Are you ready for our first ever NATIONAL CAMPAIGN?
Home / Current Affairs / 69 years after Nakba – 9 reasons why it is time for Israel’s retirement

69 years after Nakba – 9 reasons why it is time for Israel’s retirement

9 reasons why it is time for Israel’s retirement

Yet again we mark another birthday of the ongoing international catastrophe known as Israel. It has been 69 years since almost a million Palestinian were ransacked of their homeland, killed and displaced at gunpoint, replacing an entire indigenous community with another pan-European, American, cross-continental, and anything but native people. But today our spectacles will see through Israel’s concurrent massacres, displacement of millions and littered illegal settlements. Humanity has come to terms with this illness, and is beginning to look beyond its wounds. An illness terrifically intertwined in some way or another to every ‘problem’ in the world, be it political, irrigational,[1] agricultural,[2] racial,[3] educational,[4] or more often than not local.[5] This is simply because a ‘problem’ can only be fuelled by another perpetuated problem and can seldom survive with a ‘solution’. Thus talk of a ‘solution’ cannot include the Zionist entity if it is truly a solution.

From its inception by the promise of UK’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Baron Rothschild, leader of the British Jewish community in 1917, and the declaration of Ben-Gurion on the 14th of May, 1948 Israel seems more insistent than many of its adversaries that it is not here to stay. Others of the world’s smallest states (comparable to Israel), surrounded by similar ‘hostility’ that Israel pities itself for, such as Cuba never speak of nations or people ‘threatening their existence‘, a claim even fledged by Israel at Human Rights organisations.[6] Even the weakest nations never feel the need to prove that they are ‘here to stay’,[7] or outcry to supposed promises to ‘wipe Israel off the map’,[8] or see their own expansion into new settlements as something that ‘undermines Israel’s existence.’[9] It is not hard to see how this hysteria broadcasts Israel’s self-belief that it is not really ‘here to stay’.

Also read 

Reflecting on the Nakba by remembering the Prophet’s Night Journey 

Israel has far from used its 69 year career to rectify its image as the unwanted guest. In other words, nothing of its treatment to the native population serves to change its status of existence from ‘transient’ to permanent. We can compare this to Britain’s foothold in India which began gaining momentum as early as 1600. Its policy was one on-par with that of Israel, one that undermined rights, oppressed and was characterised by exploitation and social division. Tens of rebellions preceded the 1857 uprising against British East India Company, compelling the British Crown to amass India to its collection of colonies. Britain’s reinforced imperial presence was hampered by further resistive movements, many motivated by the anti-colonial sentiment created by the 1857 revolution eventually bringing British imperial rule in India to an end in 1947 – in just 190 years.

From 1948, Israel compelled itself an ‘invader’, ‘occupier’ and an entity that “must do everything to ensure they (the Palestinian refugees) never do return” according to David Ben-Gurion, the declarer of its ‘independence’ on the 14th of May, 1948.[10] The sentiment that this de-facto ‘state’ will be brought to an end has moreover existed perpetually amongst Palestinians and the world at large from the very beginning. Structured institutions and resistance movements are currently struggling to meet this end, and are united on the notion of ‘liberation’ from Galilee to Sinai, gaining ever-growing military presence and societal backing, all elements that were lacking in the India’s quelled 1857 revolt.[11] Thus the imminence of the Zionist mission coming to an end, as was the case with Britain’s defied colonies, is not farfetched or unrealistic. Realisation of Israel’s incumbent retirement could clarify why it suffers from what we can call an ‘existential complex’ and could explain why it is swaying further and further to the right. But the repercussions of this political and communal swing has only benefited the Palestinian cause and exacerbated Israel’s position. Consider the following:

1. Palestine obtained recognition from Sweden as a formal state. Sweden is the first western European country to break the deadlock, other than Bulgaria, Cyprus, Slovakia, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Romania and Non-EU member Iceland.[12] This was largely instigated by crippling Israeli settlement expansion. This has displayed its real thoughts on Palestinian statehood.

