Terrorist Orientalism in a State Form


Using Marxism, Christianity and Islam to

Dismantle Arab Homeland


Adel Samara


(Part 2)


Terrorist Orientalism Statist Version


First: The Zionist Ashkenazi Regime


Traditional Orientalism took several forms, cultural, political, economic and intellectual. All those aspects were imposed from outside and that is why they were mobile.

The new Orientalism is similar but is also different from the traditional one. It is similar to the traditional Orientalism in terms of its colonial and aggressive content designed and controlled by a foreign state. But it is different in terms of its goal to become a state. This form of Orientalism breeds two forms of terrorist states:

  • The Zionist Ashkenazi Regime and
  • A hundred years later, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

These two forms of state are similar in terms of being motivated by special understanding of religion. Their human ammunition must be from one religion, one from Jews and the other from Moslems. The difference between the two is in the source of human ammunition.

For the ZAR, human ammunition is collected and recruited from all over the world. They are purely settlers supported by imperialism recruited mainly from Jewish middle classes and led by capitalist bureaucrats and intellectual elite.

For al-Qaida, al-Nusra and ISIS, the human ammunition are form Arab local and foreign Islamic societies, recruited from poorer social sectors, peasants, workers, lumpen-proletariat, vagabonds, criminals, prisoners…etc, led in the field by terror experts or dissident local officers mainly from ex-Baa’thist ruling party, while their high rank leadership is the imperialist intelligence circles. Technically, they are manufactured in the West, but humanly, they are local, and financially they are supported by local renter regimes which were themselves created and supported by colonialism and now by imperialism. That is why, those regimes are to a large extent the same as those pure terrorist organizations.

As both forms of TO states are manufactured in the West and mainly targeting Arab Homeland, their main concentration is directed towards Palestine, Iraq and Great Syria. That is why the ZAR was injected in Palestine, and ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Both states complement each other, they do not clash against each other, rather they cooperate.


Subjugating Marx’s Orientalism for Terrorist Orientalsim


This article will not indulge itself in discussing the well known and long historical terrorism of the settler ZAR which was, in the first place, injected by mere force in the homeland of another people, the Palestinian people.

As the subject of the paper is TO I will limit myself to few examples of how Zionist sociologists Ber Bourochov, Shlomo Aveniri and Noam Chomsky distort facts and theorize for terrorism in a Marxist/humanist/Orientalist manner.

Their argument is a typical colonial distortion of facts, scorn human minds, dreaming to monopolize information forever and entrenched behind great theory, i.e. Marxism.

Borochov (1881-1917) argued from a Zionist “proletariat” perspective. It is really an intrusion to the proletariat to submerge it with Zionism. It is a very strange repellent. Proletariat from Marxist perspective is a revolutionary socialist class. There is nothing in common between this class and settler colonial movement, Zionism. Settler colonialism is a terror in itself. When it is oriented by the capitalist West towards the Orient, it became TO project. So, what is in common between those settlers and proletariat? Those forms of settlers are an army in a terrorist mission even if they will work as workers or peasants inside the occupied Palestine. They committed massacres in Palestine, evicted its people and after that doing some industrial/agricultural work in land of others. Part of them are wage earners exploited as workers[1], but they themselves and their exploiters are stealing others land and lives. This is a criminal proletarianzation.

Borochov argued (1937)[2], “that each nation stow a social system in a pyramid form: a large base of peasants and proletariat on the ground and factions of medical doctors, lawyers, intellectuals and clerks in the top. But Judaism is unique in that that its triangle is deformed (theory of up side down triangle) where a narrow base of peasants and proletariat support a large top of professionals. Borochov argue that Judaism will never be socialist unless it is proletarian (from proletariat). The peculiar description of Jewish working class is: its small size, its participation is in commerce and distribution, not in productive industry. This peculiarity has resulted from the peculiar historical role of Judaism as a nation. With no country, homeland”.[3]

While confirming the several peculiarities of Jews, Borochov made a u-turn against all what he confirmed, and justified the Jewish stealing of Palestine just to make a state for the so-called Jewish proletariat which never existed as a class in a Jewish nation or land. What is the wisdom behind all these embellished discourse other than racism, orientalism, deformed Marxism produced by a sick and terrorist mind and psychology.

