Israel’s Zionist plan

On December 23, 2016, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2334 by a vote of 14-0. This resolution describes Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and an obstacle to peace with the Palestinians. 

What made this resolution so news worthy was that it was the first time United States President Barack Obama declined to block a Security Council resolution that Israel considered hostile. The United States of America would traditionally use its veto power on the Security Council to veto resolutions that are tabled and do not find favor with Israel.

In this case, the US simply abstained. Israel’s response was swift and angry.  Its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, warned that countries which backed the resolution would pay a diplomatic and economic price. He also accused President Obama of staging an ambush against his country. 

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful, reckless and destructive” and said he was looking forward to working with the Trump administration and allies in Congress to mitigate the damage. Netanyahu recalled Israel’s ambassadors from New Zealand and Senegal — two of the resolution’s four co-sponsors — and cut off approximately $8 million in funding to UN institutions. 

Senegal defended its sponsorship of the vote despite Israel’s suspension of aid programmes to that country. A Senegalese Government spokesman commented: “Senegal abided by its diplomatic vision. Since 1975, Senegal has been a member of the (UN) Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People… Senegal’s position must be saluted. The international community hails Senegal’s stance…”

Israel has a history of non-compliance with UN resolutions that go against its interests. Interestingly, this non-compliant behaviour does not create any further sanctions and so Israel continues with business as usual. 

 It continues to ignore UN Security Resolution 242 passed after the 1967 war calling on Israel to withdraw its forces from the land it occupied in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights.  Many UN member states already contend Israeli settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention’s rules for administering occupied territory.  

Netanyahu has declared that Israel will not abide by the terms of the resolution. For the Palestinians, Resolution 2334 is a moral and a symbolic victory, but practically nothing is really going to change on the ground and Israel will continue with its settlement construction. Nearly 600,000 Jews now live in the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem beyond the 1967 boundary.

What Resolution 2334 may do is give a boost to Palestinians and their supporters in their efforts to bring Israeli officials before the International Criminal Court in the Hague, and help the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement in their programme against Israel for their illegal activities and settlements.

The United States, under President Obama, took a decisive stance by abstaining in the vote but perhaps this is a little too late. President-elect Donald Trump, who comes into office on January 20, has promised to reverse all that Obama has done and he has certainly signaled his overwhelming support for Israel.  His choice of David Friedman as the next US ambassador to Israel reinforces Trump’s position. 

Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post, comments on this selection: “Friedman has called President Obama an anti-Semite. This is not merely a calumny, it is an absurdity, evidence of an unsound mind and, if I may, just a bit of racism… Friedman for months has been saying that he would be Trump’s choice for the Israel post. Until now, his diplomatic experience has been limited to representing Trump as his bankruptcy lawyer, virtually a life-time sinecure.”

Cohen adds: “His appointment likely has the support of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, who had the wisdom to be born rich and who, apparently on account of his being an observant Jew, has been given the Israeli-Palestinian portfolio… From Trump, the naming of Friedman is a double insult.

“Trump has offended the liberal Jewish community, which didn’t support him anyway. This is a community that in general opposes additional West Bank settlements, favors a two-state solution and has little in common with the religious or nationalist zealotry of the settler movement.”

The United States for years has pumped billions of dollars in support to Israel. In fact, it is under President Obama that in September 2016, the single largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in US history was signed with Israel. A $38 billion military aid pact covering 10 years.

Roughly one-fifth of America’s foreign aid budget goes to Israel. This amounts, in per-capita terms, to the United States giving each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. The old adage that “one shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds you” doesn’t apply to Israel. For Netanyahu, the US abstaining in a UN vote against Israel is tantamount to treason. 

The Zionist plan to establish a state of Israel came into being in the late 19th century and reached full bloom in the early 20th century. On the website of Global Research, the editor’s note to an article by Israel Shahak titled Greater Israel: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East pointed out: The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.” 

It went on: “In recent developments, Donald Trump has confirmed his support of Israel’s illegal settlements and his opposition to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which confirms the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.  According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” 

“According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.” When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria and Iraq, the war on Yemen, the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project… 

The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

These are significant global geo-political issues that will ultimately impact on our vulnerable Caribbean states in 2017 and so we all must be concerned and fully appraised of the dynamics of how these issues work. They are those who blindly give full support to Israel despite its illegal and inhumane activities. These persons are guided by a notion that the Israelis are “God’s chosen people” so they can do no evil.

They are also misguided by a notion that those who speak against the actions of Israel are anti-Semitic, terrorists and Nazi sympathizers. Noteworthy, however, is that there is a growing number of Jewish people and organizations who will also speak out against Israeli aggression and illegal actions. 

