Will ‘Israel’ End on Its Own?

Musa al-Sada, Orinoco Tribune, September 5, 2024 — 

There is no question that the internal division in the Zionist colony is quite severe. Indeed, history tells us that every colonial settler project is born with an internal spark of discord. The continuation of such a project, in one form or another, relies on the settler community managing its contradictions on one hand, and maintaining sufficient surplus power on the other, specifically economic power and military power. This analysis even extends to interpreting the sharp division in US politics today as, at its core, one of the major contradictions within the white settler bloc, even after more than two centuries of colonizing the continent. It might be useful to view the recent Democratic and Republican national conventions through this lens.

This analysis can be applied to a general reading of all settler-colonial projects. However, naturally, each project has its own unique circumstances and nature, especially the Zionist project. In many ways, the Zionist colony is a unique case from all the projects that preceded it, from the process of assembling and creating a settler society from various parts of the world, to the fact that it represents the culmination of previous Western colonial projects. However, the fundamental idea remains that the fuse for internal discord of the settler community is not an abstract process. It would be incorrect to assume a hypothetical lifespan for the project and that it has an expiration date, with an assumed inevitability that as generations change, it will sicken and die on its own. Rather, what really ignites this fuse (and determines whether this entity will die before its “eighty-year curse” or if it will continue for more than two centuries) are external factors, primarily the resistance of the colonized people.

In other words, passively waiting for the Zionist project to end on its own is misguided. Without escalation [of resistance] and continuous confrontation aimed at its elimination, the project will persist. This settler community has a remarkable ability to rehabilitate itself and manage its internal contradictions, no matter how sharp they appear. They can do this as long as two interrelated factors remain intact: economic stability and security. Any expectation of the project’s self-destruction will collide with this reality.

This particularly concerns the enemy entity, because it is facing a difficult and unique paradox. On one hand, it is an extremely fragile project in regards to its social and demographic structure that is fundamentally composed of diaspora communities and diverse peoples linked together by weak bonds. But at the same time, it is a settler society that enjoys and incredible amount of support from an outside political and economic bloc, that is invested in it and depends on it, namely the West, specifically the United States of America. In other words, while this entity faces blows from Arab resistance movements that threaten its social fabric and material foundations, that intensifies its internal contradictions, a formidable alliance exists—driven by religious and strategic motives and backed by enormous economic resources—stretching from Washington to the Gulf capitals. This alliance is determined to manage these internal tensions, shield the entity even from itself, and provide unwavering economic and moral support. Perhaps one of the most important lessons of this ongoing war is that we should not underestimate how committed this alliance is to preserving the Zionist project and how far it is willing to go in order to do so.

The crux of the idea is that without a real shake-up of the security and economic structure of the entity, any internal social or political contradictions inside the entity are manageable. The settler only leaves for two reasons: fear for his personal security and loss of his economic privilege (Europeans who remain in Namibia and South Africa are an example.) The percentage of those leaving due to their distaste for the ideological form of the state will not represent an end to the colonial project. As for the situation in Palestine, the West Bank will become in the future (and has already begun) an opportunity for liquidating and reaping the enemy’s contradictions between religious Zionism and its secular counterpart, which are the two major umbrellas for the formation of the enemy’s contradictions. While religious Zionism is paying the price on the battlefield today through a proportion of casualties affiliated with it, it has already begun reaping the fruits in Jerusalem and the West Bank. As long as it is able to do so, i.e., control the hills of the West Bank unhindered, this provides a better opportunity for managing the other side of the contradiction with the coastal settlers and the so-called “State of Tel Aviv”, in regards to governance, the state, the judiciary, and others.

This is not to minimize the magnitude of the great rift within the entity. Rather, it is to highlight how the de facto annexation of the West Bank, coupled with the Zionist vision for the future — a blend of forced displacement, encouraged voluntary migration (in collaboration with Gulf states and Jordan), and even a calculated increase in the “Arab minority” — will serve as a means to manage internal Zionist conflicts. This management occurs both internally and through Washington’s role as a mediator like a father caring for its quarreling children. Consequently, the passive analysis that assumes Zionists, along with the current global and regional dynamics, are inevitably leading “Israel” to a perilous demise is deeply flawed. The notion that settlers will simply depart without a fundamental disruption to their security and economic comfort is nothing more than wishful thinking.

A concerted and serious effort is underway by Arab regimes to liquidate the Palestinian cause and normalize relations with “Israel.” Saudi Arabia stands at the forefront of this regional initiative. On the international stage, particularly in the United States, US politicians, Zionists, and Evangelicals remain steadfast in their support. They won’t abandon their religious convictions and strategic interests merely due to the occasional temporary need for air defense mobilization or fleet deployments in the Mediterranean, Gulf of Oman, and Arabian Sea (Yemen’s coasts being the exception.)

History teaches us that no settler colony has ever collapsed of its own accord, regardless of internal strife or even armed conflicts among its factions. The dismantling of such entities and achieving victory over them, demands an unlimited willingness to sacrifice. Put plainly, to achieve the goal of settlers departing the entity en masse requires a committed effort aimed at eradicating the colony itself and physically uprooting it from Palestinian soil. This mindset is the sole path to victory. This conviction is precisely what the strategists of Al-Aqsa Flood believed: that we must courageously and faithfully initiate action without limits in order to eliminate Israel. Otherwise there is an immense and formidable enemy coalition that is determined to safeguard its project, regardless of time or cost. This enemy views even severe disruptions to its strategic environment and heightened regional tensions as mere repetitions of past crises, all of which ultimately shifted in their favor. And this calculation by the enemy is what we must prove wrong.