Again Borochov pretends that Jews of the world constitute a single nation and defines nation as: “a social group that has developed on the basis of common conditions of production and… which is, moreover, united by a consciousness of affinity based on a common historical past”. After that, he states that the most general conditions of production …is the national territory” and hence the national territory is “the positive foundation” on which a nation is able to develop a national life of its own. But, “the Jews lacks this positive foundation” because they are extraterritorial and constitute an anomalous nation. Their national existence, therefore, is determined by this purely negative factor, the absence of a national territory”[4].

His argument is strange enough, if the “nation is a social group developed on the basis of common conditions of production”, i.e. the domination of a mode of production, and in age of modern nationalism it is the capitalist mode of production, and if the national territory is a positive foundation for any nation, how come Borochov had changed these logical and historical facts to describe Jews as a nation, because they are the opposite! I.e. that the lack of all factors of a nation is suitable enough to make the Jews a nation?

But, even more, where is the Jewish nation in history? What is peculiar is Borochov’s way of thinking. There is a Jewish religion. And as long as the Jewish workers who are scattered all over the world within working classes of the nations whom the Jewish workers belong to, then they are not a national class. They are parts of each class in each country they live in. The same is for Jewish peasants, lawyers…etc. Accordingly, why they shouldn’t be part of the struggle of the proletariat in the country which they belong to and live in?

Borochov continues:

“ … This means that the proletarization of Jewish nation needs a geographic solution”. The question is, from a theoretical point view, is there a possibility for proletariaztion of a “nation” as a nation? This, in addition to the fact that is it a historical necessity the proleteriatizing Jews by any means and price? Is the fate of world socialism hangs on the role of Jews who are not a nation, but not all world nations? Is it necessary to make the Jews a proletariat class, that imperialism must conquer another nation and steal their homeland? Is this way of thinking other than racist?

Borochov is not shy of his racism when he wrote: “The geographic dimension of Jewish socialism wasn’t a colonial case because those whom he calls them “original population of Palestine” lacks for culture and national identity. Based on that, Borochov became able to use this argument to deduce Zionism not from interests of all Jews but from the concrete needs of the Jewish working class and for the protection of Zionism from being accused of colonial domination over Palestine”[5].

But, for the sake of discussion, let’s accept the racist propaganda that Jews are genius, and the fate of world socialist revolution is conditioned by the creation of a state for Jewish proletariat. Is the ZAR an obvious challenge? The fact and tragedy is that the Jews, either proletariat or bourgeois or both were never able to occupy Palestine without the support of imperialism. What is shameful is that the three main political, ideological currents in the world, communism, international socialism and liberal capitalism, never reached a consensus except in the case of the ZAR creation.

It is worth noting in this context that until now, there are Jewish, Arab and Palestinian intellectuals who follow Borochov’s description of Zionism.

Noam Chomsky is another example of Borochov. Chomsky, as an old Zionist yearns for the old version of Zionism as if it started by a nation inside its own homeland. Chomsky limits himself to criticizing Zionist policies in the 1967 occupation, occupation of the West Bank and Gaza 1967, neglecting deliberately the first and the main occupation of most of Palestine in 1948[6].

Noam Chomsky looks like a Salafi Zionist when he wrote:

“What I said was that I remain a Zionist in the sense of Zionism in the 1940s. Zionism has changed. That doesn’t mean my views have”.

What was Zionism in 1940s? It was a white settler colonial gangs depends on British imperialism to conquer Palestine and evict its people. It was and still is an inferior colonial tool for the superior colonial center. What was Chomsky expecting from Zionism to be as long as it started as settlers of others Homeland? Is there any other route of a settler colonial ideology and regime? If fact, Zionism is worse, it pretends that it is a secular ideology, but at the same time it stems from the big Jewish myth that God promised Jews the land of Palestine. Any politician or writer who did not negate Zionism’s false secularism since its project stems from a religious myth, is in fact colluding with it[7].

The same is for the Palestinian Azmi Bishara, who said about Zionism that, I was accustomed to look at it as colonial movement by itself or essentially, but through my readings of Zionist literature I am sure that it is more complex than that. It looks at itself as renaissance movement, liberation movement, Because of that it was in a tension situation between its image about itself and its practices[8].  That is why it is not strange that Bishara enter the Zionist parliament and lately ended in Qatar the clientele Emirate which plays the same role of the ZAR against Arab Homeland especially against Syria. In fact, there is today a large Arab and Palestinian Zionist current follows the racist Borochov.

