31 July 2007
Posted to the web 31 July 2007

Reason Wafawarova

THERE should be no illusions over the magnitude of resentment, sabotage and full-scale resolve to reverse the Third Chimurenga, especially by Britain and her Western allies. In fact, there are striking similarities between the reasons Palestinians are being denied access to their land and Western attempts to sabotage the success of the land reform programme.

Not only are the similarities based on opinion, but also on historical facts derived from communications between the founders of Zionism, Israel's political philosophy, and the founders of Rhodesia, now our very own Zimbabwe.

The principal architect of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, who surprisingly justified anti-Semitism as inevitable, wrote to Cecil John Rhodes, the founder of Rhodesia, in 1895 as he considered Rhodes an outstanding visionary. Rhodes had popularised himself as the face of the mass of white settlements in Southern Africa after countless bloody battles with the African population.

Herzl wrote to Cecil John Rhodes:

"You are being invited to help make history. This cannot frighten you . . . it does not involve Africa but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishmen but Jews . . . I turn to you . . . because it is something colonial . . ."(John Rose, The Origins of Zionism, 1986).

Herzl was an Austrian Jewish journalist who covered the much-publicised Dreyfus trial in France in 1895, a trial that provoked an outburst of anti-Semitism that Herzl surprisingly conceded as inevitable and justifiable. He declared: "Above all, I discovered the emptiness and futility of trying to combat anti-Semitism."

Herzl, as a founding member of Zionism, found it convenient to justify anti-Semitism just because the suffering of fellow Jews in Europe and other parts of the world would work in his favour as he was desperate for a push factor to get Jews to join his Zionist dream of going back to Palestine, a regrouping largely seen as a fulfilment of biblical scriptures and promises by those who buy into the myth that Jews are God's chosen people.

This thinking came against a backdrop of a Jewish Diaspora community that did not show the slightest inclination to uproot themselves from their new homes to return to the land of their religion's founders. To Herzl, the persecution of Jews was fine as it propped his campaign for a return to Palestine. Pretty much the same way, the gruelling suffering effected by the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by some Western is welcomed by opposition leaders who believe it abets their campaign for a revolt against the Government.

The role of the British government and the likes of Herzl will be pursued a little later, but for now it might just be necessary to look at how Rhodes responded to Herzl's call that invited him to take part in "making history" by helping in the occupation of Palestine.

Rhodes, whose major motivation for colonialism was recognition of the role imperialism could play in drawing off an "unwanted" portion of the British population who might otherwise become a source of instability, was quite impressed by Herzl's invitation and wrote back saying:

"I was in the East End of London (a working class quarter) yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for "bread", "bread" . . . I pondered . . . and became more and more convinced of the importance of imperialism . . . In order to save the 40 million inhabitants of the United Kingdom from bloody civil war we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and the mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid a civil war, you must become imperialists."

Herzl was impressed by Rhodes' imperialist beliefs and he went on to assert that the only guarantee to an eventual Jewish state would be one based on what he called "assured supremacy". This meant obtaining imperialist backing and he again wrote:

"England, with her possessions in Asia, should be most interested in Zionism, for the shortest route to India is by way of Palestine. England's great politicians were the first to recognise the need for colonial expansion . . . And so I believe in England the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily understood."

Herzl's religious beliefs and his fanatical ambitions of finding a home for Jews through "assured supremacy" over Palestinians was well complemented by the imperial agenda of the day that had Britain trying to acquire new lands to manage the woes of overpopulation, acute unemployment and dwindling markets for its products.

After the First World War, Britain took effective control of Palestine after successfully engineering an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire headquartered in Turkey. On his death Herzl was succeeded by Chaim Weizmann, who promised that if the British encouraged and allowed a Jewish settlement in Palestine, Jews would "develop the country, bring back civilisation and form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal", then under threat from hostile Middle East states led by Egypt.

For his efforts, Weizmann was invited for secret discussions with the British government in 1917; discussions led by Lord Balfour, the British minister who had introduced the British Aliens Act, 1905, legislation particularly targeted at stemming Jewish immigration into the UK. The number one enemy of the Jews became Weizmann's host at what was to be known as the Balfour Declaration of 1917; a declaration that expressed British support for Zionist settlement in Palestine and Zionist acceptance of British control of Palestine.

The declaration promised "a national home for the Jewish people". And, as Winston Churchill observed, ". . . a Jewish state under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four million Jews . . . would from every point of view be beneficial and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire".

This is the partnership deal that binds Zionism and imperialism to this day. It is the partnership later taken over by the Americans from the British after the Second World War. Clearly, this partnership was never based on either hatred for anti-Semitism or the love for the ordinary Jewish person.

Rather, it was based on the religious philosophy of Zionism and Messiahism pushed under the protective cover of imperialism, itself driven by the greed of the ruling elite in the British Empire, an elite that was now desperate to pacify the increasingly discontented lower class of their own society, just as Cecil John Rhodes clearly articulated in his letter to Herzl.

