That state was envisioned to represent a cancer that will do to the Muslim “body” or society – both as an idea and a palpable civilizational reality – what a cancer normally does to a biological body.

The same state will act as a proxy geopolitical entity through which Britain and the rest of the Western world will exercise their authoritative influences. Israel will do the dirty work on the ground and will be rewarded accordingly by its Western masters.

John Philby (1885-1960) – a British scholar, Arabist, and explorer who converted to Islam in 1930 and became an adviser to King Abdulaziz b. Al Saud – said that even when England was planning to maintain Palestine as its colony, the English Government was using the Jews to its advantage.

The circumstance was akin to a political game of the most advanced degree. However, John Philby’s personal view was that “England should get out of the country which rightly belonged to the Arabs.” 

The Zionist Jews, on the other hand, were emboldened by the chaos and accompanying uncertainties that were increasingly engulfing the region.

Hence, the obstinate position of David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973) – a major Zionist leader, Israel’s founding father, and the country’s first prime minister – was that the Jews had a right to return to Palestine; they would fight for that right if necessary” (John Philby, Ibn Saud and Palestine).

📚 Read Also: Is Gaza God’s Will?

This union between the West and Israel was one of expediency, rather than principle. It was a marriage of convenience (arranged alliance or strategic wedlock) that resulted in the birth of an illegitimate “child” (geopolitical entity) called “Israel.”

One can also argue that such connoted a way to exonerate the West from any responsibility concerning the horrors the Jews had to endure during World War II, particularly in the West. Nor can it be entirely precluded that the West wished thereby to “constructively” get rid of the recurring Jewish nuisance.

Such stood for a kind of permanent solution whereby both the West and Israel were supposed to emerge as winners.

It is true that well before World War II, the Zionist Jews were craving for the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine, and that the dream would have come true somehow sooner or later, with or without the holocaust, but the role of the West in expediting, implementing and facilitating the proposal was indisputably pivotal.

The Zionist state aspiration was the raison d’etre of Zionism as a philosophy and a nationalist movement, onto which, later, the Western anti-Islamic and pro-Zionist political interests were grafted.

In passing, the father of Zionism was Theodor Herzl who died in 1904. He articulated his ideas in a pamphlet titled “The State of the Jews” (“Der Judenstaat” in German) which was first published in 1896 in Leipzig and Vienna. 

Nonetheless, a large number of Jews, led by their renowned scholars, argue that the notion of Jewish statehood is merely a subset of the Zionist nationalistic drivels.

They posit that the Jewish people are either forbidden from having a state or are dissuaded from pursuing such a course of action.

Either way, creating a Jewish state is not the be-all and end-all. By no means is it the panacea for the Jews.