I wonder, why Terner (1981) failed to call Borochov’s analysis a racist colonial one, considering that it has no relation to any form of socialism. The polite position of Turner also blocked him from naming Hegel’s position towards what he calls “Nations without history” a racist position and Borochov refuge to cover himself by the racist position of the big, but racist, thinker!

I will not argue here in support of the fact that the Palestinians were a part of Arab nation which has deep history, identity and culture. It is well known now. Many studies prove that Palestine – when Borochov from the Zionist Jewish left, and Herzl from the Zionist right Jews wrote their lies that Palestine was nearly empty and desert, to gain support of as much as possible of imperialism and to lure Jews to settle in Palestine – had rich agricultural products and manufacturing a lot of commodities. Palestine had trade exchange with Europe and Egypt[9].

Any ways, the result of manufacturing a “socialist Israel” in Palestine – which is the crime of Western, Orientalists, Stalinists, and Trotskyites…etc – is a very clear one. The crime and racism of the western socialists was never less than that of Western bourgeois.

In fact, the non-socialist Herzl was much more open, frank and obvious in his racism than the “socialists” Borochov and others when he put it bluntly: “The Jewish state will be a barrier between Eastern Barbarism and civilized Europe”.

From our understanding of this state, it is not only a watch-dog for imperialists interests in Arab Homeland, it is a state of agents from top to bottom. It is commanded by imperialism to play a certain role against any form of progress in the region. This is a dangerous terrorist role.

Althusser wasn’t better than Turner in terms of heading directly to the right position.

“Althusser argues for the rejection of Marx – Engels’ journalism writings on colonialism as mere transitional analysis which was, after a short time, replaced by scientific analysis in mature Marx[10].

According to Turner, Shlomo Aviniri follows Hegel’s writings. Of course, Aviniri will never find better racist support than that of a great philosopher likes Hegel.

Turner wrote:

“Hegel in history of Eastern state is in general historical because he is a mere repetition of the huge destruction[11]” Hegel squeezes history in the borders of European modernization or in Europe’s history. He starts from and ends in Europe.

What is really strange is what Bukharin wrote that” imperialism is necessary because it is agitator of history”.  This is provocative enough. It is similar to the writings of many in recent decades who support globalism! The catastrophic result of imperialism and globalism all over the world is more than clear. It is important to note, just for comparison that Hobson, the liberal, warned us of imperialism in 1895, i.e. twenty one years before Bukharin.

Turner quotes Aviniri:

“Opportunities for the re-shaping the structure of Asiatic Societies, it’s total integration inside bourgeois society and finally later in the socialist is increasing. This related to as much as possible of direct European domination over those societies”[12]

Turner continued:

“ Aviniri integrates between Borochov’s geographic solution of the Jewish Question and Hegel’s perspective on the history’s process, for the sake of diagnosing the Israeli society and Zionist socialism. The tragedy of Arab/Israeli confrontation lies in the fact that it represents a conflict between two national social movements where Jewish nationalism alone is radical and progressive. The Jewish national movement built on political struggle for self-determination and social revolution for Jewish society, while Arab nationalist movement is nearly political, and did not conduct social Arab revolution until now[13].

Avinire, did not even try to hide behind the dirty lie, “Positive Colonialism”. He never dealt with the fact that ZAR is a settler colonial white one! He wrote about ZAR as if it is a state in Palestine that existed since the beginning of life on earth. What a sneaky mind and psychology?


Second: The Islamic State for Iraq and Syria


A complete century separates the creation of the first terrorist Orientalist state ZAR and the second ISIS. As I noted above, the gravel holder of both states is the imperialist center, while the sources of their human ammunition are different.

As for al-Qaida/al-Nusrah/ ISIS its creation is a form of division of labor between Saudi Arabia and imperialism in their joint project designed to terminate Arab liberation, development and unity movement. The same project is joint between imperialism and the ZAR. In fact, all those gravel holders of ZAR and ISIS terrorist Orientalist states are themselves terrorist regimes but different in terms of degree. The goal of all is the same, the disintegration of Arab Homeland.

