By MARTIN MARTINELLI*
Palestine and Israel are one of the most important cases of national struggle, but at the same time, it ends up being one of the most controversial, and reflects the reconfiguration of the world system
Zionism is not Judaism
Judaism is a religion made up of different orientations and, like others, its followers are spread across several countries. This contrasts with the Zionist political movement, which is “an ideology of colonial appropriation in millennial clothing”. Through this characterization, we distinguish anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli positions. The first position is racist, the second is anti-colonial, and the third is similar to an anti-United States perspective in that it expresses a generic rejection of imperialism. But the key thing is to note that Israel acts in accordance with that country's geopolitical priorities.
Zionism is a political movement promoted by Jews in several European countries. Its first ideologues were located in the second half of the XNUMXth century, especially in the final decades. Their aim was to establish a state with ethnic nationalism alongside a form of overseas European colonialism. Furthermore, he sought to merge the Jewish identity, religious and partly cultural, into a modern Jewish national identity, although they did not assume a single country of origin, nor the same language, nor culture, nor customs in common, because they came from different places. .
He proposed a national revival as an alternative to the persecution of Jews that was occurring in several countries. In 1896, Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist, published the book The Jewish State where he outlined the idea of a “reestablishment” of the Jewish state as a solution to the “Jewish problem” in Europe and anti-Judaism. There he laid the foundations for the constitution of the aforementioned State and dedicated himself to seeking the support of world powers to achieve this.
In this sense, Theodor Herzl in 1896 stated: “Palestine is our unforgettable historical homeland. His name alone would be a unifying and powerfully emotional call to our people. For Europe, we would be an integral part of the bulwark against Asia: we would constitute the vanguard of culture in its fight against barbarism. As a neutral state, we would maintain relations with all of Europe, which, in turn, would have to guarantee our existence.”
The nationalism of the late XNUMXth century and Great Britain as a world power would guarantee the promotion of the new State. Theodor Herzl proposed several locations to locate the Jews, such as Palestine, Uganda or Argentina: “Palestine or Argentina? Should we prefer Palestine or Argentina? The Society will accept whatever is given and whatever the general opinion of the Jewish people declares. The Society will establish both. Argentina is one of the naturally richest countries on the planet, with a huge surface area, a small population and a moderate climate. The Argentine Republic would have the greatest interest in giving us part of its territory. Naturally, the current Jewish infiltration has generated disagreements; “Argentina should be enlightened about the essential difference of the new Jewish migration.”
It also offered to be an honor guard of Christendom's holy places, with some form of extraterritoriality in accordance with international law.
The aim of the project is to safeguard a “white” (Western) stronghold in a “black” (Arab) world. This brings implications such as the fear of being demographically surpassed, racism, as well as the dichotomy between the Western and the Eastern or Islamic, as its negative opposite. Along with this, another type of differentiation occurred within Israel. On the one hand, Jews came from Arabic-speaking countries in North Africa and the Middle East, called Mizrahim. This term unified its meaning with the name Sephardim – it is used today and historically referred to the Jews of the Iberian Peninsula who tried to be de-Arabised. On the other hand, the Ashkenazim, especially the Europeans, who formed and remain the ruling elite.
Zionism secularized and nationalized Judaism, although not in its entirety. His central interest was land, he pursues settler colonialism, according to his own version and the British version. To establish a Jewish State, it was necessary to generate an infrastructure. Until 1918 and after the British occupation of Palestine, they planned to create a Jewish State there to escape a history of persecution and pogroms in the West, and considered their assimilation into the societies of the European countries where they resided impossible.
In any case, the British imperialist interests that supported it and the Jewish followers of this policy were part of a smaller group at its inception. In turn, they claimed what they came to consider as their “ancient homeland”. For these reasons, the campaign for state colonization in Palestine is associated with Christian millenarianism and XNUMXth century European colonialism.
In the Israeli nationalist narrative, a religious community was transformed into a political community, from groups dispersed around the world and a collective defined by religion and blood ties, became the State of Israel. They tried to present it as a homogeneous entity moving through time, from millennia ago to the present. The collective's space and culture are static, as marriages, migrations and internal conflicts have modified the collective's limits. This argument is also used with the Torah, as a source of identification for Jews. This book, considered sacred, was displayed as if it were a proof of national rights in Canaan in the past and in Palestine in the present. In addition to giving the nation a sense of pride and uniqueness as a chosen people.
