The Zionist Ashkenazi Regime (ZAR) is simply a white settler colonial capitalist entity transplanted in Palestine by mere brutal force. It is a settler invasion to Palestine encouraged, gathered from hundred nations, armed, and financed till now by western imperialisms, even all the west on the one hand, and Arab reactionary, clientele comprador regimes on the other. In comparison with other white settler colonial regimes, ZAR is the product of all counter-revolution (CR) camp. While each white capitalist settler colonial regime supported is by this state or that as its metropolitan, the world capitalist system, even the CR is the ZAR metropolitan.
This huge support for ZAR confirms that the formal cohesion of the settlers by religion is a big lie based on a very reactionary racism. Take as an example, the US protest (30th of February 2018) against the UN Security Council decided to discuss the ZAR massacre against Palestinians in Gaza on a Jewish holiday! Any support and recognition of this entity based on or justified by intensified Nazi Holocaust is fake; lie and racist white western attitude which decides to impose a prolonged Holocaust against the Palestinian people. Targeting the Arab Homeland by capitalism started since the Mercantilism era and continued through colonialism, imperialism and globalism.
Accordingly, Holocaust in 1930s which used as a cover to the western capitalist interests in our Homeland came too late, nearly three centuries, behind the western capitalism’s targeting Arab Homeland.
Religious justification of Jewish ZAR in Palestine based on a pretend that it is an extension of so-called Jewish “nation” called Israel since 3000 years has no historical and scientific support and is based on religious myth. This negates the unbelievable western hypocrisy which pretends modernism, secularism, liberalism while it supports a settler colonial entity based on religious myth!
The Zionist settlers brought by British colonialism to Palestine, without the existence and role of the British enemy the Zionists would have been able to visit Palestine. The native Jews in Palestine were very tiny minority. Accordingly, any recognition of the Zionists settlers in Palestine based on the religious myth is a reactionary baseless position. This form of recognition uncovers a terrible and shameful fact that the modern west is occupied and ridden by religious myth, or in fact the religious myth has been used as a camouflage for capitalist interests.
The final version and details of Trump’s deal is not clear yet. There are several formulas, which, if not identical, confirm the existence of the deal on the one hand and the multiplicity of its scenarios on the other and that it is liquidation of the homeland and of the Palestinian people as well. The counter-revolution (CR) termination of Palestine ends as replacement of the Jewish Diaspora by a Palestinian one. The difference is that we Palestinians never deserve that fate if Jews relatively or absolutely deserve it.
Until this moment, the Arab rulers did not utter a word from those who dictated to them the deal of the century, whether summarized or detailed to those Arab rulers who participated in the processing. But a summary of what Trump and/or AIPAC said is adequate and confirms the descriptive plan:
“… The only place for the establishment of a Palestinian state is half the Sinai, an area of 30 thousand square kilometers and can be expanded to absorb 25 million people, and the number of Palestinians is all 9 million.
“We will ask Egypt to open the border between Gaza and Sinai, and we will raise 800 billion dollars from the world to build and set up living sites there. Most of these funds will be paid to the Gulf countries and some other countries of the world.
America will not pay a dollar, and in Sinai the state of Palestine will be established, and so the problem will be solved definitively. The Jewish state in Israel and the Palestinian state in Sinai
This is in short what we called the Century Deal and we will work hard with our partners to implement the project as soon as possible. “
The label itself “deal” uncover the mind behind it. The mind of a trader and not a productive mind, the mind of the American ruler who came to power in the crisis stage of monopoly capitalism oriented to speculations instead of production. The mind of a billionaire who treats humans as merchandise especially when it finds dependent rulers in Arab countries who are imposed by imperialism over their own people.
But, to think a bit about the roots of the deal there is no need to go back to the words of Zionist godfathers Herzl, Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion … but to mention two main Zionist goals:
First: To steal all of Palestine as a first stage.
Second: The completion of the Zionist pre-fabrication of a biblical garment requires an occupation of Arab land from Nile to the Euphrates.
While the fact of Zionist project is that it is a tool of the interests of Western capitalism in the Arab Homeland, this means that the entire Zionist structure in Palestine is a slave in the service of imperialism’s colonial aggressive interests, while in the Arab Homeland acceptance of being slaves is confined to the subordinate comprador rulers. That is why imperialism aims to destroy Arabs social fabric as it is taking place currently.
Perhaps the Saudi plan for the city of “Neum” and the project of Trump expulsion of Palestinians to Sinai, and the Egyptian regime’s donating to Saudi Arabia the islands of Tiran and Sanafir, are a contribution to Deal of the Century.