To begin with, I refer to Sindi’s important article on the roots of Wahhabi ideology as an ideology that believes in the sword. Until the defeat of Arab liberation movement in 1967 represented by secular regimes of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Algiers on the one hand, and the first oil shock prices 1973 on the other, Saudi Arabia as the center of all forces of both, Regimes and Forces of Politicized Religion (RFPR) was in defense in its war against Arab liberation, development and unity movement.

What put Regimes and Forces of Politicized Religion RFPR in a critical situation is the victory of revolution in North Yemen (1963) and Egypt’s role in that including the mobilization of thousands of its army to that country to fight the Saudi aggression against Yemen. In that situation, the nationalist Egyptian regime became very close to oil fields. From a nationalist point view, oil is a national not a Qutri wealth. But for the Saudi’s, it is a family property[14], this in addition to the fact that guerrilla fighters reached the edge of victory over British colonialism in South Yemen. All those factors cemented the CR alliance to defeat Arab liberation movement as fast as possible. This crystallized by the cry of Saudi King Faisal to US President Johnson to defeat Nasser which took place in 1967 in the so-called Six Days War between Arabs and ZAR which in fact between Arabs and the CR camp.

Following 1967 defeat and first oil shock in 1973, Saudi Arabia got rid of its Arabic enemy Naserism and Baa’htism on the one hand and acquired a huge money liquidity which was devoted to terminate Arab nationalism on the other and to spread Wahhabi and Moslem Brothers (MB) ideology to fill the gap lost behind the defeated Arab liberation movement with its nationalist and communist forces.

As for US imperialism, oil shocks and sky rocketing oil prices became a challenge in terms of finding channels to re-stealing the accumulated money liquidity from the hands of Gulf regimes especially Saudi Arabia.

Two means were invented:

First, The US plan was to persuade Saudi rulers that it is to their advantage to build a large net of high ways, roads, new buildings, and bridges…etc. Saudi regime accepted US suggestion/plan[15] which meant that oil rent surplus has to be transferred to US banks to cover the cost US companies of conducting the huge project[16].

Second, which is more interesting to this article is the so-called Jihad against communism which followed the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan based on the demand of the socialist regime there.

The US found that it as a golden opportunity to launch war of attrition against the USSR who was already suffering economic problems. The top political advisor of US national security 1978 Zbigniew Brzezinski who insisted on the creation and support al-Mujahidin expected that the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan will lead to its collapse. Many fall into exaggeration to consider his expectation as a prophecy! In fact, it is logical to expect that taking into consideration two factors:

  • The economic hardships of the USSR after the two Oil shocks (1973 and 1985) and the role of Saudi Arabia to serve US wars against USSR through bringing oil prices down as it is doing it again now.
  • The US colonial experience of suffering heavy loses especially its brutal war against Vietnam.

The joint US Saudi coalition against Afghani new regime wasn’t a secret or not expected. A most obvious evidence is the creation of al-Qaida. The importance of that never came from the hesitation of the United States to repeat its bitter lesson in Vietnam, or from the available huge Saudi financial resources. The importance came, in fact, from the available source of youths educated by Wahhabism from Saudi and many Arab and Islamic countries especially after the defeat of Arab liberation movement. Those young people were ready to fight the Kuffar (infidels) the Soviets as communists and Christians in Diar al-Islam. The imperialist weapons and the Saudi money have no value in the absence of human factor. This human factor has been educated and fed by the Saudi regime since 1973 in all Arab and Islamic countries under the cover of charity, Daa’wah, building mosques and publishing extreme books with huge quantities. Later, after the defeat of USSR in Afghanistan, Mujahidin became a regular army whose profession is war which means that they shouldn’t return to Saudi Arabia, i.e. new role must be created for them.

Many thought that the CR created a new devil after the collapse of communism which is Islam. This generalization is baseless. In fact, the alliance between imperialism and RFPR has been strengthened and what I call it the imperialist swallowing of Islam to reproduce it in terrorist Orientalism, but even in different forms, American, Turkish, Zionist, ISIS…etc, but all of them are in the hands of imperialism and benefiting ZAR. The real war of CR was against Arab Homeland especially Iraq and later Libya and Syria as we see at present. Islam was used to hide the real goal of imperialism which is to terminate any progressive aspect in the region. After the defeat and collapse of USSR, the CR designed two forms of wars:

First, re-orient the idle surplus Mujahidin armies to use Wahhabi version of Islam, to fight other Moslem sects inside Arab Homeland.