It includes varied and even contradictory tendencies, from nationalists to liberals and socialists, but the majority of which adhere to the territorialist thesis, linked to the creation of a Jewish nation-state that will be the State of Israel. This political movement sought a common element to build its own identity, which was the Jewish religion/culture. The objective was to find a melting point for the new movement, as the participants were individuals from very heterogeneous countries.
The Jewish perception of their religious identity was transformed into a national identity. Jews from various countries, cultures and languages who arrived in Palestine merged – with various difficulties – into a new Jewish national identity, especially after the establishment of the State of Israel. At the same time, they ignored Palestinian identity in documents that enshrined the establishment of a Jewish “national home” as a British commitment to its power over Palestine. Except for a brief period after the publication of the 1939 White Paper, Britain remained faithful to this dual approach until 1947-1948.
To this day, the nature of the Israeli state is specified by the return of Jews and the non-return of Palestinians. If this dynamic were to expire, your identity would dissolve. In Israeli society, the direct participation of the State and the Ministry of Education celebrates the Shoah. It is centrally located in Israeli public discourse as well as in its social imagination.
In the phase before the establishment of the State of Israel, Jews grouped together for collective work in kibbutzim and moshavim. The diversification of the economy in Palestine promoted the formation of the Zionist union Histadrut, intentionally integrated – in contradiction with the previous socialist ideology – only with Jewish workers who promoted the nationalization of the economy. In 1929, the Jewish Agency was created to encourage immigration and structure the Jewish community through institutions of self-government.
In short, over four decades, the Zionists acquired land, colonized, establishing a significant but much smaller population compared to the Palestinian population. Firstly, they developed institutions, political and trade union organizations. And later, they began with the spread of modern Hebrew as a new national language and new myths were established – the colonizing enterprise, modernization and others – that strengthened a new national consciousness and identity.
“Great Israel”
In theories of greater Israel they try to legitimize attempts to Judaize Jerusalem. The perception of Eretz Yisrael as a whole was manifested in the great land of Israel movement, an elite secular organization. The premise represented two factors: a territorial concept and an ideology, whose objective resided not only in the conquest of as much territory as possible, but also in the co-imperial domination (with American power) of the region.
Israeli researchers specializing in biblical studies used a repertoire of terms and phrases for the region of Palestine and its periphery, such as: “Judea and Samaria are the central nucleus of the Israelite nation” in 1967; in addition to "Eretz Yisrael”, “the biblical land of Israel”, “great Israel”, “the great land of Israel”, “the land where the Israelite tribes had their settlements”, “the promised land”, “the land of Bible” and “holy land”.
The term Eretz Yisrael appears only once in Torah (Samuel, 1 13:19) and there is no historical or religious map of the extent and borders of the “Land of Israel”. And even if it existed, in contemporary times it would not be a basis for claiming this territory around two thousand years later.
Despite this, the “Land of Israel” and other biblical references were invested with historical and ideological connotations of a transcendent scope both in Israeli rhetoric and in Western culture. According to this perception, religious scriptures would give Jews the property title that would allow them to spread throughout the “Land of Israel,” which would give them a supposed moral legitimacy for establishing their state and implementing settler colonialism.
The relationship between Israeli territorial conquests and Torah was reflected in a secular figure like David Ben-Gurion when he stated “that the Bible constitutes the sacrosanct title of property of the 'Jews' with respect to Palestine […] with a genealogy of 3.500 years.” At Torah the maps are not delimited, but rather populations with diffuse and dynamic borders, very different from the control exercised by a modern nation-state. The borders drawn in XNUMXth century British protectorates are those that both populations claimed.
Israeli politicians upheld a double standard by extolling their public freedoms while transgressing rights in Palestine. The religious tolerance of the State of Israel of a confessional nature was highlighted and its sacred text was exploited to endorse its territorial expansions. Colonization movements such as the Zionist movement explored the Bible as a legitimizing document for his conquests against people for whom this text did not have the same authority. The application of the worldview of this work to a people who did not understand it as a category of authority is an example of political and religious imperialism.