But, to think a bit about the roots of the deal, we shouldn’t limit the analysis to the foreign enemies i.e. CR whose goal is well known and declared in a blunt manner. It is necessary to follow the Arab and Palestinian introductions, role and facility of the Deal of the Century, albeit if those introductions were prepared deliberately or by mistake .
The PLO early discovery of its disability:
The Palestinian struggle for liberation and return was not absent before the defeat of 1967 which as a catastrophic event increased the momentum of the national struggle. Although the rise of the Palestinian armed struggle has raised the share of the PLO to a large extent in the Arab world, unfortunately this struggle was born at a critical moment, i.e. at the time of defeat of Arab national movement as its national framework.
The defeat of the national framework resulted in manifestation of the departure of the most official Arab regimes from the arena of struggle for the liberation of Palestine, and even the involvement of Arab regimes in the surrender and recognition of the Zionist entity, i.e., the alignment against the Palestinian Arab people. The current news about CD is a confirmation that a lot of Arab rulers are zionized.
PLO leaders realized this bitter truth, as they realized that by the PLO usual structure it was incapable of liberating Palestine. Based on that understanding of the weakness of Arab regimes and PLO itself, it sent the signals of compromise settlement, collusion  and accepted the signs of settlement presented by Arabs and non-Arabs. Why it is a compromise? Because all of those forms of peace settlements, plans, initiatives…etc were based on the recognition of the ZAR
Although the October War (1973) was not a victory for the Zionist entity, and was half a victory for the Syrian and Egyptian armies, which could have been built on it, but the leadership of the PLO resolved to compromise, which is shown in the slogan of what they called “the National Authority on every liberated inch” of the Palestinian land as an alternative to what it called for before that the one state solution, the democratic state in all of Palestine after liberation The one state solution has been raised since the 1930s. In fact, all those who adopted this solution until today never conditioned it with the defeat of the ZAR, i.e. the liberation of Palestine. It is the lie that is being spoken today by the treacherous groups. Perhaps the deal of the century is the answer to the collusion of these that offers the Palestinians the Sinai desert! And that one state is a state for all its settlers.
As for the sneaky slogan, the “National Authority” of course, it is known that any liberated inch will be ruled by a national authority. What is the meaning of this slogan before liberation? What is proven by the course of events is that this slogan was intended to go to a settlement, not to liberation, that is, the surrender of the inability to liberate and early evade the building on the results of the war of October 1973 as a beginning of Arab victories. In fact, PLO leadership was in harmony with the orientations of the Egyptian regime in the Sadat era, which is the surrender to the Zionist entity.
Rabat Conference 1974
The question arises: Is there a relationship between the consensus of the Arab rulers and the leadership of the PLO at the Rabat conference that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and the conviction that the liberation is no longer on the table and therefore the acceptance of Palestinian authority over parts of the occupied territory 1967, and negotiations as well.
In fact, the promotion of the issue of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was successful at the time, because the real position of PLO leadership wasn’t declared that it is ready to recognize ZAR on the occupied Palestine of 1948. PLO was encouraged to compromise because it’s reading of October War 1973 as maneuver war. PLO leadership did not read the role and contribution of Syrian and Egyptian armies in that war.
What is important in this context is that the Rabat conference, which considered the PLO the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, was the beginning of Jordan’s disengagement with the West Bank, where the competition between Jordan and the PLO was to represent the Palestinian people.
The struggle for the liberation of Palestine is not to be separated from sovereignty over land in the sense of the United Nations, regardless of our confidence in the United Nations and its resolutions. In other words, the division of what should have happened is:
- The Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank and Egypt sovereignty over Gaza should remain until liberation.
- This includes Jordan’s duty to contribute to the liberation of the West Bank, and not to exempt itself from the duty of liberation.
The Palestinian struggle should remain away from any political deal that would give it formal authority under Zionist occupation. In other words, the West Bank without both liberation and sovereignty made it a stateless  area which encouraged ZAR to impose its authority. After liberation, the issue of sovereignty will be solved between Palestinians and Jordan. Unfortunately, PLO leadership did not consider the importance of this fact.
But it seems that everyone has fallen into the grip of an Arab-Zionist imperialist plan since PLO adopted the slogan of “Palestinian Authority” over the West Bank and Gaza which was declared in 1973.
Thus, the Rabat conference was an introduction to plans, proposals, initiatives… etc., all of which are based on one decision:
The Zionist entity is indisputable and not against it. Any talk about a solution must begin after the implicit or public recognition of the “legitimacy” of the Zionist entity. And that this “legitimacy” is based on:
- A trivial declaration that Jews were in Palestine, and that God promised them,
- And a practical Western support of this settlement.