Second: built an alliance with Moslem Brothers (MB) to inherit as much as possible of Arab regimes using Islam as well.


How was al-Qaida, the Mother of ISIS, created?


By 1978, the two surpluses we referred to in previous pages became available and ready for use:

  • Rent surplus to be spent for terror according to imperialist plans,
  • And human Wahhabi educated surplus as a labor power, not to produce but to kill and be killed.

The availability of the two surpluses, the readiness of Saudi regime to give the US imperialism all what it ask for, encouraged the French former head of intelligence services[17] to introduce a study to build a terrorist army to fight USSR in Afghanistan.

“…The French spy prepares every thing. The French agency will provide the technical support, equipments and experience, while al-Maghreb (Morocco), and Egypt will provide weapons. Saudi Arabia will provide money. The director of French Intelligence Agency asked Shah of Iran to join- the escape of Shah early 1979 from Tehran uncovered the activities of the club leaving behind him the documents[18]. In March 1977, Moroccan soldiers were trained and armed by Saudi’s to counter Cuban/Angolan forces when they were preparing to topple Muboto Sisi Seco in Zaier, and the Saudi bribed the Somali president Mohamed Siad Bari to distance himself from USSR by providing him with Egyptian weapons at the cost of $75 million (paid by Saudi Arabia). The Saudi money enables Chad and Sudan to distance them relatively from Mua’amar Ghaddifi[19].

In this environment the US/Saudi invasion against Afghanistan started through Mujahidin. In February 1980, Carter approved a secret program put in execution based on a secret agreement between US and Saudi Arabia where each part pay half of its costs to support the Afghani Mujahedeen and to drag the Soviet Union to its own Vietnam. The two states agree that each one of them will pay more than $ 3 billion according to Rachel Bronson who is considered a reference in US/Saudi relationship. Their agreement was a cooperation change of the world[20]. The writer continues that the US did not pay its committed share! i.e. the Saudis paid the whole amount.

In fact, there was an internal factor that pushed the Saudis to get rid of the surplus Wasabi’s. It is the control of Al-Haram in Mecca by Juhaiman al-Ottaibi the real and direct disciple of Salafism. The Saudi regime wanted Salafism to engage in fight but far from its borders, this did not satisfy Juhaiman and his radical circle. The regime avoids confrontion with the Salafi establishment which is his partner in controlling the country. That is why the regime found war against the communists the best exit to get rid of the two surpluses, money and labor power!

But, the Soviet Union was never a direct enemy to the Saudi regime; it is the enemy of the Saudis’ master, i.e. imperialism. Saudi’s real enemy is Arab nationalist regimes. The Saudis found Sadam Hussein’s liberation of Kuwait 1990 a golden opportunity to let the ice ball of terror expand. The Saudi regime and most ArabQutri rulers supported and participated with US and all CR’s war 1991 against Iraq and the fierce siege against it until its occupation 2003[21]. The result is that Iraq became – like Egypt of Camp David compromise for ZAR – out of Arab progressive camp as forces that defended Arab Homeland against CR.  What remains is Syria.

Later, the US occupied Iraq in 2003. With that occupation the beginning of building the second terrorist state(s) in the Arab Mashriq started. The question is never: will the US create a terrorist state(s) and maintain them as the case of ZAR, or if it is a transitional step to be used for certain services. This is an open issue. It is important to explain that ZAR is totally foreign and that is why the ruler and the ruled are imperialism’s agents. The Arab case is different, the ruler and many elite are agents, but the masses are not. That is why, the goal was, still is and will continue for as long as CR is targeting Arab Homeland until its final destruction. CR is ready to use any agent itself swallow and produces or if he is already there and offers its service. The last, but obvious evidence on this analysis is that the US sacrifices Bin Ali of Tunisia and Mubarak of Egypt for the MB’s. When Egyptian masses flood to Mayadeen square against MB regime, the US turns its back to them and dealt with the current Egyptian president Sisi. But the US continues to support terrorists in Egyptian Sinai and in January 2015 welcomed the leadership of Egyptian MB in a challenge to Sisi.