(Suleiman Bulbulia is a Justice of the Peace. Secretary of the Barbados Muslim Association and Muslim Chaplain at the Cave Hill Campus, UWI. Email: suleimanbulbulia@hotmail.com)

18 Responses to Israel’s Zionist plan

  1. Hal Austin January 11, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    Now the Iman’s hidden agenda is not so hidden. Our nice Muslim preacher is really as anti-Israel as Isis. He pretense at avoiding any issue involving global Islam is just a shield hiding his Radical views about Israel.
    I have said before that I believe he is a Trojan Horse and he is proving to be such. Beware. Is he planning an attack on local Synagogues and Jewish people?

    Reply
  2. citizen x January 11, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Mr. Bulbulia is not an Imam or preacher but you have proven his point by being “misguided by a notion that those who speak against the actions of Israel are anti-Semitic, terrorists and Nazi sympathizers”.
    I would like to read your rebuttal against this article with valid facts and not scare mongering.

    Reply
  3. Lalu Hanuman January 12, 2017 at 12:43 am

    The above remark by Hal Austin is not only highly offensive and totally uncalled for, but it is indicative of a confused mind.
    Mr. Lalu Hanuman,
    Attorney-at-Law,
    Synagogue Chambers.

    Reply
    • Hal Austin January 15, 2017 at 4:12 pm

      Lalu,

      Which remark?

      Reply
      • Hal Austin January 16, 2017 at 9:02 am

        Lalu,

        See above.

        Reply
  4. Suleiman Bulbulia January 12, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Hal Austin, I refused to be baited by your almost weekly rants and tirades of my articles and myself. Nor will I be drawn into your toxic and xenophobic world. I will however point out a few things:
    (1) If my column is a “waste of time” and a “failure”, as you said on October 27 and November 9 2016, respectively, why then do you take the time every week to read it and make disparaging comments? Is it that you have nothing else better to do?
    (2) I am neither an “Imam” nor an “Iman”. An Imam is someone appointed/employed to lead the prayers, permanently or regularly, in a mosque. I am neither appointed nor employed to lead prayers in any mosque in Barbados or any part of the world. “Iman” on the other hand is an Arabic word meaning faith. I am not an Iman (faith), I have Iman (faith) and I follow a faith, called Islam. And I am not a Muslim preacher. My designated titles are given at the bottom of each of my columns.
    (3) Your assertion that the purpose of my column is “to educate Barbadians about Islam” is erroneous. Barbados Today gave me the honor and privilege of writing a column in their paper. It was clearly stated that my column would be on any topic I desired and from the perspective I would bring which they would welcome. In fact, the point was made not to make it a religious column.
    (4) You repeat yourself almost weekly with the same questions and misguided assertions even though they were answered and clarified by Sabir Nakhuda. Even you acknowledged that and confirmed your ignorance on September 8 2016.
    (5) You say you have Muslim friends. I invite you to engage with them in dialogue to help bring about a better understanding. Further, I invite you to sit with me and others and bring whomsoever you please to also dialogue and put forward all your questions and concerns. I promise that whatever is discussed and raised can be recorded and used in my future columns.
    In closing let me borrow a quote from the outgoing US President, Barack Obama, who said a few nights ago: “If you’re tired of arguing with strangers on the Internet, try talking with one of them in real life.”
    Peace be with you.

    Reply
  5. Hal Austin January 12, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    I have previously mentioned entryists, infiltrationists, Trojan Horses, call them what you like.
    If you think I am exaggerating matters, there is a new book out “Where Have Our Spies Gone?”, by Eric Pelletier and Christophe Dubois, about how Jihadists have infiltrated the French police and military.
    It happens and details on how to do so are shared.

    Reply
  6. Lalu Hanuman January 12, 2017 at 3:53 pm

    I am writing this as a non-Muslim so I do not have any Islamic agenda. I find Mr. Hal Austin’s remarks above – particularly the penultimate one – to be highly offensive. Mr. Suleiman Bulbulia’s article is on point – if anything it is far too moderate. Israel is a neo-Nazi state that has no right to exist – all of the land it is on, is occupied Palestinian land. Israel is an insult to the victims of Nazi Germany.

    Lalu Hanuman,
    Attorney-at-law,
    Synagogue Chambers.

    Reply
  7. Hal Austin January 12, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Lalu,
    If you are a lawyer it confirms what I have said about Jihadist sympathisers in high places. You claim not to speak as a Muslim, but the lack of moderation in your words say quite a lot.
    I am not speaking as a supporter of Israel, but as a small Jewish state in the middle of a sea of Islamic believers the vast majority of whom believe it is a neo-Nazi state, without putting forward any evidence, says something about the quality of legal advocacy in Barbados, and of your mindset.
    I stand by my claim that in Barbados we have enemies within – and they are not Israelis.

    Reply
  8. Ray January 13, 2017 at 6:25 pm

    Anyone who calls for Israel to extend, extend, extend from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates is calling for all-out war with Syria, Iraq and elsewhere which will lead to massive bloodshed all in the name of going Old Testament when the OT is closed.