2. The Palestinian Authority has finally been pressured into becoming a member of the ICC as its image pursuing negotiations with a government clearly uninterested is becoming too embarrassing.[13] Although many will dispute whether the PA will dare take this membership further, it lays grounds for impartial prosecutors to revisit Israel’s atrocities.

3. Israel’s summer 2014 war on Gaza has rendered its military image to tatters. The massacre in 2014, at least two-thirds of which were civilians,[14] was on the back of no justification but smugness and spite (three Israeli teens lie,[15] if you remember), creating unprecedented international backing and support of Gazan resistance. The resistance’s achievements overhauled any previous war (sophisticated tunnel networks, Palestinian unmanned drones,[16] and astute armed confrontation to mention but a few), and tarnished the ‘invincibility’ of the IDF’s most ‘elite’ units.

4. Hamas’ political wing was absolved from its ‘terrorist’ status by European court, a position it held for at least 10 years to then be acquitted on the grounds of it being a “legitimately-elected government” paving the way to some sort of diplomatic empowerment.[17]

5. Israel is depending more on US pressure groups such as AIPAC and republican members of congress whilst side-lining the US government and the congress’s democratic composition in the most recent row over Iran’s nuclear programme.[18] Internationally, its previous Foreign Minister and fraudster, Avigdor Lieberman was considered just too racist to be received as a representative diplomat, causing further marginalising of the illegal state.[19] Is there finally an understanding in the US that the racist sentiment is shared by the electorate? Yes, Netanyahu was awarded fully at the last election despite his “breach of International protocol” and criticism of Obama.12 Quite obviously, and despite the billions of dollars the US gives it in charity, no feeling of gratefulness or recognition has been created.

6. A ‘United Arab Front’ political party was formed only to counter the right-wing threat, gaining 14 seats in the Israeli 120-seat parliament (Knesset) for the first time, ahead of Yesh Atid and Kulanu, and crushing poverty stricken, ultra-fascist Yisrael Beitunu (six seats) and climbing to third place as a formidable element of political opposition,[20] and representation that cannot be overlooked (including Islamic parties). This is a trial to Israel’s (non) ‘democratic’ status now, pushing it into an awkward dilemma of whether to allow appropriate representation on part the Arab MPs, or to continue to suppress this expanding voice. Note that in the 2006 Knesset elections, Likud, the now ruling party was third place behind Kadima and Labor, and although we do not bank on the Israeli political system, the presence of Arab MPs is bound to agitate right-wing cranks and challenge their bigotism.

7. The two-state ‘solution’ is now in shambles after Netanyahu’s pre-election statement that a Palestinian state will never take place under his office,[21] and indeed the electorate’s preference. This contravenes the long standing position of the international community. For the Palestinians, it either justifies Hamas’ notoriously criticised position of not recognising Israel, or necessitates that the international community censors Israel just as it censored Hamas for demanding a Historic Palestine as opposed to the now obliterated 1967 territory plan. A promise for no state at least provides stability to the cause and is no doubt better than a perpetual empty promise of statehood; the latter being the case for 69 years. How is a ‘state’ truly realised, the question is now being asked? Are we to return to the original charter? Or maybe we should allow Palestinians to achieve statehood in the way they decide.

8. Palestinian recognition at the UN general assembly as ‘an Observer State’ was only motivated by Israel’s extremist right-wing policies. [22] Yes, this achievement is largely symbolic, but it may help re-establish ‘Palestine’ as a reality that is not going anywhere.

9. History witnesses to the liberation of Palestine under the crudest of regimes: ʿUmar (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu) entered Palestine when it was under the rule of East Byzantium, then Salāh al-Dīn at the great battle of Hittin against the Crusaders after the latter had massacred 70,000 of Jerusalem’s inhabitants alone, then the Mamluk’s from the Tataar (Mongolians) at the great battle of ‘Ain Jālūt. Only when Salāh al-Dīn withdrew displaying happiness that Jerusalem was liberated, and Imām al-‘Iz b. ‘Abd al-Salām swore by Allāh ten times at the pulpit that the Mamlukes would drive out the Tatār did this envelope. So the gloomier the scene becomes, the more determinant the Ummah will become and the closer to its retirement Israel will encroach.