There is no change in the goal of CR to destroy Arab Homeland. Soon after the occupation of Iraq, the first step was the meeting between president Bashar al-Asad and the US foreign minister Colin Powell who set US conditions to subjugate Syria to US policy in the region especially the recognition of ZAR, this despite the fact that Syrian regime supported the US aggression against Iraq 1991 and did not support Iraq 2003 in front of US occupation, Al-Asad rejected US condition and ended the meeting.


Arab Spring of Terror?


Many still call it Arab Spring. I wrote my book[22] in early 2011 that it is a mere beginning of revolution, but the CR jumped on its neck and subjugated it. It was possible for the CR to do that because it is well entrenched inside Arab society on the one hand, and this Arab Intifadas lacked a strong leading revolutionary party/s and clear revolutionary class theory. It is understandable why it lost the battle as long as the goal was vague.

The NATO destruction of Libya and recruiting of terrorists from 83 states to destroy Syria and inject a new form of state “Terrorist Orientalist” ISIS state is typical to injecting the settler ZAR in Palestine through recruiting settlers from more than hundred nations to Palestine. Those settlers of both terrorist states are trained, armed, fed, and financed by the same alliance of terrorists: ZAR,US, EU and Arab renter regimes.

The cost of weapons, salaries, training, logistic facilities, cars, tanks, artillery…etc to ISIS is not easy to be acquired by guerilla fighters who are naturally poor disinherited. And if all those are available, it is impossible for the persons and/or equipments to reach Syria or Iraq without facilities and open borders from Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and ZAR. All those facilities, access and conditions were easily available for ISIS as the first guerilla group moving from one continent to another by air planes! The main difference between the mother al-Qaida and ISIS the daughter is that:

  • Al-Qaida is a mobile terrorist organization, but ISIS as a branch of al-Qaida is trying to build a state for itself on a fixed space (land).
  • While a-Qaida depends financially on the CR regimes, ISIS is trying in addition to that to have its own fixed resources.

ISIS tactics and goal is similar to that of ZAR.

This difference explains why al-Qaida lasted that long, but ISIS might be used for a shorter period.

This is the main reason that the leadership of terror is building a new coalition to replace ISIS after it served its mission and tried to work for its own. This will be the fate of ZAR when its job and role finished.

Kurdistan Iraq, Turkey and western oil companies are facilitating for ISIS to sell the stolen Syrian and Iraqi crude oil, part of it bought by ZAR. All regimes who support ISIS were and still are supporting ZAR.

Again, the question is: Will imperialism keep ISIS for a long time like ZAR or will kill it for another form of clientele state(s)?  Will imperialism allow ISIS or any similar agent to terminate Saudi regime and even all Gulf regimes?

But, these questions or any similar are not the main issue.

The main issue for imperialism (the CR) is to keep destroying Arab Homeland by any means or agents, and stay open for any scenario to find out what is its best.

Many reports noted that the leadership of al-Qaida and ISIS were in US prisons in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib…etc. When ISIS occupied al-Mosel in Iraq June 2014, a lot of the forces were Sunni from the dismantled Iraqi army and the renegade Baa’thist leaders. Some of the Moslem Brothers leadership have a direct relationship with United States and support ISIS against Syria. Turkey’s assistance, training, opens borders and airports were provided to all terrorist organizations in Syria including ISIS. On several occasions many leaders of Syrian armed “opposition “uncovered their relationship with ZAR. The last is the direct ZAR assistance to Jabhit al-Nussra “Al-Qaida branch in Syria”, which occupies the border lines between Syria and its occupied part by ZAR in Golan Heights.

All those facts tell us that those different forms of armed organizations have been built by three partners, the CR, ZAR, and local renegades, and did not simultaneously fall from the sky. Due to this estimation, it is acceptable that this form of Islam has been swallowed by the West and reproduced and exported to here led by a leadership with two faces:

  • A beard and black traditional clothes reading Qur’an.
  • And western hats on heads thinking and acting according to plans and commands from western politicians, intelligence and military experts’ plans.

