Palestinianism -  a Weapon, Not a People

From the very beginning, the Arab world never viewed the Palestinians as an end in themselves, but rather as a means to another goal. Not as a people to be granted rights or social welfare, but as a weapon in the war against Zionism. As early as 1921, the pattern was evident: the Arab world sought to use the Palestinians to disrupt, harass, and attack the reemergence of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

By the 1930s, this pattern of instrumentalization expanded beyond the Arab sphere. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany joined the effort, generously funding Arab resistance in Mandatory Palestine from 1932 to 1939. External support continued to pour in, even as the Palestinians themselves were treated with contempt within the Arab world. In many Arab states, they were marginalized, discriminated against, and seen as a domestic threat, a violent force of destabilization that no leader (outside of Gaddafi or Assad) wanted roaming freely within his borders.

Yet, in the context of the "struggle against Israel," these despised pariahs of the Arab world suddenly became valuable. They served as a bridge to the Islamization of Europe, the Palestinization of Israel paralleling, in morphological terms, the Islamization of the West. As a political instrument, the Palestinians were assigned several strategic roles: to divert attention from the corruption of Arab regimes, to undermine the stability of moderate governments, and to chip away at the legitimacy of the only Jewish state on earth. Lately, the Palestinian cause also serves as a convenient distraction for Europeans - a moral decoy that diverts attention from their own accelerating Islamization.

Over time, the Palestinians came to resemble a prostitute passed from one patron to another, serving shifting agendas with a single function. And just like that prostitute, the Palestinian cause is trafficked across the global stage as a recurring sacrifice on the altar of anti-Zionism.

Even the Palestinian leadership operates according to this same parasitic logic. From Fatah to Hamas, the ruling elite long ago abandoned any serious effort to build institutions or a functioning civil society. Like an addict who must stay high to survive a brutal lifestyle, they are constantly fed a drug cocktail of hatred, violence, and eternal victimhood to keep the system running. Their survival depends not on peace, but on perpetual conflict.

Meanwhile, European governments pour money into this chaos, ostensibly for humanitarian aid, fully aware that much of it ends up funding terror, incitement, and death. The arrangement is grotesque: European guilt and moral vanity are purchased with Jewish blood, spilled at the hands of the Palestinian proxy.

In every relationship in this system, the pattern repeats: Arab regimes provide diplomatic cover; Europe supplies money and legitimacy; the price demanded is the same, sustained violence, relentless pressure, and the ongoing deaths of Jews. From the Palestinian leadership’s perspective, their own people have become the fuel of this business model. Hatred is their most stable and productive national asset. Hence the Nazi-like indoctrination in schools.

The result is that Palestinian nationalism functions less as a liberation movement and more as a self-replicating ideological weapon, reliable, programmed, and designed not to build a state but to dismantle one: Israel. Their purpose is to keep the Jewish state under constant siege, morally, politically, and militarily. In this sense, they serve as a kind of modern-day "yellow star," a symbolic marker that Jews must once again wear, only now, on the global stage. And tragically, many Jews refuse to remove it.

Beyond the political, there is a deeper philosophical layer. The post-colonial worldview, grounded in the archetype of "killing the father," has adopted the Palestinians not merely as a moral cause, but as a symbolic rebellion against the West itself. Jewish sovereignty in Israel represents a fusion of Western values, national identity, liberal democracy, and self-determination, with ancient biblical roots. The attack on Israel is not about siding with the oppressed, but about symbolically striking at what is perceived as the primal “father” of Western civilization.

Palestinian identity itself emerged only in reaction to the return of the Jews. Prior to Zionism, there was no distinct Palestinian national consciousness. Their story is not one of aspiration, but of negation, an identity built not around what they are, but around rejection of what the Jews represent. In that, it is archetypal: not only because it centers on the Jew, but because it reflects the pattern of a people coming into being only through the symbolic murder of a father, in this case, the very father of Western culture.

And the conflict continues, in part because Israel allowed it to. By refusing to sever itself from this weaponized narrative and take decisive action, Israel has itself assumed the posture of the West: paralyzed, guilt-ridden, and complicit in the rise of the very ideology bent on its destruction.

Israel is a father who does not set boundaries.

This is the tragic paradox: a nation that rose from the ashes of history, now burdened by the guilt of others, is still forced to fight, just to justify its right to exist.