Whatever limitations rabid preachers may wish to place upon it, the biblical promise was that the Holy Land should belong to all Abraham's heirs as theirs forever. On looking around the world, we can see that they could never, in their millions, all settle permanently on such a small patch of land. This leads us to ask what it means for the Holy Land to belong to us all.
If a choice has to be made as to who should be entitled to live there full-time, we can first exclude all those who follow Christianity (as I do) or Islam outside the Holy Land, and the Ashkenazim, those descendants of Caucasian tribes who adopted Judaism about a thousand years ago. They later spread throughout the old Russian Empire, and then other parts of Eastern Europe, before moving on to Western Europe and the Americas. None of these groups has any biological descendance from Abraham. He was, nevertheless, our common ancestor in faith.
For centuries, this never troubled those living outside its boundaries. When it was still an open land, before becoming the object of exclusive greed, each of us could always go there to seek spiritual renewal by visiting the holy places, whether we be Jew, Christian or Muslim. On the other hand, the indigenous people living there, who had mostly become Christian or Muslim, had (and still have) a solid "biblical" claim to the land through having a strong dose of Abraham's blood in their veins, quite apart from the human claim arising from their long, peaceful, and unchallenged occupation of their lands and homes.
This can be likened to the attraction, whether merely touristic or more profound, like every place of pilgrimage, of many sites around our world. To these we make no claim to possession, but we are very happy to enjoy the possibility of free access.
Without ever having personally had the privilege of visiting the Holy Land, I have visited each modern state bordering on it. The reasons for my having been excluded were closely connected with its steadily increasing occupation (since the late nineteenth century, but especially after the end of the Second World War) by invaders who claimed to be fleeing from persecution in their countries of origin. It is clear that they could have gone to other countries where they could have integrated much more easily. But some such countries, including the USA, were fearful of such a massive wave of new immigrants. It is certain that the very close collaboration between the growing Zionist movement, almost entirely composed of Ashkenazim from Eastern Europe, and the Nazis, resulted in many Zionists (who had, in the majority, abandoned the practice of Judaism) arriving at the decision to move to the Holy Land, since it was obvious that the peaceful inhabitants were unlikely to be able to withstand such an assault.
Like most thieves, the Zionists are greedy, and their ruthless attempts to remove the indigenous people continue to this day, as they apply their system of apartheid coupled with ethnic cleansing to the lands conquered in 1948 and to those occupied since 1967. With the unfaltering backing of successive highly corrupt administrations in the USA, they have no intention of giving back the stolen property.
Happily, the theories of Marr, Herzl and Hitler do not apply to decent Jews, who recognise that, while they should (of course) be entitled to go to visit such holy places as Jerusalem and Hebron, they do not own these towns and cities, any more than they own all of their own home-towns. They know that the original inhabitants have a right to live there in peace and liberty. This gives the lie to those who claim that the opposition to the colonisation of the Holy Land is motivated by religious or racial hostility.
As I have written before, the only long-term solution to the problem of Palestine is to have a single state where every inhabitant has equal rights regardless of his or her religious affiliation or lack of it. A true and lasting peace can never come from the establishment of a supposedly "Jewish state" enveloping a series of "Bantustans" whose inhabitants are then expected to provide cheap (or slave) labour for the invaders, enabling the latter to live in luxury in the surrounding areas by operating as a local militaristic super-power.
This latter solution, which takes the notion of apartheid to its extreme, is continually referred to by its dishonest proponents, such as Mr Bush and his abject minion, Mr Blair, as the "Two State Solution". But it lacks the essential element of equality between the said "Two States" for which ordinary human beings yearn, since one of these two supposed "states" is only intended to serve the basest aims and most selfish projects of the other. Even the USA, under its most backward administrations, recognised the impossibility of an identical form of solution in South Africa. However, the Zionists have managed to "persuade" each of these administrations, whether it claims to be "Republican" or "Democrat", to overlook this uncomfortable fact in the desperate desire of political opportunists to placate the powerful forces within the USA which still stick to this hideous racist agenda.
The quarrel between the parties involved has been far too often portrayed as being religious. But there is no reason why every Jew, every Christian, and every Muslim should not be able to benefit from a Holy Land which is freely available to each and every one of them. Lying preachers, whether supposedly Jewish, Christian or Muslim, should not be listened to by honest followers of any religion, particularly not those allegedly based on belief in the single loving and merciful God.
The encouragement of hatred is our common enemy, and we should do what we can to put an end to it, even if it has the backing of the rulers of such a country as the USA. We should instead give our support to the genuine peacemakers, described by Jesus as blessed.
© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com
This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!