“[And We said in the Taurāt (Torah)]: “It may be that your Lord may show mercy unto you, but if you return (to sins), We shall return (to Our Punishment). And We have made Hell a prison for the disbelievers.”[23]



This article was originally posted in 2015










[10] Quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.





[15] l








[23] Al-Qur’ān, 17:8

The views expressed on Islam21c and its connected channels do not necessarily represent the views of the organisation.


  • Sent every few days to 20,000+ people
  • Receive our unique Islamic perspective on current affairs.
  • Ready for trustworthy, relevant & transformational articles, videos & podcasts?
By proceeding, you agree to receive our free email newsletter and accept our privacy policy.

About Abdullāh Ladadwi


  1. One of the mist absurd comparisons you could make is that between British-ruled India and Israel. For most of its history British India was ruled by people who were consciously and deliberately “non-native”. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries there was intermarriage and Indianisation of the British elites, But in the nineteenth century and especially after 1857 it changed. Then India’s rulers were raised and educated in Britain, married British women, sent their children to Britain when they were still young, and they returned to Britain when they retired. Their only connexion with India – often over several generations – was ruling it. The other astonishing thing is how few of them there were. At the height of the Raj a couple of hundred thousand civilians and soldiers administered tens of millions of Indians. They needed the assistance and collaboration of Indians to do so. More Indian than British troops were involved in suppressing the Mutiny, for example. The creation of India, except as a geographical expression, was a British achievement.
    Contrast that with Israel: the deliberate creation of a country and culture, the revival of a language dead for over a thousand years, identification, based on religion or supposed ancestry, with that specific area so intense that even those who do not live there aspire to.
    The other thing you omit, especially in your image of “the unwanted guests”, is the situation of “oriental jews”, the jews expelled from Arab countries in the 1950s. They and their ancestors had lived in those countries from long before they became “Arab countries”, which makes the question of just who were “unwanted guests” even more interesting. Their expulsion – apart from providing loot for the muslim inhabitants – was intended to bankrupt Israel by overloading its economy and increasing population beyond what it could support. Instead, it gave Israel the most anti-muslim, anti-Arab and expansionist members of its population, who would settle on the West Bank when they could. Where are they supposed to “retire” to? They are not likely to return to their ancestral lands, even if they would be accepted, and their experience of rule by others makes them unwilling to accept such a situation. The alternatives are to accept Israel’s existence for the foreseeable future more-or-less where it is or a war of extermination, for they won’t go willingly. Perhaps the nearest thing to justice would be to settle the Palestinians they dispossessed in the places where they lived. Somehow, I don’t think the people who stole those places would be too enthusiastic about that either.

    • Your points are fundamentally flawed and lack perspective from every angle conceivable. The presumption that Israelis are native, which is an utter fabrication of history and the present is what makes the comparison with India hold true and this argument invalid. As the author mentioned, the vast majority of Israelis are non-native, many of whom are not even Jews! Read the facts. Russia is not Palestine, nor is Germany, Poland, the US or any of the Arab Jews ‘expelled’ from Arab countries. The common denominator are how:

      The Brits, and the Israelis came to a foreign land to reside in (hoping it be perpetual) from abroad

      The Brits, and the Israelis established their hegemony and system in a way that suited their locals and degraded the rest

      The Brits, and the Israelis were (are) being resisted as the ‘unwelcomed guest’.

      The Brits, and the Israelis formed ancestry in this non-native land, and thus put a claim to it. The British crown overruled India in 1857 so that it becomes the owned property of the British Queen, regardless of the status the British inhabitants of India held for themselves.