    As many Christians have said for countless generations “We don’t go by the Old Testament anymore”. If some Christians and Jews embrace the idea of Israel going to war to extend from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates per the Pentateuch, what else do you want to drag out of the Pentateuch and foist upon the world today?

    Reply
  9. Hal Austin January 15, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    Mr Balbulia,
    I am sorry that you think I am baiting you, rather than trying to engage in a serious discussion.
    As to being an Imam, I can only apologise for giving you a title you do not have.
    I am at a lost that you, an Islamic scholar, have been given a column to write about anything you like, “but do not make it religious”.
    The editor’s view must be that you have something of intellectual interest to her readers.
    Political Islam is one of the most powerful and violent forces in the world today, from Australia and China, to Europe, North American and Latin America and the Caribbean.
    Yet, I cannot recall you interrogating any of these bloody events taking place all over the world. There must be a reason why you avoid them.
    Your broad brief should include some of these happenings. The purpose of journalism is to educate, inform and entertain. So, presumably, your editor and you must have settled on one of these core purposes.
    You claim my basic questions have been answered. I am not sure if this is deception, or an attempt to brow beat readers. They have not.
    My questions are basic: what are your views on the Shia and Sunni confrontations? Do you have any form of Sharia law operating in Barbados, if so, is it a council or court, and what is the difference? If not, does this diminish your faith?
    I also asked about Shariah-compliant financial vehicles. Are they any in Barbados?
    In your latest column yo made an outburst about Zionism. What prompted this? If Zionism is of journalistic interest to you, why not political Islam?
    You invite me to engage with some of my Muslim friends on these issues. I do, that is why your tactic of avoidance is of interest to me.
    Your silence, to my mind, speaks volumes.
    Finally, I read you because I have lots of spare time on my hands and because I want to know the people in our midst.
    I love Barbados and do not want to see it drawn in to these global battles of which it has little or no concerns.

    Reply
  10. Suleiman Bulbulia January 15, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    Hal Austin,
    You cannot wish to engage in serious discussion if your starting point is so xenophobic, biased and discriminatory. You behave no differently than those you abhor in ISIS and all the rest of those extremists groups.
    Let me again point you to my designations at the bottom of each column. I am not an Islamic scholar and I have never described myself as such.
    What I write about will not be dictated by you. I choose the subject matter to write on and if the editor is happy with it she will publish it. If you consider that avoidance or silence then your words and not my intention. But for your information I have written in the past of some of those events/things you alluded to.
    I however maintain my offer:
    I invite you to sit with me and others and bring whomsoever you please to also dialogue and put forward all your questions and concerns. I promise that whatever is discussed and raised can be recorded and used in my future columns.
    I await your response to my invitation.
    Peace be with you.

    Reply
  11. Hal Austin January 16, 2017 at 3:05 am

    Mr Bulbulia,

    I will take up your offer when net in Barbados. We can make it a public affair.
    You can write about what you like, and I can interpret it how I like. If raising important questions makes me xenophobic then so be it.
    We are about 75 years away from the Second World War. If a groups claims to be exceptional, through religion, ethnicity, race, scholarship, etc, then some people want to know why.
    I am opposed to mass murderers, people who hack off heads, people who murder innocent members of the public, there is no objectivity about such medieval savagery.
    You said you ha e written about these groups before, plse point me in the right direction.
    For information, a chaplain in Christianity is a minister or reverend or pastor; I assume in Islam the title means something different.

    Reply
  12. Suleiman Bulbulia January 16, 2017 at 9:26 am

    I absolutely look forward to you taking up my offer on your next visit to Barbados and public suits me fine.
    A simple Google search of my name will point you in the direction of what I have written.
    For information: A chaplain is a non-denominational cleric (such as a minister, priest, pastor, rabbi, or imam), or a lay representative of a religious tradition, attached to a secular institution such as a hospital, prison, military unit, school, business, police department, fire department, university, or private chapel.
    Peace be with you.

    Reply
  13. Hal Austin January 16, 2017 at 10:39 am

    Thanks again. I am now as clear as mud that you are a chaplain (ie equivalent to minister priest, pastor, rabbi or imam), but not an Imam..

    Reply
  14. Suleiman Bulbulia January 16, 2017 at 12:51 pm

    You are welcome. I fully understand the muddle you find yourself.

    Don’t selectively ignore the part of the definition of a Chaplain that states:
    “…or a lay representative of a religious tradition, attached to a secular institution such as a hospital, prison, military unit, school, business, police department, fire department, university, or private chapel.”
    Peace be with you.

    Reply
  15. Hal Austin January 16, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    Looking forward to meeting you. In the meantime, plse answer the questions posed above.

    Reply
  16. Suleiman Bulbulia January 17, 2017 at 7:39 am

    As I said Hal I will answer all your questions and concerns when we meet. And in public as you wish.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *