Meanwhile, the Zionist state s policies show a number of contradictions between the false allegations of democracy and liberalism maintained by Israel and its Western allies on the one hand, and Israel s unmistakably racist practices recently culminating in the Jewish state stance, on the other. This affirms the religious-rather than the political-roots of this state and explains such Americans1 strong popular support that made the Israeli Prime Minister in his speech to the Congress a month ago sound as if he were addressing his own cabinet, getting a rapturous standing ovation, though he disagreed with what the American President Obama stressed in his speech a few days earlier.

It may safely be said that in implementing its strategy the Zionist state relies on two main factors: First, unfailing support from the USA. Second, sustained effort to undermine the unity of the Arab world and provoke inter-Arab, sectarian strife and political conflicts, the end result of which is preventing a unified Arab stance against Israel, allowing it to go ahead with its strategy which succeeded in the occupation of Palestine in1948 and other Arab territories in 1967 for over 60 years.

The American-Israeli speech

Going back to Netanyahu s recent visit to the USA to examine Obama s speech in the State Department and Netanyahu s speech to the Congress, both about their stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict, we find a glaring example of the way Israel acts to implement its plan against a silent, weak Arab position.

Obama had asked the Zionist state to return to the 1967 borders saying, The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their full potential in a sovereign and contiguous state. The current situation, he added, cannot be sustained, and Israel also must be brave enough to achieve a durable peace.

But Netanyahu blatantly rejected the idea of withdrawal to the lines suggested by Obama. The borders will be different from those of the 1967 ones. Israel will not return to the 1967 borders which are indefensible, he said. Israel will be generous with the size of the Palestinian state but will be fixed as far the borders with this state are concerned. This is an important principle that must not be forgotten. As we acknowledge that the Palestinian state should be large enough to be viable, independent and prosperous, you all as well as the President have said that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people exactly as you have been talking about an independent Palestinian state being the homeland of the Palestinian people, he added.

Though Obama gave his annual speech to the Americans and the world only a few hours before his speech to the Jewish lobby (AIPAC), in the latter speech he retracted what he said in the former speech about establishing a Palestinian state on the1967 borders. Netanyahu stressed that a Palestinian state must be demilitarised and that Israel is a Jewish state and it is therefore impossible to return to the 1967 borders.

Except for this retraction we can find out many points of agreement between the two speeches, including what Obama said about Israel s and Palestine s security : As for security, every state has the right to self-defence, and Israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent the resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons and provide effective border security, and a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and non-militarised state .

Netanyahu meant almost the same thing. The Palestinian state must be completely demilitarised, and it is necessary that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Key security measures on the ground are necessary not only to protect peace but also to protect Israel in case peace is vulnerable, for in our unstable region nobody guarantees that today s partners in peace will not deny this tomorrow. As I say tomorrow I don t mean the distant future, he said.

Any sensible person can easily see this contradiction. How can a viable Palestinian state defend itself without an armed military force when it is engulfed by a Jewish state heavily armed with state-of-the-art weapons of destruction, mainly atomic bombs? The US President talks about a Jewish only, safe Israeli state living side by side in peace and security with a Palestinian state !

It is clear that in the context of its long-term strategy the Zionist state acts assured by America s unfailing support as a strategic ally. However, it must be noted that this US-Israel close alliance is not based on the Zionist lobby and its strong influence on America s foreign policy alone, but it also has an ideological aspect at the heart of Americans religious awareness.

American support and religious belief

At the start of his above speech, Obama talked about the countries of the Middle East which, though long distances from our shores, we know that our destiny is tied to this region by the forces of economics, security, history and belief, he said. Religious beliefs have a strong influence on shaping America s pro-Israel policies. That has been widely discussed in the USA by writers such as Walter Mcdougall in his book The promised Land and the Land of the Crusade State , translated into Arabic by Rida Hilal. Mcdougall discussed the role of the religious factor in America s foreign policy, concentrating on the differences between its policy in the past which stressed freedom at home, and its new policy designed to expand its role in the world and then lead it. He pointed out the striking difference between America s foreign policy in the 19th century which was based on the Old Testament and the Promised Land and its policy in the 20th century.

