Who Are “We”?
A reader may well ask: who is meant by “we” in this discussion? A brief clarification is therefore necessary. By “we, the Arabs,” I do not refer to a single people bound by race, blood, or primordial origin. Rather, I mean the diverse populations who, over at least two millennia, have become Arabized—those who have inhabited the southern Mediterranean and the Arabian Peninsula in its geographical sense.
These communities trace their roots to the earliest periods of recorded history, marked by a plurality of religions, related languages, intermarriage, alliances, and conflicts. What ultimately gathered them into a shared civilizational sphere was the Arabic language—preserved and perfected in its structure through the Qur’an. It is these peoples, in their totality, who are understood here as the objects of Zionist hostility.
In this view, Zionism does not discriminate: it has targeted Catholics in Mosul and Sunnis in Fallujah; opposed Orthodox figures such as Archbishop Atallah Hanna as much as Shi‘a leaders like the late Hassan Nasrallah. Sectarian or religious distinctions are irrelevant; what is opposed is the very existence of these peoples on their land.
Who Are the Zionists Today?
As noted previously, Zionism in its contemporary form represents the apex of European capital’s dominance over the world. By necessity, it encompasses more than a single people. While Anglo-Saxon powers are its principal leaders today, other European actors also participate actively. For example, Hungary may, at times, demonstrate greater zeal for Zionist policies than certain Jewish communities elsewhere.
Nor should Anglo-Saxon leadership obscure another reality: a significant proportion of settlers in Palestine originate from Russia and neighbouring Slavic regions. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union—if not earlier—Russian leadership has rarely taken positions openly opposed to Zionism. On the contrary, it has consistently supported international measures viewed as advantageous to Zionist interests and harmful to Arab states.
Thus, Zionism today is not confined to a single nation or people; it is an expression of a broader European project of domination, rooted in a perceived civilizational superiority. While currently led by Anglo-Saxon powers, it is neither exclusive to them nor limited by them; other European actors participate to varying degrees.
This perspective underscores the limitations of superficial discourse among some Arab commentators—especially those who reduce the matter to whether specific Western states support Israel politically or militarily. Such debates ignore the deeper, historical, and structural nature of the conflict, which, in this view, stretches back to the Crusades rather than emerging solely with Israel’s establishment in the twentieth century.
The conflict, therefore, is not merely a confrontation between Palestinians and Israeli settlers; it is a struggle against a global system. This interpretation is reinforced by statements attributed to U.S. President Joe Biden, who remarked that if Israel did not exist, it would have been necessary to create it—evidence, here, of the systemic and premeditated nature of the project.
From this standpoint, there is no isolated war involving Israel supported by certain Western states; rather, there is a comprehensive confrontation with a global Zionist structure that has established a major foothold in the heart of the region and mobilized its means across Europe, the Americas, and beyond. Political leaders function as agents within this broader system, each performing a designated role.
A Contemporary Classification
While Zionism is presented as historically evolving, the author proposes a classification of its current manifestations:
- Anglo-Saxon States and Societies
These include the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. A majority within these societies, implicitly or explicitly, subscribes to a belief in their superiority and their right to exercise global dominance. Historical precedents, such as the treatment of indigenous populations in the Americas and Australia, demonstrate the persistence of this mindset.
- NATO States
The countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization form the principal military arm of the system. Their collective security, intelligence, and economic capabilities are deployed in service of the broader project.
- Aligned Arab Governments
Arab governments hosting foreign military bases or entering into security alliances with NATO states are considered part of this structure. Claims that such alliances do not imply alignment with Israel are, in this framework, untenable—particularly given recent events.
What About Israel?
A question may arise: what of the so-called State of Israel? The land seized in Palestine and unjustly named after the Prophet of God, “Israel,” is not a state but an occupation. Zionists have made it their forward military base, settling it as they once did the Americas and Australia. Has not the Arab witnessed enough over the past year?
- If the European fleets transporting weapons and ammunition to the occupiers had stopped for just one week, the extermination in Gaza and Lebanon would have ceased.
- If the flood of information from European surveillance satellites and espionage systems to the occupiers had stopped for a week, the killing would have stopped.
- If Europe had halted unlimited financial support to the Jewish occupiers and stopped paying their salaries, the situation would have changed.
I cannot hide from you that I laugh—though it is a laughter like weeping, as al-Mutanabbi described it—when I see so-called “experts” spending hours on Arab television channels debating the Israeli economy, as if it were concerned with balance-of-payments deficits or other capitalist metrics, as if Zionism could not simply print any amount of U.S. dollars or British pounds to supply the occupiers with everything they need for free.
Settlement camps do not budget; they receive what they require from those who established them. This is no different today than it was when Europeans settled the Americas: money came from Europe while the settlers ensured their survival by exterminating the indigenous population until reinforcements arrived.
What kind of “state” can I call this? It is, like any settlement camp in history, without borders.
And what kind of “state” is this whose main military strength—say, its air force—consists of an American plane carrying U.S. bunker-busting bombs and German missiles, guided by British observation posts in Cyprus, flown by a Russian pilot?
This leads to a broader reflection on the nature of statehood itself. A state, in the classical sense, is defined by continuity and rootedness in place. Historical examples such as Iraq, Syria, or Iran demonstrate endurance despite periods of invasion and upheaval. By contrast, a settler formation—whose population retains external points of origin—is inherently transient. Its institutions and capabilities do not confer permanence. Its disappearance is therefore inevitable.
To be continued