Israeli General Moshe Dayan, considered a hero of his country's 1967 war, expressed the imperial dream of a greater Israel in his book, A new map, other relationships, in 1969, I quote: “We have not abandoned our dream and we have not forgotten our lesson. We return to the mountain, to the cradle of our people, to the inheritance of the Patriarch, to the land of the Judges and to the strength of the House of David. We returned to Hebron (Al-Khalil) and Schem (Nablus), to Bethlehem and Anathoth, to Jericho and to the fords of the Jordan at Adam Hair.”
Israeli imperial thought maintained its “minority alliance” strategy to reach agreement with minority groups in the region. His preference in the Middle East was not Arab or Muslim pre-eminence, on the contrary, he seeks an area of ethnic, religious and cultural diversity; avoid the possibility of pan-Arabism or a union of the Arab world. Strengthen differences such as the Persians, the Turks, the Kurds, the Jews and the Maronite Christians of Lebanon; venturing into the internal affairs of Arab countries, making agreements with the aforementioned ethnic or religious minorities. This expansionist thinking is in line with territorial expansion and the expulsion of the majority of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
The Palestinian gender, class and national struggle
Palestinian resistance received strategic and ideological influences from third world and leftist models. These movements of independence, socialist revolution or intransigence against US interference were, firstly, Algeria, then Vietnam, Cuba and China. Although these countries had a pattern of not being completely pro-Soviet, the truth is that they positioned themselves on the opposite path to American interests. Therefore, his profile was more related to the era of decolonization and the so-called Third World. However, the PLO exploited its full political and military potential, within certain limits.
At the same time, the movement did not have precedent paradigms that could be effectively applicable to its reality. This means that these models did not resemble the Palestinian situation to apply the same archetypes of national emancipation. The previous conception of the objective of independence – the elimination of the Zionist presence in historic Palestine – was reformulated in 1969 with the complementary concept of a “secular democratic state”, which would replace the exclusivist Israeli administrations.
Since 1967, Palestinians have associated their struggle with what happened in Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba and black Africa. This innovation in perspective was due both to the rise of a global political consciousness and to the universal struggle against colonialism and imperialism. The excessive interference of the powers in the area, added to the disputes generated by the Cold War – regional and global context – influenced the issue of Palestine. Therefore, we must analyze the extent to which each factor did so. Internationally, the United States, along with Israel and, to a lesser extent, Jordan, have consistently challenged the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
The Palestinian movement presents a diversity of approaches and movements in the political field. Gender imagery predominated in the countries' speeches, just as the nation was described as a woman. The homeland was imagined as a fertile female body that could be the object of the arbitrariness of the invaders. On the one hand, women, through their biological functions, regenerate the State. On the other hand, men are seen as honorary founders of the nation who suit the honor of their women. Female bodies bring citizens to the world and generate the nation. Mothers and widows carry the flag that fell into the hands of their heroic sons and husbands. Gender symbols – women's bodies, clothing and behavior – have become substantial signs of national cultures.
From a “Western” point of view, there is the notion that Palestinian women appeared on the scene with the so-called first Intifada. However, since the beginning of the 1950th century, they fought together with their people against colonization. The period from 1989 to 1988 saw the rise of the women's movement, which led to its participation in the widespread rebellion of 1992-XNUMX.
The 1929 Congress of Arab Women in Jerusalem began its political activism in a specific organization, in the context of the nationalist struggle. Women went from preserving the social fabric to becoming main political actors. Since the events of 1948 and 1967, society has reorganized the bases of a popular resistance movement. From then on, female activism changed gender images in which the male combatant was seen as the liberator of the nation and a central symbol in the construction of Palestinian nationalism, as can be seen in the attached poster.
Similarly, the General Union of Palestinian Women (GUPW), founded in 1965, brought together women's organizations. This organization worked with a dual purpose both for women's rights and for the national struggle and the construction of the State. A large number of recent studies focus on these aspects.
Participation in guerrilla activities was the main source of political legitimacy. Fida'i (combatant) Leila Khaled was a symbol of the armed struggle for the liberation of Palestine, a member of the PFLP, appeared in the photograph after the hijacking of a plane in 1969. The ring on her finger is made of a hooked grenade and a bullet. This revolutionary woman had a notorious profile as a Palestinian militant and caught the attention of the international public in 1969. As a member of Black September, that same year she participated in the hijacking of a flight that was diverted to Damascus; and in 1970, she did so in the multiple hijacking of four planes, she was arrested and released 28 days later in a prisoner exchange.