Rida Hilal himself wrote a book on the same topic entitled The Jewish Messiah and the End of the World , which highlights America s pro-Israel policy of unflagging support for expansion and elimination of at least Arab presence of Palestine and the neighbouring regions from the Nile to the Euphrates , according to circumstances. This is due to reasons more religious and cultural than political, not strategic bias resulting from common interests. Hilal s conclusion is that American public opinion dictates this pro-Israel option on the US Administration. This means that many American devout Christians believe that the Saviour (the Promised Messiah) will appear in Israel, and, accordingly, they support the existence of this land so that the Saviour may appear there.

An Israeli vision vis-à-vis no Arab one

Regardless of the essence of these American visions, they, in the final analysis, are used by the Zionist state to exert moral pressure on the USA to implement its strategic plan fully. On the Arab side, there is lack of a unified Arab vision, if any, for the restoration of Palestinians lost rights, in addition to sectarian divide in the Arab world and infighting in Palestine between Fateh and Hamas. This lack of Arab vision reflects the strategic failure of Arab governments for decades and, ultimately, their lack of the will to fulfil Arabs just and fair demands.

In contrast, the Zionist state has been pursuing its long term strategy relentlessly since its occupation of the Arab land, starting with Ben-Gurion, who named the new Hebrew state Israel. An early founder, he was nine times prime minister from1948 to 26 June 1963. The same policy was followed by successive Israeli governments headed by Moshe Sharett, Levy Eshkol, Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Yitzhak Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, to the present time. None of those governments has refrained from the excessive use of force against the defenceless Palestinian people, the indiscrimate massacres of Palestinians or the conflict between these practices and Israel s false claim of democracy in the West s media due to full support by the USA and its European allies.

The Israeli community has been created in the first place on aggression, occupation, settlement and expulsion of the people, as well as on the purity of the state and ethnicity of the Jews , and affirms that Israel is a state for its Jewish citizens and the world s Jews only. This is the essence of Zionism which generations of the Zionist civil and military community have adopted. This explains the Zionist military establishment s inhuman practices against the Palestinians; including deliberate killing.

The contradictions of racism

Among the clear signs of contradiction is Israel s insistence on assuming a religious character, publicly rejecting all Arab religion- oriented factions, including Hamas, describing all religious organizations as terrorist and extremist, despite the fact that the rise of such largely Islamist movements is a natural reaction to Israel s slogans reflecting its religious character. As the successive Zionist governments have been stressing the religious character of the state, further religious reactions to these Jewish slogans and even the rise of further Islamist organizations in the region are expected.

It is worth noting that Israel s adoption of the Jewish state approach, which has been backed by President Obama, necessarily entails depriving all Israel s Arabs-Muslims and Christians alike of their rights and privileges as citizens in terms of work, residence, etc. Strangely enough, President Obama supports a religious (Jewish)state in Israel, while he rejects a religious (Muslim) state in Palestine. This reflects the Crusade culture which is deeply rooted in European culture.

Accordingly, the religious factor which the Zionist state employs to inspire devout Christians in the USA and probably elsewhere is in point of fact a sort of falsehood in disguise, forcing religion into politics, which is likely to foment religious-political disputes in the Arab world and affirms the racist character of the Jewish state. Furthermore, this religious factor makes the Zionist state evade any border demarcation out of its adherence to the adopted strategy that the promised land stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates , while this is far from reality for several political reasons.

All Arab powers are required today to develop a strategic vision to recover lost land in Palestine, stop encroachments and settlements, placing appropriate pressure on the West to affirm Palestinians right to their land, ensuring that changes of American and Israeli administrations do not affect their fixed strategies. It is true that Obama in his speech concerning the Arab region and the Middle East sounded more lenient than his predecessors; however, in the final analysis he adheres to America s national interests, including unflagging support for Israel.

The desirable strategy which the Arab countries must act now to devise its essential elements and work out implementation time- tables is more necessary today than at any time before, particularly in the light of the winds of change in the region, which promise to carry democracy and freedom, will adopt new methods of government, including changes of leadership in various Arab republics who observe national interests. Among such key interests is settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict for the sake of a better future for the new Arab generations, primarily establishing the Arab state of Palestine with full sovereignty over its land, borders, sky, water and freedom.