into a materialistic by Arab Rulers, by Dr. Adel Samara
- The Zionist Entity is Politicized Religious, political, and secular, interchangeably according to the moment
The Arab viewer is exposed to a race between Arab analysts, whose discourse does not rise above the popular imagination of “the clever Hassan/an Arab myth.” This is manifested in many ways, but I will mention two, which may be the most dangerous:
The first: A race to copy texts, maps, plans, and conspiracies of the enemies to divide and then re-fragment the Arab geography. Knowing one map is more than enough. Yet, these analysts only stop at narration and lamentation, nothing more, nothing further.
The second: A race among these analysts to narrate Netanyahu’s bravados:
War on seven fronts,
Expansion into Mecca, Cairo, and Baghdad,
The David’s Passage,
Aggression against Yemen,
Annihilation of Gaza,
Swallowing of the West Bank,
The Iron Wall around the entity / Jabotinsky’s Wall,
I cannot offer a more eloquent or comprehensive narration than any of these. But what is important for me to say to the readers is: Beware of these scarecrows, as they stop at narration and lamentation. Their focus on narration is not due to ignorance—how much I wish it were due to ignorance! No, this focus ends up unintentionally contributing to the destructive psychological warfare against the Arab people, leaving them stuck in the internalization of two defeats: one against the local repression forces that serve both the rulers and the enemies, and the other against the inflated image of the Zionist Entity ZE, which is a suicidal mission/project in favor of its master its Western backers.
The fragmentation maps and the bravados of Netanyahu will never be as powerful as the ZE itself, ever. And this is the danger of these mourners and wailers because:
The ZE could not have existed without the presence of Western imperialist capitalism that created Zionism and inoculated the Jews with it to subjugate and plunder the Arab homeland, even to strip its resources. Any writing that does not start from the fact that the ZE exists here by the power of the West and not by its own self-driving force is a writing that serves the ZE and betrays Urobah, whether knowingly or ignorantly.
The ZE could not have protected itself without Western protection, its weapons, and the West fighting on its behalf. This has been clear since the floodgate day the 7th of October 2023, at least in the most recent case, where it was revealed to be a protected entity through imperialist aggression, rather than being a supposed base for imperialism.
The war waged by the ZE is a selective, demonstrative war that relies on advanced American fighter aircraft, possibly even piloted by Americans and other Westerners, and perhaps Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis, Moroccans, and other Arab tools. This confirms that these are not real fronts, because a front is a condition of direct engagement between two sides. Thus, Gaza and Yemen are fronts, while Lebanon, the West Bank, Syria, Iraq, and Iran are not fronts but pawns of the Zionist rook, which itself is a shadow of the imperialist rook—until one or another of them moves.
The ZE’s weapons are not only from the West; even its ammunition is imported, or sometimes donated, but this does not mean that it is not a producer and exporter of a lot of war materials.
In short, the ZE is not a giant, or in physical terms, not a magnet but rather magnetized by external influence. If cut off from the magnet, it loses its effect. It is true that it seeks self-reliance, which is natural, but reality and history contradict this.
Jabotinsky’s “iron wall” was hypothetically turned into a material one by Arab rulers.
The idea of establishing a Western entity for Jews in Palestine as part of the Arab East dates back to Martin Luther in the 16th century in Anglican Holland, which was then competing with Britain in transitioning to the capitalist mode of production. I will not trace this further to the present, but rather focus on the positions of two Zionist leaders: Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion.
Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky and Theodor Herzl spoke of an iron wall separating Eastern “barbarism” from Western “civilization.” Jabotinsky was a fierce rival of Ben-Gurion, but both launched from secular claims.
Here, I raise an objection regarding “secularism,” which does not reject religion but serves it whenever the ruling class finds it useful. Likewise, politicized religion is secular whenever the ruling class finds it beneficial to exploit it. The political currents within the ZE—whether religious-Zionist, political-secular-religious, or semi-leftist secular—are the ones that practice this most.
Since all those Zionists settle in Palestine, what takes place among them is nothing more than a complementary difference of interpretation, not a contradiction.
Intertwining of Positions:
Jabotinsky’s position was to establish a Jewish state that occupied all of Greater Syria, not just Palestine, without expelling the Arabs but instead crushing them militarily and psychologically so that they lose every shred of hope and resistance. This is what I have called “internalizing defeat” (see my book On Coining Terms and Liberating Meaning in Arabic). That is why Netanyahu once wrote: “The Arab kneels.” Netanyahu is a disciple of Jabotinsky at this level, but also of Ben-Gurion in his dream of expanding the occupation “from the Euphrates to the Nile.” Though secular, as they say, he neither praises nor fasts—yet especially recently, he speaks only in Biblical terms.
After Syria’s collapse December 2024, it seems that the terrorist Abu Muhammad al-Jolani has been implementing Jabotinsky’s dream. Netanyahu also takes from Ben-Gurion’s memoirs the principle of “living in perpetual war with the Arabs” and his readiness to pay an Arab prince a million liras in his day to wage war against Israel (according to his memoirist).
Beyond the Torah/Talmudic nonsense—fabrications by groups of collaborators creating “sacred” texts—and beyond secular-religious collusion and fabricated history, Jabotinsky relied on “international resolutions” to justify the rape of Palestine.
Ben-Gurion, meanwhile, built his position on protection by the West, alongside the eventual full expulsion of the native population but with minimal noise so as not to lose global public opinion. I described this in my study “From the Expulsion of 1948 to Displacement and Self-Displacement since 1967” (Kana’an Journal, No. 94, January 1999, pp. 87–100).