By the way, many Palestinians following the Rabat conference called the West Bank “East of Palestine” in a separation from Jordan in the sense of Qutri /regional friction without taking into account the issue of sovereignty and that the United Nations recognizes sovereign states only.
Was the secret of the Rabat conference is to terminate the Palestinian cause especially through Moroccan King Hassan II, who spoke before others about combining the Jewish mind and Arab money? Recently, a lot of documents proved that he had provided a room for the Mossad intelligence services adjacent to the Arab summits ?
Intifada … No State
The first intifada at the end of 1987 was not a planned development, regardless of the claims of many Palestinian organizations and leaders. Despite the importance and history of the event as a spontaneous popular uprising, the leadership of the PLO invested it in a bad way, as it tried to generate a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from this Intifada, i.e. in contradiction and neglect of liberation and return. That is why PLO did not invest in a cultural and development Intifada as part of long struggle.
I wrote that this intifada will not reach a state in my book, “Development in Popular Protection” early 1988, there were of course controversial and critical of my position. Thus, the use of the Intifada to generate a state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through the political process, ended with the Oslo Accord (September 1993).
Declaration of Independence
In a continuation process of politically exploitation of Intifada based on Rabat conference, the Algiers Conference of the PLO in 1988, proclaimed “Palestinian independence”, which was a festival without a real land, while it’s real meaning is recognition of ZAR.
It was a political maneuver for a hypothetical state. I think it was a “trap” that prepared the ground for Oslo Accords, which gave up three quarters of Palestine and did not guarantee Palestinian sovereignty on the last quarter. Namely, that Palestine has been a state for all its settlers since 5 June 1967 occupation
Jordanian Decision to Disengage
Jordanian King Hussein took the decision in 1988 to disengage from the West Bank which resulted in terminating the West Bank’s administrative and legal ties with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, where this association was known as the unity of the two banks of Jordan river.The Jordanian king’s decision came at the request of Yasser Arafat, the PLO chairman.
King Hussein announced the decision of the Jordanian disengagement in the West Bank and kept the Jordanian guardianship over the holy sites, and thus he was more reconciled with the decisions of the Rabat conference.
This was a source of delight for Palestinian Qutries, especially the PLO. It was felt that Palestinian independence was primarily about Jordan and not the liberation of Palestine. This, incidentally, is in addition to the term “Palestinian Authority”, which is one of the roots of PLOs stances, not liberation and independence.
The question is: Was King Hussein aware of the Zionist-American plan? Or did he decide to do so under pressure from the PLO leadership, the Arab regimes and a Jordanian Qutri stream? Was he deceived by this or that, and did he agree knowingly about this or that?
I remember that I, perhaps, was the only one who wrote that the decision to disengage is not in the interest of the Palestinians, not in the interest of Palestine, and that the problem is not with Jordan but with ZAR, and that Palestinian-Jordanian unity is a national issue and that even if we liberate Palestine our first unity will be with Jordan as a step towards Arab Unity. I wrote this in Al-Nahar newspaper, which was then published in Jerusalem.
I did not, of course, speculate about what was coming, but it was my opinion that we were not regional or Qutri , and the Jordanian step will leave the West Bank (WB) without sovereignty.
I was an UNRWA employee in 1992 as an economic adviser but with a special service contract and not as a permanent employee. Because of my job, I was invited to a weekly meeting of senior UNRWA staff in Jerusalem. At one of those meetings, a member of the US consulate in Jerusalem, Jim, presented a film about Zionist settlement expansion in the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip. Then a Palestinian woman asked him, “Is not this settlement illegal because the land is Palestinian?” He replied almost as follows: “My government believes that there is no sovereignty over any state on these lands,” of course, after the Jordanian disengagement. What the current US ambassador repeats the same position.
Strengthening Arab Existence in the Face of Jewish Settlement
Living in the occupied territories under occupation, and following Zionist policies towards the land specifically, especially settlement building, I have reached the need to focus on the Palestinian issue of land and the limitation of settlement and resistance.
I did not mean, before or after, to participate in the political chatter against settlement, but the practical work on the ground. In 1978, I finished a book entitled “The Economics of Hunger in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” I was unable to publish it because on November 22, 1978, I was arrested and jailed by the Zionist occupation for six months on an old organizational membership, and published it after I released prison in 1979. The book included proposals for development and other issues, especially a specific proposal entitled “The concentration of Arab existence in the face of Jewish colonial settlements”, pp. 224-227. The idea can be briefly summarized as follows:
As long as the enemy is planting settlements in the 1967 occupied territories, which confirms that it will continue this policy, I think that what is required from the Palestinians is to face this in advance and among what must be done, to choose various mountain tops on which the enemy is expected to establish outposts and build on them small villages for about twenty families, for example and supply them with water and electricity “diesel generators” especially because there is a shortage of housing in the West Bank.
