s defensible borders and demographics but realizes you need to remain in good standing with your allies, posing unique challenges. Explaining why security considerations must dictate final boundaries should be self-evident; however, making the case to nations that have swallowed the Palestinian narrative makes this an uphill fight.

Donald Trump’s Peace to Prosperity Plan attempted to prioritize Israeli security concerns but was never taken seriously, despite its attempt to solve long-standing differences with innovative ideas. This was because the messenger was Donald Trump, persona non grata. Yet, it did have many creative ideas trying to bridge the divide between Israeli security needs while calling for a Palestinian state, something maximalists on both sides oppose. 

So the question is, is it worthwhile for Israel to begin the arduous process of bringing together its security, intelligence, and defense experts to come to a consensus on what Israel’s minimum territorial requirements are, if and when a government believes it is time to have what every other nation in the world has – defined borders.