      The Brits (and the French in Algeria on that note), despite hundreds of years of ancestry knew exactly where to return. Israelis likewise live by a societal, hierarchial system whereby social class is defined by place of origin (anywhere but Palestine), placing the Arab and Ethiopian Jews at the bottom of this hierarchy. Look how you make reference to ‘Arab Jews’ but claim they have no where to return. Of course a state like Israel, to establish its presence, sourced numbers from all over the world.

      The point is, if Britain, despite its supposed ‘achievement’ known as India retired after establishing dominance in a region that did not belong to it, Israel, by extension is more likely to ‘retire’ as all of the factors that contributed to the former, exist, to a greater extent in the latter. Retirement has never meant extermination, but dissassembly – something Jews against Zionism call for extensively today.

      • To take only one point, where would arab jews return to? Would you care to try to persuade them?

        Of course, by your own assertion that “The Brits, and the Israelis formed ancestry in this non-native land, and thus put a claim to it.” the arabs of North Africa and Mesopotamia have no rights to those non-native lands and should follow the example of the Moors in Spain and the Turks of eastern Europe and return to their ancestral countries.

        Whether Israelis are or not jews, whether they are natives or non-natives, is irrelevant. They define themselves as jews and natives and trying to convince them they are mistaken in their beliefs is probably not going to be a very easy task.

        • I’m glad we’ve established the similitude between the Brits and the Israelis. The next point, is that the ancestry of both is traceable to the establishment of their hegemony, for Britain 1857 and for Israel 1948. Thus, if you are lucky, you may find third generation Zionists in Palestine, but you will seldom find anything beyond this. I mean for goodness sake, the declarer of the very zionist entity can be seen on black and white TV, even if you are in your twenties or thirties, to shrug-off Israel’s inception in 1948 is ludicrous. Now we can discuss the Bible (which you inherently keep alluding to) on another occasion (and your rather amusing reference to biblical ‘Mesopotamia’). We also do not need to discuss the Biblical Arab (2000BC) Canaanites and their origin, or the presence of the Muslims from before the Umayyad Dynasty until the very day. These are facts, substatiated by material and historical evidence ‘known by necessity’.

          So the 5 million displaced Arabs will indeed return, but they will return to Palestine as they are known as Palestinian and nothing else (not German, Flasha, Russian, North-African, Polish or whatever else).

          As for convincing them. Don’t worry about this Hector as its not your problem. But for starters, read up about Saladin, Mohammad al Fatih, Beybers and how other Islamic figures ‘convinced’ the invader.

          • “I’m glad we’ve established the similitude between the Brits and the Israelis. ”
            …except we haven’t.
            I pointed out the differences and you disregarded them. Again: the British who ruled India, were brought up and educated in Britain and returned to Britain at the end of their careers. They regarded themselves as British citizens throughout their careers. The Israelis regard themselves as natives as the land they live in. Many of them consider it to have been given to them by god. The fact that Israel was established in 1948 is irrelevant. The fact that it actually exists is not.
            Where have I “inherently” alluded to the bible? Many Israelis base their claim to the land on the bible, of course, so it’s difficult not to allude to it, just as we can’t discuss muslim claims without referring ti the Koran. There’s nothing “biblical” about Mesopotamia – it’s still a standard geographical term – and my references to arabs were not to “the Biblical Arab (2000BC) Canaanites”, but to the arab “Muslims from…the Umayyad Dynasty” who invaded and occupied North Africa and Mesopotamia. Their claim to those lands, like the Turkish claim to Eastern Europe and the Moorish claim to Spain, the French claim to Algeria, the lands reclaimed by “Saladin, Mohammad al Fatih” – and the Israeli claim to Israel itself- all rest on “the good old Rule…the simple Plan,
            That they should take who have the power,
            And they should keep who can.”
            There is no moral difference between them. Just don’t grumble if the Israelis fail to “retire” as you would wish.