This was possible based on two factors:
First: Because the enemy did not, until then, ban the expansion of village in the West Bank, but later and even after Oslo Accords, ZAR prohibited any expansion of villages.
Second: The joint Jordanian-Palestinian committee, which allocated what was called “the money of steadfastness”, was paying “non-refundable” loans to build suburbs for cities. It was my opinion that these suburbs do not hurt the enemy, in addition to the benefit of the petty bourgeoisie and above, because those who can buy dunam or half dunam in the city are not popular classes and therefore do not need support.
Later, I sent a copy of this proposal to Lebanon to the late Abu Jihad who was in charge of WBG affairs in PLO.
I also wrote a summary of the subject in the magazine al-Shira, which was then published in Jerusalem and was closed later by the occupation, but no one did anything.
Wiping the Green Line by Building City Settlements
The enemy’s policies were not limited to building settlements and economic annexation, but continue to build settlement cities above the Green Line, that is, the 1948 borders that separated the occupied 1948 and the rest of Palestine. The aim of these cities was to omit the border line that was created after the occupation of 1948, by building Jewish city settlements, Ariel in the northern West Bank, Ma’aleh Adumim in East Jerusalem, Gilo near Bethlehem, Modi’in east of Lod, Ramleh…etc.
I wrote about this subject in the early eighties in the magazine of the al-Ahd , which was published in occupied Jerusalem, pointing out that the wiping of the Green Line meant the annexation of the rest of Palestine to the Zionist entity.
In addition to that, the industrialized Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip also swallowed up the Palestinian economy whose market was totally open for Jewish goods, considering that Jewish settlements are producing more than the West Bank and Gaza Strip, especially developed goods, and can flood the local market and undermine the fragile production structure in the 1967 occupied territories or subcontract them. Moreover, while the WBG markets were opened for the ZAR products, the WBG products subjected to strict control by the enemy to the extent that they were totally prohibited.
Urban Boom is Questionable?
Prior to the Oslo Accords, the enemy’s focus was on undermining the productive infrastructure in the 1967 occupied territories, and encouraging the employment of Palestinian workers within the economy of ZAR, which contributed to the termination of the productive structure and the economy of these areas. Although the occupation authorities did not prevent the construction in the urban areas of the West Bank, in particular, and Gaza, of course, but these areas did not see a physical expansion before the Oslo Accords, where there has been a big boom and has not stopped.
I have written in the magazine Kana’an several times that I fear that many of these buildings in the projects are subcontracting with Jews. I am still afraid that the projects carried out by Palestinian comprador and companies from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are also in partnership with the Zionists!
After the Oslo Accords, a boom of construction took place in WBG cities, but tightening on buildings in villages became more and more strict which made prices of lands in both urban and rural areas fictitious due to the narrowness of the surveys of both cities and villages. If we link this with:
- Absence of any control of the PA over the rural areas
- No PA budget allocated for agricultural development
- PA expanding the bureaucratic apparatus of power so that it absorbs most of the rural labor force.
we find that many of these employees have traveled to the cities, especially Ramallah, where they found that buying an apartment is more economic than paying daily transportation to the city, or even pay the rent of a small home in the city, which has become very overcrowded.
This has, of course, resulted in more land abandonment in rural areas, where every university graduate has a goal of getting a job in the city and a few who get a job in a business or industrial project. I would call this as the first part of the trap.
The second part is that the Oslo Accords donated the PA financial support to finance its bureaucratic apparatus, which absorbed most of the labor force that were employed in ZAR economy and became employed in PA apparatuses, and some of the working force was employed by foreign institutions… etc. The result was that most of the workforce became dependent on jobs created by rental donations.
This means that if rents are stopped for political reasons, the employees would lose their income, which will lead them to accept anti -national political solutions. This became clear when Hamas won the elections for the second session of the self-governing “Legislative Council” which in fact have no right to legislate especially over land. Foreign support funds were suspended as a means of political pressure.
In any event, it turned out that the rent provided to the self-rule authority is a financial reward in return of passing a political project/compromise, i.e. the Oslo project, which, as we see, was unceasingly hit by a Zionist stand that would devour the rest of Palestine.