Women have a fundamental role, as in all societies. Of course there is a debate whether female or national liberation comes first, but in such an occupation and attempt at ethnic cleansing, women, men, adults and children join in the resistance, violence and the peaceful “to exist is to resist”, in Arabic Go ahead.
In 1969, Leila Khaled became the first woman in the world to hijack a plane and the iconic figure of Palestinian activism. The contrasts between her femininity and her combative stance attracted worldwide attention. The photograph of her taken that year by Eddie Adams, with her head wrapped in a kufiya, almost smiling while holding her Kalashnikov, acquired an emblematic status of Palestinian resistance. This image, disseminated by international news agencies, pushed it to become a revolutionary prototype, similar to the image and representation of “Che” Guevara.
The experience and outlook of Palestinians varied according to differences in class, generation and region of origin. The identity stories of refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, Syria and the countryside, or those residing in Israel, fed into each other to unite each specific worldview. However, the earth was the component par excellence, at a symbolic and material level, as denoted by Earth Day, the figure of the felahin, the struggles for the right to return and the presence of that shape on the map represented in its cultural manifestations. They did not feel like they belonged to the countries where they took refuge and thus maintained the hope of returning to their homes, as demonstrated by the custody of their old keys.
Camp residents and resistance cadres expressed the nuances of how the place of origin is appreciated in the particularities of food preparation, accent, customs, royal residence and local memories. In the second case, the class of origin – whether it had urban, rural land, or no land at all – was educated or illiterate. The urban/rural class division was repeated in the fields of residence, as was the integration or not in Lebanese society.
This affected both relationships within the camps and, for example, marriages. Thirdly, there were still traces of pre-Nakba political attitudes in the 1960s, such as opposition to political parties in general, unlike the case of Palestinians exiled in other latitudes which we will not discuss here for reasons of space.
The growing independence of Palestinian politics in the territories has had an impact on the difficult relationship with Jordan. Since 1970, that kingdom and the PLO had disputed the right to represent the inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In refugee camps, during the 1970s and 1980s, they created a series of identity metaphors for individual and collective experiences. They went through different phases, the period of resistance from 1968 to 1982 (from the Israeli invasion to the PLO in Lebanon) and the subsequent phase from 1982 to the intifada. Its consequences were linked to the “rise and fall” of the PLO and the dialectic between the populations of the interior and the diaspora.
Palestinian refugees in the West Bank rejected the victim stereotype. This attitude and the right to return were two of the most important references, as well as the social organization in daily life in the refugee camps. Refugees celebrated their status as the resistance movement restored their identity as Palestinians after two decades of alienation under the label “refugees”. Their identity and experience were consolidated through humanitarian work, the use of spatial practices and connections with their places of origin.
In the camps, a new religiosity proliferated among young people: prayer and attendance at the mosque, the invocation of Allah, the wearing of certain clothes by women. This pendular return to Islam in the period after 1982 formed an identity option critical to a frustrated secular nationalism. They perceived this as a reaction to the 1982 defeat, although although the religious level of their identity increased, the truth is that Palestine changed in form.
30 years after Oslo
The interesting thing would be to start with education and global action on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, BDS, in addition to the rupture of diplomatic relations with Israel, generating the dismantling of the apartheid system. We must diagnose to know what the situations are, given the structural racism combined with the collaboration and insertion of Israel in the Military Industrial Complex of the United States and NATO, in addition to being the axis of the “controlled chaos” plan in the expanded Middle East. East, the issue is to undermine and weaken this support, the American one, the real and urgent problem.
The Palestinian social and political reality was fractured into three planes (some consider four, with East Jerusalem): in the West Bank and Gaza, inside Israel and outside historical Palestine (refuge and emigration). These three dimensions, although they have particularities, were not isolated from each other and influenced each other. For Palestinians, they are part of the same reality and any Palestinian has their family members spread across these three worlds. In other words, the three spheres of the Israeli occupation of Palestine are interrelated and inseparable.
Firstly, the issue of refugees concerns those who have been expelled from their villages and forced into exile. Secondly, those who remained in the Palestinian territories – two decades under Jordanian (West Bank) or Egyptian (Gaza Strip) control –, later occupied by Israel in 1967. And thirdly, those who remained within Israel and received citizenship Israeli.
Although this last group may have taken advantage of being Israeli politically, socially and economically, the truth is that they had to endure an apartheid-like regime because they were not Jews, were suspected of disloyalty or were seen as a Palestinian fifth column. From one hundred and forty thousand in 1949, they rose to more than one and a half million today (20% of the Israeli population).
Being marginalized, Palestinian-Israelis demanded their Palestinian identity and a policy that links the end of discrimination and access to full citizenship in Israel with the resolution of the general issue. In other words, they considered their situation related to the conflict and thought that, after its resolution, the Jewish establishment would assume its integration into Israel.
Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel are united in their struggle for survival, in suffering and loss. Members of the diaspora have intensified their commitment to their homeland and demand a voice in the search for a solution. The perception focuses on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and on Palestinian efforts to establish a state there, thus being reduced to one of its dimensions. This European colonial enterprise had the particularity that Zionism did not represent a State in its beginnings. After 1948, it had one in its confrontation with the indigenous Palestinian population and its Arab neighbors.
A biased representation has been a traditional, pre-modern community, which has also been instilled in the rest of the Palestinians by most of the Western intelligentsia. Therefore, they would maintain multiple identities: Israelis, Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims; compatible with each other, but not free from tension. The new Israeli Jewish identity presented as an overcoming of its diasporic cultures of origin and its melting pot has also not been a monolithic and linear construction.
The case of the Palestinians is similar to that of the Armenians in denialism. Therefore, the Israelites, in this sense, are similar to the Turks and South Africans. In Turkish denialism, the leitmotiv it was: one people, one race, one religion; that is, “we are Turks, we speak Turkish and we are Muslims”. At the same time, in the Israeli case, the homogeneity of a Jewish State was sought.
The tool of the colonial paradigm of occupation and the analogy of apartheid would help to unblock the peace process and allow another step towards a resolution. One nationalism is oppressive (Israel), the other is the nationalism of the oppressed (Palestine). They are a national identity, despite those who contradict it. It is probably one of the most important cases of national struggle, but at the same time, it ends up being one of the most controversial.
Although Palestinians were formed in resistance, their specificity occurred in the diaspora, something that, paradoxically, is related to several differences with the Israeli case. They were reconfigured, they were exiled, but they did not become Jordanians, nor Syrians, nor Lebanese. In turn, they defined themselves as Arabs (to some extent pan-Arabs) and are linked to a Muslim identity and were oppressed by the Ottoman Empire.
It is a nation, they are Arabs and at the same time Palestinians. They went from a protonation to a forged nation, through the choice of certain symbols: the resistance, the PLO and its organic charter, its request for a secular democratic State. They have a different national identity than other Arabs. The Arabs are, in a sense, a nation, but they have not become a state, despite attempts such as the United Arab Republic (UAR, 1958-1961), which was reorganized into certain nation-states.
When a Palestinian is born in a refugee camp abroad, he or she is considered Palestinian. They are not just an overlapping nation, it resembles the situation of a people displaced by a colonist. In turn, the Palestinian-Israeli has two nationalities.
The Palestinian people continue to fight for their self-determination, regardless of whether a binational or two-state solution is possible. Without ignoring the situation of occupation that has been going on for decades and is continually increasing, it is a possibility that the elections scheduled for this year could be revived. At the same time, the application of apartheid to its population is internationally recognized, but this has not yet substantially changed its reality.
Among the forms of Palestinian resistance and international solidarity with their cause, we find the BDS, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (related to the South African campaign), which opposed the statements of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, of rejecting the assimilation between Judeophobia (anti-Semitism) as a form of racism and anti-Zionism, as a rejection of Israeli policies towards Palestinians.
Reconfiguration of the world system
The withdrawal of the United States is visible in some aspects, such as the withdrawal from Afghanistan, or the possible withdrawal from Iraq, but we cannot yet conjecture what its readjustment will be like for the entire region. What we can observe is a change in the scenario of military interventions that can undermine, bases, economic sanctions such as those against Iran, and alliances such as with Israel or Saudi Arabia, where they have influenced regional actors and popular mobilizations. This failed to prevent the destruction of several countries, from Libya to Afghanistan, with the terrible consequences for their populations and the refugees this caused.
