Notes On Palestine and the Diaspora

There is a very simple premise I want to introduce to the Muslim diasporas living in the Anglosphere - that Palestinian advocacy in the long run that is sustainable and coherent is only possible by allying with and encouraging "isolationist" tendencies that prioritise a sense of national interest. At present, the Western bloc is dwarfed by consideration of American Imperial Sovereignty. That is to say, many of the so called "partners" of the Americans are vassal states that have abdicated important decisions about geopolitical manoeuvring to Washington. The reasons for this deserve separate enquiry but the legacy of WWII and American expansion into Europe has created a historical and psychological debt amongst EU elites who are unable to imagine a world where they can operate independently outside of the American sphere of influence. Compounded by the Cold War and now the Russia-Ukraine war. There is also a larger civilizational anxiety that without American power the current liberal order would simply fall apart.

Overall, this political outlook can be summed up as Cold War liberalism which Samuel Moyn has recently published an excellent book on. Moyn tries to excavate and present a pre-Cold War liberalism that is shorn of its authoritarian and surveillance-state tendencies which I think is ultimately completely unconvincing but in the process of his work he neatly summarises the predicament of our current condition which has long existed prior to the recent Russia-Ukraine war. Moyn describes below the impact and genesis of this movement:

Cold War liberals changed all that. In the Cold War, liberalism’s relationship to emancipation and reason—rooted in the eighteenth-century intellectual departure known as the Enlightenment—disintegrated. Expectant hope now felt naïve, and the aspiration to universal freedom and equality was denounced as a pretext for repression and violence. In response, the brand of theory that Cold War liberals invented in the 1940s and 1950s, far from being emancipatory, insisted on strict limits to human possibility. Belief in an emancipated life was proto-totalitarian in effect if not in intent. Historical expectation regularly justified political repression. It was most important to preserve existing liberty in a vale of tears; it was brittle and fragile and always on the verge of assault or collapse. Where earlier liberals had come to accept democratization, if cautiously and often grudgingly, Cold War liberals abhorred mass politics—including mass democracy. And where the liberal imperialism of the nineteenth century had at least promised to spread freedom and equality across the globe, early Cold War liberalism gave up any global designs in order to preserve the West as a refuge for liberty in a world of tyranny. With the globe’s peoples emancipated from the direct control of transatlantic liberals as formal empire ended (including America’s Philippines holdings), communism threatened not just Europe but also the new states of the post-imperial globe. Liberals have not yet figured out how to spread freedom without empire. The forlorn Cold War liberals counseled them not to try.

Although, Moyn discusses Zionism briefly in his book he misses the point - Zionism is an important structural pillar of the security arrangement of Cold War liberalism. The dream of Zionists who had capitalised on the horrors of the 20th century amidst fierce Jewish existential distress was to implant ideas of European Enlightenment statecraft in fundamentally alien soil and trying to protect it from the "Other". In doing so Zionism has evolved logically from its modernist origins to become an anti-theistic, secular and statist behemoth that thrives on social engineering and has strong globalist aspirations through the Trojan horse of Technology. It wishes to create "Smart City Gulags". Zionism had created itself a narrative that unlike the other nationalisms and statist enterprises of the 20th century, its final goal and destination was to replicate for itself the material and constitutional character that American elites could recognize and self-identify with. Hence Joe Biden in the vigour of his youth before his rather comical onset of rapidly advancing dementia, stated that America would have had to create an Israel if it had not existed. In many respects this technocratic self-image (evolving towards the Cybernetic is the basis of the normalisation drive with the GCC whose elites are starting to adopt similar sentiments regarding their own image and political identity on the world stage.

Multipolarity brings with it a unique generational opportunity to instigate Europeans and those in the UK to ask whether this vassal state agreement which has been the status quo since at least the Cold War is in anyway beneficial. The continuous support for Israeli aggression is not an isolated stand-alone policy but rather a key characteristic of a much larger settlement between the Centre of American Empire and its provinces in Europe. One of the silver linings of the Brexit movement was that it asked a fundamental question about national sovereignty and whether this should be abdicated to a globalist technocratic institution that operated with little oversight or accountability. This moment however has evaporated as Brexit elites have now traded in the EU for even further servitude and abdication to the American Centre. A logical extension of the Brexit moment which fundamentally is much more about borders is about the locus of power and policy. Where does it lie? Who dictates policy? Who shapes the priorities of a country?