Reclamation of the stolen lands of Palestine is but a blatant reversal of the imperial gains made by the British and the US since Britain took over control of Palestine in 1918. Just as a successful reclamation of Zimbabwe's stolen lands would pose a serious threat to imperial authority and its gains in sub-Saharan Africa. In this context, it is very difficult to see any of the Western powers giving in to either the Palestinian or Zimbabwean cause.

Implicitly and maybe explicitly, anti-Semitism became a partner of Zionism rather than its polar opposite just because it served the convenient purpose of driving the "docile" Jews into the action of what we now know as the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Likewise, the sanctions-induced economic decline has become a partner of the so-called "pro-democracy forces" in Zimbabwe rather than its polar opposite just because it happens to be perceived to serve a convenient push factor role in the opposition's dream of a mass revolt against President Mugabe and the Government. This has gone on to the extent that Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader, openly calls for Zimbabwe's isolation, even from neighbouring South Africa, a country Tsvangirai and his group blame is not making life hard enough for Zimbabweans.

To the Western ruling elite, the feeling of losing to the Palestinian cause for reclamation of their stolen lands as well as that of Zimbabwe can be compared to the feeling of castration. They simply can't stand it and may be they won't stand it.

The founders of Zionism technically coerced Jews into their dream of the "promised land" by condoning anti-Semitism just as the neo-liberal insidious opposition forces of Zimbabwe are trying to coerce Zimbabweans into a so- called "new Zimbabwe". However, let it be known that Israel has not known peace ever since it was helped occupy Palestine by the British and US forces.

They have lived by the might of firepower and their superficially prosperous economy is almost entirely based on US aid.

At least Israel enjoys the benefit that comes from Western fears of losing control of Middle Eastern oil. Those in the MDC cannot enjoy the delusion of ever gaining as much favours as the Israelites do for the simple reason that the stakes for Zimbabwe are more symbolic than they are of threatening economic practicalities. Sadc, which surrounds Zimbabwe, is not as hostile as the Arabic Middle East. Agriculture plays second fiddle to oil, and all the MDC can hope to get from the imperial coalition is a pat on the back and a few crumbs from the wealth to be looted should the fight for the reoccupation of Zimbabwe succeed.

A feat that is highly unlikely given the anti-colonial resolve of Zimbabweans, particularly those in rural areas.

It is not surprising that when it suited them, the British blessed anti-Semitism even through their legislation; and when it suited them to demonise it for purposes of mobilising support against the Nazis, they championed the fight with relish.

Are we not told on hand that British politicians and the Americans are not sleeping over the "starving poor people of Zimbabwe" yet at the same time the self-proclaimed philanthropists sit in parliaments across Western capitals debating how best to make the Zimbabwean economy collapse?

Are these not the same governments that created and nurtured the likes of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and even Osama bin Laden, only to turn around and tell the world that these people were the worst evil ever to grace the face of the earth?

Examples of imperialist double standards are just too numerous to mention. However, it is incumbent upon Zimbabweans to choose the best way out of the current situation. There is no room for staying between two opinions. The harder painful way is to keep confronting the imperialist onslaught by making sure that the land reform programme is successful. This calls for hard work, sacrifice, determination and a resolve to succeed from both the Government and those privileged to be currently settling on arable land.

It also requires everyone's sacrifice when it comes to economic priorities. This means Treasury must prioritise according to the challenge to win the current war and not simply act to please greedy and powerful individuals who might want to use their might for personal gain and self-interest.

That way, it is impossible to win the war, especially against the forces ranged against us.

Of course, the easier but disastrous option is to give in to imperial will and be accommodated in the so-called Commonwealth where we can easily regain our old position as prominent providers of cheap labour and a huge market for imports from imperial centres, this time under the watchful eye of the imperial master lest another "rabble rouser" crops up.

This writer does not believe in the perpetuation of imperialism and is definitely opposed to Rhodes' vision of fixing homegrown problems by embarking on imperialism with no due regard for the people occupying the so-called new lands. To this writer, the reversal of the land reclamation programme would be a revival of Rhodes' dream; henceforth a revival of Rhodesia, the country he founded, which we proudly buried on that historic 18th day of April in 1980 as we all celebrated the birth of Zimbabwe.

The resolve that is needed to win the war Zimbabwe is fighting against imperial authority is a resolve that says: It's better to be a free man in one's grave than to live in chains. It is a resolve not easy to comprehend for some, but nevertheless achievable once those in leadership remain steadfast.

The 2008 elections are going to come and go, but they are not coming with a solution to the war at hand. We are not going to vote away inflation or vote in prosperity; no, we have to work for both.

Politicians provide a working environment for people to create wealth; they do not create any wealth themselves. It is up to Zimbabweans to choose under what environment they want to work and create wealth; the choice is realistically between providing cheap labour for imperialist investors and doing it ourselves.

We are, first and foremost, Zimbabweans before we form or join political parties. Zimbabwe was born in 1980 and there is no other new Zimbabwe coming, we need to work on this one for better or for worse; it's our country, the only one we will ever get, and we must work for it, and defend it.