It remains to be seen whether the United States will dismantle the war machine implanted in the Middle East due to its connection to the support of the dollar and because at the same time it seeks to intersperse strength and consensus with the sub-imperialisms of Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the co-imperial role of Israel; as well as intimidating rival powers. The last 20 years of this new imperialism and direct intervention are separate from the Chinese development when announcing the New Silk Road in 2013, which begins an almost opposite form of hegemony in relation to the region, in another type and moment of development.
This new scenario of systemic chaos has been outlined since the 2008 capitalist crisis and Obama's “Asian pivot” proposal, and with several indisputable facts of geopolitical displacement. A triangular axis between Russia, Iran and China that in 2013 opposed US proposals to bomb Syria. In 2015, Russia became decisively involved, with the tacit support of China.
The changes that have occurred and are visible in the last decade show that economic “Asianization” is fighting for power with two representatives of the triad, Western Europe and Japan, and a relative American decline in several economic indicators. The latest tectonic movements denote the importance of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, compared to the previous pre-eminence of the Atlantic; if we look, for example, at the busiest ports in the world.
Israel (the American power guarantees it a “qualitative military advantage” in the region) together with Saudi Arabia (supporter of the petrodollar), supports Anglo-American policies for the region. These are resolved between a “globalist” position that would support pacification, and another “Americanist” one that persists in the proposal for war, together with the management of NATO and the revival of QUAD (alliance between Australia, Japan, India and the United States). and now AUKUS (Australia, UK, USA).
The post-Soviet space is central to global competition for areas of influence and resources. Under NATO, the Anglo-American alliance seeks to militarily encircle the USSR and then Russia. In any case, the United States' bog-down in Central Asia and the Middle East would demonstrate that military supremacy is not consistent with the results of interventions.
This is a reflection of the reconfiguration of the world system. Three factors on the global table contextualize this new bloodshed. The influence of the United States and its relative decline in the Middle East, plus the deterioration of the conflict in Ukraine, the power of China and its alliance with Russia. US influence and its relative decline in the region and the Middle East. This is why it is crucial to understand the importance of analyzing the regional context and geopolitical implications of this issue.
Although this violence is cyclical, it shows how the world has changed, especially since 2013-2014. We face a long-term crisis in the United States, a relative decline in several economic aspects, while maintaining financial and technological primacy, its global hegemony is being questioned. It is guided by the “Asian pivot” since Obama in 2011, prior to the Belt and Road Initiative of 2013, and by Russia and China's brakes on the imminent destruction of Syria, which would have been the corollary of the destruction of Iraq (1991) . and 2003). ), Afghanistan (2001), Libya (2011). Therefore, it retreats in some key locations such as the Middle East, where China and Russia are advancing.
The United States, in its strategy of not giving up its primacy any further, has used its military expansion and intervention. Three areas of tension emerge as the main ones and a fourth, Eastern Europe with Ukraine-Russia and the so-called Middle East, Israel-Iran, and Taiwan in Asia-Pacific with China, in addition to the Sahel area highly revolutionized by the movements emancipatory or we could classify a “second wave of independence”, at least in Atlantic Africa.
The pattern of symbolic and material violence around the world, especially since 1945, increased in 2001, with what they called the “war on terrorism”. Now there is an attempt to renew this reconfiguration of the world system, with the rise of Chinese power accompanied by the strategic alliance with Russia, to which Iran adheres.
Ukraine as an axis of confrontation is more worn out. An incipient process of de-dollarization is being added due to the planning in this direction on the part of the great emerging powers that seek in this way to balance global power and avoid the weapon of US economic sanctions, as happened with Russia or Iran. The global system is also reconfigured by the ten years of “Belt and Road”. We have axes of tension on these routes and in the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is an analytical error to only observe what happens in Palestine-Israel and dissociate it from its regional and global context.
The current systemic explosion is the expansion of BRICS+ (plus the US elections in 2024) to eleven countries: Egypt, Ethiopia, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Iran (plus Argentina). They constitute a new axis of approach to Eurasia, of increasing oil production and of global geostrategic passages that cross the region, such as the Suez Canal, the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz. With the exception of Russia, they are colonized countries or semi-colonies of the G-7 powers in recent centuries.
Martin Martinelli Professor at the Department of Social Sciences at the Universidad Nacional de Luján (Argentina).
the earth is round exists thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
