A US Victory in the Middle East? – Anne-Marie Fearon (1967)

From ‘Freedom: Anarchist Weekly’, June 24, 1967, London, UK

A Palestinian Arab once showed me a series of maps which he claimed were part of a Zionist publication. The first showed the small area of Palestine that was allotted to the Jews by the United Nations partition agreement of 1947. The second showed a considerably larger Israel which now included the land won from the Arabs in the war of 1948-49. The third showed the situation after Israel’s attacks on Egypt at the time of Suez — a slightly larger Israel again; and the last showed the Zionists’ final ambition: an Israel, or Israeli empire, covering everything from the Nile to the Euphrates. At the time I took all this was a large pinch of salt. Now I believe it.

These maps, if they are authentic, show that Zionism in its extreme form is an imperialist doctrine. I would go further and say that it is a fascist doctrine. The Zionist A.J. Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary whose Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the first major step in Western endorsement of Zionism, wrote:

_{‘Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.’}

So, the equally age-long traditions, the present needs, the future hopes of the Arabs are, it seems, of no account. How can that be? Presumably because the Jews are ‘the chosen people’. I would not say that this phrase is identical in meaning with Hitler’s ‘Herrenvolk’, but I would say that, if Mr. Balfour’s words are anything to go by, there is a resemblance. Substitute ‘National Socialism’ and ‘700,000 Arabs’ in the above quotation, for ‘Zionism’ and ‘6,000,000 Jews’ and perhaps you will see what I mean.

Of course, not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are fanatics. The eminent Israeli, Martin Buber, advocated a more liberal policy of real co-operation and friendship with the Arabs. I believe that the reason why Balfour’s brand of Zionism has got the upper hand is that it suits the Western Governments right down to the ground.

The Middle East is vitally important to capitalism: the Suez Canal is vital to world trade, and oil is vital to practically everything. Therefore, the West wants to control the Middle East. A time-honoured method has been to prop up corrupt and tottering old regimes such as the Ottoman Empire, which could be relied on to keep the Arabs under control and stave off Russian advances. After the First World War. Britain and France between them carved the Middle East up into nation states (previously unknown in that part of the world; there is no Arabic word for ‘nation’), which they administered often through equally corrupt and tottering monarchies. Thus they successfully divided the Arabs against themselves and kept them politically immature: the effectiveness of this policy can be seen throughout Arab affairs to this day.

However, by the 1940s, imperialism was out of fashion. We could no longer keep pro-Western regimes in power by open force of arms. But something must be done, for as long as the recurrent desire for Arab unity struggled with the political and economic handicaps the West had left them with, anything might happen to the precious oil supplies — even the dreaded Communism. Israel was the answer; since a large part of Israel’s population — and certainly the great majority of her wealthier citizens — would be European in origin, she could be relied upon to be staunchly pro-Western, particularly as she would be dependent on Western support for her very existence. Thus, Israel came into being already fully equipped with American money and arms. In the first year of her existence Israel’s army was already larger than the combined forces of all the neighbouring Arab states.

Well may America and Britain loudly proclaim their neutrality; for whenever fighting breaks out, Israel, backed to the hilt by Western arms, training and overwhelming moral support, cannot fail to defeat her Arab enemies; and when an armistice is signed, each time a little more Arab land comes within Israel’s frontiers. And each defeat leaves the Arab nations a little more demoralised, a little poorer and a little less united. This method has all the advantages of open imperialism and none of the disadvantages, for all we appear to be doing in the eyes of the world is helping a new and tiny nation to defend herself against large and hostile neighbours.

If the Zionist extremists get their way, this process will go on until the entire Middle East — Suez Canal, oilfields and all — will be under Israeli (that is to say, American) control. The prospect must have capitalists all over the world rubbing their hands in glee.

Anne-Marie Fearon

Appendix (added by M.Gouldhawke)

Source for Balfour quotation: Memorandum from Arthur Balfour to George Curzon, British Foreign Secretary (11 August 1919), Foreign Office No. 371/4183

“…in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are. The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”