Against such a configuration, it is important for Muslim diasporas to be aware that identifying the Palestinian cause solely and exclusively with one side of a manufactured political spectrum - i.e. the Left is short-sighted. What is even more short-sighted is allying and relying solely on far-left social movements that have no coherent or plausible platform that replaces reigning American vassal-statehood. Part of the package of being an American vassal is to guarantee Israel's technological and military edge in the region by paying tribute in the form of corrupt aid packages, turning a blind eye to the Military Industrial Complex and allowing American Imperial corporate interest to replace any sensible discussion about what is reasonable and sensible for the country.

The question of Palestinian advocacy which is sustainable in the long term is not to ask cultures and civilizations that have little to do with the Islamic sentiments around Al Quds to become "pro-Palestine" - that is an absurd utopian aim that will not come to fruition. The wider conversation should focus on diminishing and undermining Israeli exceptionalism. Why is Israel to be treated differently than other regimes that are also important to American Empire but do not operate with the same reckless sense of expansionary aggression, for example Saudi Arabia? Why does Israel deserve billions in unaccounted and unaudited aid funded by tax revenues especially in a time of profound fiscal stress? Why is it in the interest of say France or the United Kingdom to continue to maintain the world is frozen at 1999 when dealing and organizing its relationship with Israel? How does it benefit the long term interest of individual member states of the American axis to continue to follow blindly when now there are opportunities to forge new links and relationships with other regional players that may prove to be more important in the post-Pax Americana age?

Although I use "isolationism" for the lack of a better term this is not sufficient or enough to capture the spirit of such political enquiry and questioning. One is simply moving beyond American Empire as the starting premise and foundation. It is not "isolationism" to engage more even handedly (and shrewdly) in a multipolar world. In shifting the political conversation away from the dictates of an over-stretched, bloated and increasingly dysfunctional Empire, one is paving the way for greater relief for the Palestinian cause. Cutting Israeli aid, questioning the corporate and institutional privileges granted to Zionism in Western national and public life are sensible first steps - the plea to treat Israel the same as Saudi Arabia or India, other important players in a post-Pax Americana age is a sensible one that does not require deep cultural or religious affiliation with the Palestinians. I see this as part of a mature evolution going beyond "protest and clicktivism".

I also think the question of Technology can be ignored any longer. Zionism is fundamentally a technocratic movement - I think identifying it as "colonial-settler" misses the point because it is only due to its technological edge and superiority that it is able to command a presence in the region. Through technology, it has also forged strong and robust institutional and corporate ties with the Centre of American Empire. Currently, across Western republics and democracies following in the spirit of the Patriot Act (but originating with the infamous Crypto Wars of the 90s) governments and elites are actively moving towards breaking encryption of messaging and social media apps, creating new laws of censorship under the guise of "disinformation" monitoring and trying essentially to undo the most anarchic and decentralising tendencies of the original Internet revolution.

Palestinian advocacy for diaspora communities stranded away from the Islamicate heartland needs to look at expanding beyond token left wing politics which has revealed itself to be an utter shame. Principles moving forward in summary should involve

• Advocating for greater national sovereignty, control and independence from the America centre on grounds of self-interest
• Tied to the above - calls for greater fiscal and monetary responsibility again argued in the national self-interest
• Calling for greater financial oversight and accountability of the aid sent to Israel and ask it be treated the same as any other regime
• Greater advocacy for digital freedoms, privacy and anonymity - to be firmly on the side of "freedom-tech"
• Channelling resources away from left wing political causes that if anything have proven themselves to be as loyal to the cause of American Empire as the neo-conservative Right

This should be the start of a conversation rethinking Palestinian advocacy that is tied to much larger questions as illustrated above.

As for the question of advocacy in Muslim majority countries - that is entirely a separate discussion altogether and one I feel that the we in the diaspora will have little impact or influence on in a practical sense.

Ibn Maghreb

And God knows best