That is why, it is reasonable to consider them Terrorist Orientalism driven to build a state of their own serving the interests of imperialism and the Saudi/Qatari goal against Arab nationalism and finally benefiting ZAR. But for sure, the terrorist CR will never let them work for themselves as long as they are usable, the lord will will keep them. Imperialism will not strengthen them to occupy the Gulf, but to destroy Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Egypt…etc, i.e. Arab Homeland.


What remains is the hard question: How can we face and defeat both?


[1] This embellish never ended with people like Borochov. When I finished my Master dissertation 1986, I gave a copy to the leftist Zed Books publishing house for publishing. After month they sent me reply that it is publishable, but they have one condition which is to turn Chapter 5 up-side down, i.e. to show that the Israeli and Palestinian proletariat are struggling jointly! Which is not real at all, I refuse. I kept the reply, but when I felt my life in danger because I stand against those who assassinated Naji el-Ali, I decide to stop my study and return to the occupied Palestine. I gave my documents to Irish comrade Topy Shelly, and later he sent them with the Israeli advocate Lia Tsemel, a lot of the papers lost including Zed letter.


[2] Borochov Ber, Nationalism, and the Class Struggle: a Marxian Approach to the Jewish Problem (New York, 1937).


[3] Turner, 1981, ibid, p. 11.


[4] The Other Israel, The radical Case Against Zionism , ed by, Arie Bober, Anchor Books, 1972, p. 145.


[5] Turner, 1981, ibid, p. 11.


[6] See, The DV Poetry Page Rejoinder to Criticism of Chomsky: Asset or Liability?by Jeremy R. Hammond / July 24th, 2010


[7] See Adel Samara’s article, IT IS NOT IF CHOMSKY IS DIFFERENT FROM ROTCHIELD OR MERDOUCH?  IT IS ARAB INFERIOR INTELLECTUALS,in   Kana’an – The e-Bulletin, Volume XV – Issue 372113 January 2015.


[8] Azmi Bishara Interviewed by Larry Dervner, in Jerusalem Post, (Ya Allah… Prime Minister, 29 February, 1997. Quated by Adel Samara, Bi-National State, Cultural Autonomy and State for All its Citizens are Zionist Projects, in Kanaan Quarterly no 85, p.p.  33-50.


[9] See, Scholtz Alexander, 1982, The Economic Development in Palestine, Journal of Palestine Studies, no 10 (3) p.p. 35-58.


[10] Turner, ibid, p. 13.


[11] Hegel 1956, p. 106”. See Ronald Munk, The Difficult Dialogue: Marxism and Nationalism, Zed Books, 1986, p. 22.


[12] Aviniri, Shlomo, (ed), Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization (New York, Garden Ciy, Doubleday, 1968, p. 18) quoted in Turner, opcit, p. 38.


[13] Aviniri, Shlomo, “The Palestinians and Israel” Commentary, vol, 49 (1970) pp. 34. Quoted in Turner, opcit, p. 38.


[14] BUT, the imperialists argue differently: “How come that our oil inside their land”!


[15] See John Perkins, Confession of an Hit-Man, New York: Plume (Penguin Group), 2006, Ch 16, in Arabic translation, by Bassam Abu Ghazaleh,


[16] Ibid.

[17] Robert Lacy, The Kingdom from Inside, translated by Khalid bin Abdulrahman al-A’wad, al-Masar center for Research, Dubai, 2011, p.p. 110.


[18] This reminds us of the Bolshevik revolution which uncover Sykes-Picot secret documents between Britain, France and Russia to fragment Arab Homeland and create the ZAR.


[19] Robert Lacy, The Kingdom from Inside, translated by Khalid bin Abdulrahman al-A’wad, al-Masar center for Research, Dubai, 2011, p.p. 110.


[20]  Robert Lacy, The Kingdom from Inside, translated by Khalid bin Abdulrahman al-A’wad, al-Masar center for Research, Dubai, 2011, p.111.


[21] United Nations, imperialism and most of Arab rulers’ hypocrisy justify their invasion against Iraq as a punishment to Iraq because of its “occupation” of Kuwait as UN member. But the historical fact is that Kuwait is part of Iraq country. The same UN neither punished the United States for occupying Iraq 2003, nor punished ZAR for evicting Palestinian people since 1948.

[22] Adel Samara, (Thawrah Mudadah, Irhasat or Revolution). Counter Revolution, Premises, or Revolution, Dar Fada’at Amman, 2012.