With the victory of the Arab Qutriya-state over united one Arab state i.e., the victory of “Arab Zionism”—the essence of the entity’s project became, in Palestine itself: extermination or expulsion to the greatest possible extent.
Expulsion and displacement in any Arab land the Zionist Entity occupies, provided there is manpower to fill it and financial means to sustain it.
Mixing Zionist hegemony with Arab rulers’ execution of control over their countries—this is an expanded form of the ZE’s project until opportunities arise for further expansion. In this way, Arab regimes declined from being dependents of imperialism to dependents of a dependent (the ZE). To facilitate this degeneration, the Americans and Zionists even belittle Sykes-Picot (as Tom Barrack—“the donkey of al-‘Azīr”) in order to fragment these states into emirates and sectarian/tribal mini-states.
Integration of the ZE into the Arab homeland in a hegemonic fashion. I wrote about this after the Oslo Accords 1993 and formalized it in my book On Coining Terms and Liberating Meaning. This integration is realized through normalization, which the ZE fiercely seeks. On that basis, the ZE and the West push to transform the Arab Qutryia -state into a sectarian/tribal entity or emirate. This is part of what I have called “the third nationalist wave”: America’s manufacture of mini-states along religious-sectarian and ethnic-tribal lines, exemplified in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and of course Lebanon, which is structurally ready for it.
To implement all this, in the Arab homeland there are suspicious, narrow-minded leaders ready to betray, even for the sake of personal titles like prince, king, president, general, or even “intellectual.” These emerged especially after the decline of the Arab nationalist movement in the late 1970s. With such pathetic figures, it is no wonder that Tom Barrack could call Lebanese journalists “animals,” and no one responded—including the cowardly Lebanese president who did not even name that enemy!
Ben-Gurion agreed with part of Jabotinsky’s reliance on international resolutions, but like him, falsely claimed secularism while invoking biblical narratives that contradict history and archaeology. He combined multiple factors interchangeably as needed. This multi-use approach can be generalized to all Zionist leaders.
Ben-Gurion’s aim was to extract everything possible from the West for a perpetual war against the Arabs. In this, he did not differ from Jabotinsky, who also counted on Western power to destroy the Arab psyche, even if he called it “international resolutions.” In the background of both is the illusion that the ZE can someday dispense with the West. But is that possible? No—it is not historical thinking but the anxious mindset of a killer, even at the peak of the power granted by his masters, aided by the baseness and treachery of Arab rulers against their nations.
Jabotinsky’s “iron wall” did not mean the physical barriers the entity later built—like those between parts of the West Bank and 1948 Palestine, or checkpoints preventing access, or restrictions on trade. Rather, it meant psychologically breaking the Arabs so that they would never resist.
The Arab and Islamic stance against the “Al-Aqsa Flood” war marks the beginning of realizing Jabotinsky’s vision of internalized defeat—indeed, the ruling classes extended this attitude to their own societies.
Two defeats explain this capitulation:
The triumph of the Qutriya-state over the united Arab state, which reduced Arab identity to humiliation and pushed it out of popular consciousness.
The exposure of the so-called “Islamic world,” specifically the “Islamic ummah,” as an entirely empty reserve—revealed as religious politics and sectarianism that uprooted Arab Islam, fragmenting it into hostile sectarian Islams. If the establishment of a religious state is nearly impossible in this age, the idea of a religious empire is even more absurd.
Despite claims that Jabotinsky was a cultured, well-read poet, he was historically blind. His racism led him to believe Arabs were an incapable race, making him overlook two truths:
Resistance is a human condition—no nation can exist without it, Zionist military strength in his time, and even today, comes from the West.
This historical blindness assumed that capitalism, especially in its Western imperialist form, would last forever. This fantasy anticipated Fukuyama’s later “End of History” nonsense. But Karl Kautsky wrote in the 1930s that if a Jewish state were established in Palestine, its survival would depend on the survival of imperialism in the region. Marx and Lenin were both theoretically and practically opposed to a Jewish state in Palestine—and it is an insult to compare their positions with those of today’s submissive Arab rulers. This opens another reading of the “iron wall”: it consists of two sides—
Imperialism in general,
And the Arab regimes normalized with the entity, which through normalization allowed it to penetrate behind the Palestinian people’s resistance lines, and behind all Arab resistance lines from Gaza to Sanaa.
Even though Arab normalization regimes, classes, and intellectuals have succumbed to the despair described by Jabotinsky—what I call internalization of defeat—resistance has not stopped. While the frontline Arab regimes around occupied Palestine have surrendered, Yemen’s steadfastness and its great struggle against the ZE, its control over the seas, and its closure of half of the entity’s maritime services confirm the inevitability of resistance and the vitality of the nation.
We conclude that those who wrote only tearful narratives of plans, maps, and conspiracies—or those who exaggerated Netanyahu’s bravado without pointing out that Jabotinsky’s “iron wall” of killing hope is a joint aggression—miss the point. It is a collaboration between Western imperialist regimes and their dependent Arab bourgeois allies, who have become the protective wall of the Zionist Entity by blocking development, spoiling Arab wealth to their imperialist masters, and diverting their youth to terrorism against Arab republics.
This wall exists, but it is not eternal. Hence, the necessity of exposing this truth and agitating against both of its sides—especially to affirm that everything the Zionist Entity does is never out of its own strength alone. That is why exposing, confronting, and rejecting the wailing and lamentations of submissive intellectuals and analysts—sold cheaply—is crucial.
____________
The opinions and views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Kana’an’s Editorial Board.