When State Replaces Liberation it Breeds Eternal Division
As mentioned above, PLO realization at least since 1973 that it is unable to liberate Palestine and coined the slogan of “National Authority” in 1993 and later falls into Oslo Accords which is not a real independent state, but a delegation of some authorities from ZAR for a Palestinian group which are not sovereignty over the land. Oslo Accords are from a practical point view a plan for ZAR to annex the West Bank gradually into one state in Palestine which is a state for its’ settlers.
Since the goal of establishing a state replaced liberation, the political competition for power became normal. Finally, in 2007 the competition developed into a fierce military conflict which resulted into separation between West Bank and Gaza.
Finally, since the Oslo Accords did not lead to the ZAR withdrawal from WBG, it means that ZAR is in the position to act in those occupied parts of Palestine in the same manner as it is the case in the other part of Palestine which was occupied in 1948, and it doesn’t matter if PLO meant that or not when it signed Oslo Accords. This failure, in fact, facilitates Tramp’s deal.
The terrible situation of “Arab Spring”, the acceleration of normalization of many Arab rulers with ZAR and the Palestinian internal conflicts encourage Tramp as the leader of CR to go fast for his Century Deal.
Back to Deal of the Century
Regardless of the deal’s success or failure, and because its’ goal is to recycle and transfer Palestinians from one place to another, despite of the fact that the Palestinian people are originally and historically a non-mobile, but agricultural people. The deal designers try a global escape from the fact that the Jews of the world should be sent back to their original places especially because they are accustomed to refuge and exile, and even contributed in created their own exile.
As pastoral, the Jews, agreed to transfer from place to another and accordingly they deserve to return to their property and homes in each state. There is no doubt that a hundred countries where the Jews were assembled from are more tolerant than a place that belongs to the Palestinian people who are, according to the deal, facing a new displacement now to the Sinai Peninsula with the consent of the new Khedive ruler of Egypt and gulf rulers.
Thus, the formula most likely to be applied or to pass is the “deal” of the historical switch between the Arabs of Palestine as agricultural people to replace Jews as an exiled people and to bear Jewish Diaspora who will be donated the Homeland of Palestinians!
It is well known in history that the Arab Canaanite existed in Palestine before all religions and therefore, religions are not entitled to impose their war and reconcile on the one hand and not to mention that their stories contradict history. This negates the lie of the religious conflict over Palestine. Most importantly, Palestinians are an agrarian people, stable and non-nomadic. It is one of the peoples that founded the village and hence the city, i.e. stability and the creation of a homeland as a homeland rather than as a “place”.
While the Jew is a later product, a product of religions, and roamed like a tribe of shepherds, which made their exile character. This means that applying this to Palestine proves that the Jews are accustomed and ready to be transferred from one place and another which is consistent with its nature.
The globalized crime against the Palestinian people that took place between 1860-1948 and was completed in 1967 can be summarized as follows:
- Transferring the Canaanite agriculture, i.e. The Palestinian from agriculture to grazing instead of the Jew who is a shepherd, not a farmer.
- The transfer of the Palestinian who is settled by agriculture to exile and to plant the exiled Jews into the Palestinian Homeland.
However, since the Jew is exile by nature, why does not he go to Sinai, where he finds the myth, the Lost Moses and to practice grazing there? Perhaps it is a trifling myth that the Jews in the Sinai lost for forty years as it is a continent!
The features of the century deal as a capitalist deal are based on the contract and the interests of the counter-revolution:
- US and the West
- The Zionist Arab dependent comprador capitalist regimes.
This will lead to the transfer of the Palestinians, their re-assembly in their non-homeland and their incursion into the desert between ZAR, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan so that they can’t resist. It is a primitive ruthless thinking, treating one of the oldest peoples on earth as if it were a herd. This is a criminal division of labor between CR as enemies of Palestinian people: The US and the entire West are planning, the Zionists enjoy and the Gulf oil pays.
The natural situation of the Jew, if the essence of the deal is not to return him to exile, is to be taken to the desert according to his pastoral heritage, from place to place, and to find his relationship with the desert of the al-Jazeerah al-Arabiah.
This proves the words of one of the Jews about the myth that: “Moses if he turned right he will go to the oil countries, and then let them go now. There in the desert the fraternity of triangle of the three religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam might take place, away from the land in which we are three millennia before all religions.
 I wrote in several places that there is a real and even concrete Arab role in creating and supporting the ZAR. Arab rulers in normalization are more than evidence.
 In 1969, the PLO leadership received a letter from US Department carried by Edward Said. To accept that letter from the main and leading enemy is collusion.
 In February 2018, the US ambassador in “Israel” said that the Jews have the right to settle in their land, he meant the West Bank.