            • Except there is a moral difference between them. Saladin’s mistake, by the assertion of western historians, is that he was too kind to the crusaders who slaughtered 90,000 in the Aqsa compound alone. Jews enjoyed the protection of the Muslim empires, (please ask for the evidence if you are not convinced) whilst Palestinians are breathing in white phosphorous and depleted Uranium made in the US and are getting hit with bunker busters cargoed through Britain. So if its a moral claim to the land, it belongs to the Palestinians, if its historic, the Palestinians go ‘further back’ (EVEN IF only to the Umayyad Dynasty which is not the case), if its a claim based on societal cohesion and ordinance, it belongs to the Palestinians/Muslim rulers, if its religious (thank you), it belongs to the Palestinians/Muslims (the Qur’an), if legal, it belongs to the Palestinians.

              So there are two claims, one more valid than the other. One is substatiated through a corrupted scripture (that instructs the taking of 1000 gentile slaves for every man), attemptedly applied to a rogue, terrorist zionist entity (the supposed ‘chosen people of God’) no more, and the other through every custom by which rational humans follow. It’s your pick mate…

              • Produce the evidence that “Jews enjoyed the protection of the Muslim empires”. Just don’t forget the times they didn’t. The thing about all of your claims – “moral”, “historic”, “based on societal cohesion and ordinance” (and what does that mean, anyway?), “religious” “legal” – is that there are equally valid claims on the same grounds to be made by the Israelis, with the other factor that the Israelis are actually there. Historically actually being in possession far outweighs rhetoric about morality.

  2. It will never happen. Israel and its Jewish, Muslim and Christian multicultural population, is the only democratic, liberal and successful country in the terrible and backward area. G-d bless all those who turned it into a beacon of hope for the whole world. If you destroy Israel, you will have no country to blame for your declining civilisation and you will have to face the truth. The West and now China and Asia is passing you by and becoming richer and prosperous, whilst you slide into civil war, decay and ISIS. ENJOY !xxxxx

    • If you definition of civilisation is a rogue state that kills about 1000 children in almost each of its wars using white-phosphorus, the best of its military strategies something called ‘Hanibal’ which translates into destroying EVERYTHING in the horizon, and at best, building a racist wall to split its communities and ethnicities apart, then I am unsure which ‘civilisation’ I prefer in the choice of the two you’ve provided.

      Saying that, your constricted understanding of civilisation is money, for which I pity you. I don’t suppose who you mention have their eyes on Palestine, but probably on the 50 other nations turning Iraq into smithereens… O wait… who’s this? Not enjoyable x

  3. I find this a rather worrying and disturbing article. What does he mean exactly by Israel’s ‘retirement? A peculiar choice of words. He appears to be suggesting Israel should be wiped out. Am I missing something? Also the comparison to Cuba is so ludicrous it’s almost beyond belief. What future for ordinary Palestinians? They appear to be little more than pawns in other people’s games. Other people who put their own dubious agendas ahead of everything else.

    • “Does this mean to wipe Israel off the map”?!

      Maybe this is your ‘existential complex’ you have for Israel kicking in? Retirement means to end a career, so in this respect he probably means to end its occupation of all of Palestine

      • I hope you’re right, but it is rather ambiguous, and when you consider the many very vocal people in favour of wiping Israel of the map, it could easily be misconstrued.

        • Brother there is a difference between wiping Israel off the map if understood my removing all Jewish presence in the region and ending the occupation. The ambiguity arises if the two matters are equated, so that calls for the latter (ending the occupation) are considered a call to end Jewish presence.

          In the article, a comparison to the British Raj is made. Understanding it in this context means ‘to end a colony’, rather than the presence of British nationals in India as it were. Also, judging by History, the only empire to ever condition no Jewish presence in Palestine were the Byzantines, not the Muslims.

  4. Taalib-ul-Hammuda

    May Allah bring peace and security to our beloved brothers and sisters in the holy land of Palestine, and may He destroy those who seek to oppress and transgress the laws of Allah. Ameen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Send this to a friend