RSS Feed
July 3rd, 2023 
Awake Goy 
By Ryan Augustine
July 2, 2023 Anno Domini
The pro-Zionist and anti-Zionist movements have become bellwethers in the current geopolitics. In fact, there are more U.N. resolutions regarding Israel and Palestine than there are for any other country or conflict. It is a strange thing, too, that such a small piece of land has become such a focal point when there are many more pressing issues and conflicts in the world today. Most people not within the ruling class likewise hold strong opinions on the subject, and I think that these opinions are more guided by emotion than by clear thinking. Pro-Zionism seems to be emotionally regulated by the collective guilt people feel over the holocaust (TM), Jewish persecution in general, and protestant religious beliefs. The Anti-Zionist movement is much murkier and seems to be an amalgamation of Islamic beliefs, Marxism, egalitarianism, anti-colonialism, some Christian beliefs, anti-Jewishness, and a whole host of other things. Thus, for the common man, the anti-Zionist movement is the more incoherent of the two and the argument who’s end goals are less thought out. Therefore, the purpose of this piece will be to delve into the logical outcomes of Anti-Zionism to help shed light on the issue.
Firstly, it is important to understand that there are differences within Anti-Zionism of what anti-Zionism means and what its goals should be. Without going into the weeds too much and to understand these differences, let us first give Zionism a definition. This article hereby defines Zionism as the right of self determination for the Jewish people to have a country within the rough geography of modern-day Israel.
Back to the question at hand, this article will therefore tackle these differences within the anti-Zionist movement on a one-by-one basis. Note these will be framed in generalities and is by no means an exhaustive list. I do not have time or am qualified to write a book on the subject. Nor will I discuss the feasibility of achieving the positions, for that would be an entirely different article, this piece is focused on logical outcomes.
The first difference is that the U.S., the West in general, should divorce itself from the Israeli state, stop funding it, and let it be what it will be. This is the most moderate and reasonable of the anti-Zionist positions. There are both pros and cons to pursuing such a policy. First, the pros: our governments would save money to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year; we would be less vulnerable to espionage and subversion; less likely to be entrapped in foreign military conflicts; we could perhaps go after the dual citizen issue; our politicians would not prostrate themselves before the wall; the West would start to have closure over the holocaust; and we could start to build better relations with the Arab countries. The Cons are: Israel and Jews supporting Israel would become hostile to Christians and the West; Israel would seek to cement alliances with Russia and China. The Arab world, which had previously aligned itself with the Soviets against Israel and the West would not come around to the West soon and would be more likely to join back with Russia and China, as they would thenl move into the middle east as the U.S. withdrew from it. They would be more inclined to do so, as China and Russia would put pressure on them, and China could offer them a burgeoning oil market greater than the oil market offered by Western countries. The West, whose people still find oppression and war crimes abhorrent, have previously reigned in Israeli hostility. The Russians and Chinese would not; thus, it is probable that such a dramatic shift in power would be the cause of new and greater conflicts as the West seeks to prevent Communist Middle East hegemony, and Israel, Russia, and China awould be emboldened to seek it at the expense of what Arab allies the West could pull together. If this position is to be successful, it must be executed very precisely to avoid the more dire ramifications.
The second position is the so called two-state solution whereby Israel returns to its pre-1967 borders and the Palestinians are granted their own state. The pros are that this position would grant both the Palestinians and the Israeli’s what they want: Israel still retains a country and the Palestinians would no longer be oppressed by the Israelis. The cons are as follows: hundreds of thousands of Israelis would be evicted from their homes; Palestine would still be an oppressive Islamo-Marxist state; religious tensions would mount, especially over the dome of the rock and wailing wall, as there would be two governing bodies over each. Israel would feel very insecure and seek any pretext for retaking its land; thus, it is more than likely the U.S. would be drawn into another middle eastern conflict. Furthermore, this position would entrench the status quo and the dialectic between the Israelis and Palestinians will be used as a dialectic.
The third position is that Israel, as a nation state, should cease to exist. The Pros are that there would be no more Israeli-Palestinian conflict and no more money going to Israel. The Palestinians would have their own country, and relations with the Arab world would likely improve. The cons are as follows: whether you believe it or not, Israel was founded illegally. After some point in time, a country which is founded illegally becomes legitimized. This time period would vary depending on who the people who created the country are and where and from whom they have carved it out. In the case of the colonization of America, a few months were sufficient. In Western countries being colonized by Africans, 10,000 years would not suffice (1). In the case of Israel, you have Jews who have been born under the Israeli flag for four generations, so whether or not Israel was illegally settled has become a moot point. There would be a massive Jewish refugee problem whereby six million jews would seek resettlement in Western countries; thus, all western nations would be Judaized by a very significant factor. Zionist supporters and Jewish refugees, instead of focusing their efforts and money on Israel, would now spend those resources on changing to their liking the countries they inhabit and we would see an acceleration of the social and moral decay we are witnessing now. Furthermore, the destruction of Israel would advance the International Communist position of anti-colonialism, and the West could be wrongfooted into atoning for all of its alleged sins against the non-western world, as the concept of an ethnic nation state as a legitimate form of government would lose a lot of its legitimacy. The U.S. and the West would also lose face for supporting Israel for so long, just to destroy her. Many Jews and Christians, especially Protestants, would lose their faith, as they view Israel fulfilling prophecy, and the ecumenical New Age movement would be strengthened handsomely. Islam would likewise be strengthened, and it would be seen in the Islamic world as a great victory; thus, with the breakdown of the concept of the nation-state and a resurgent Islam, the West ccould expect to see more Muslim immigrants and greater Islamic belligerence.
I’m going to cut this article short, but I hope I have covered enough material to present a good analysis. If you, the reader, feel that I missed something important, please let me know. One last thing, since these positions have a lot of drawbacks, I will present one that has better outcomes which I have not heard talked about, which is neither an anti-Zionist nor pro-Zionist idea. This would be the one-state solution; whereby, Israel subsumes all the Palestinian lands, yet grants citizenship. Palestinians who wouldn’t want citizenship would be kicked out. Israel would complain that this would undermine the Idea of having a Jewish state, but I say that the Jews push multiculturalism onto us, so what’s good for the goose is good for the Gander. If Israel really wants to, they can rewrite their constitution to make it more Jewish. I hear they are good with that legal type of stuff. God bless.
Posted in 
Tags: 
