No-frills racist European white man

The European Union took a step to cancel the celebration (Europe Days) to prevent extremist Ben Gvir from speaking as a representative of his country, announcing in his statement: (We do not want to provide a platform for someone whose views contradict the values that the European Union represents). As for the French officials, it seems that they will boycott Smotrich when he comes to Paris to attend the conference of finance ministers of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Some may find in these steps a good European stance against Zionist racism, so they cheer the announced position, and I, like them, welcome this. Indeed, what do we want more than to boycott Ben Gvir and Smotrich, who represent fascist Zionist racism in its best form? There is no doubt that this affects the position of the occupying power in the world. However, the question arises here strongly: Will the presence of another minister to celebrate (Europe Days) other than Ben Gvir, or Netanyahu himself, will not contradict (with the values represented by the European Union)? Are Ben Gvir and Sotrish fascists and racists among Europeans, while Netanyahu is a liberal democracy acceptable to Europeans and in line with their values? And do settler colonialism in Palestine, the policy of ethnic cleansing since the Nakba, and the racial discrimination practiced in the state of the Zionist project, do not contradict in general (with the values represented by the European Union)? Perhaps the European Union needs extraordinary courage in using the false propaganda machine to justify its positions.

This is what Ursula, the President of the European Commission, and the German government did not feel they needed, as they are quite frank in representing what I believe to be the values of the European Union.

The German government has not stopped pursuing any political activity in solidarity with our people and denouncing the crimes of the occupation, whether it was carried out by solidarity Germans, who seem to be few, or activists of the Arab and Palestinian communities. Of course, the argument/lie is always the same: this is anti-Semitic activity. Recently, they prevented any activity to commemorate the Nakba, under the same pretext. It seems that the Germans are not only loyal to the white man's racist policy as expressed by Ursula, and we will come later on it, but rather they still suffer from that historical psychological complex that the Zionists instilled within them about their responsibility for the Holocaust, and they are certainly responsible, which prevents any German condemnation of Zionist racism, Rather, defending and justifying it with allegations of anti-Semitism.

As for Ursula, she was the official representative of all the heritage of the white, racist-imperialist European man, so that she summed up the ideological arsenal of all European racism in two sentences: she described Israel as a “vibrant democracy” and addressed the Israelis, saying: “You literally made the desert bloom.” The first sentence is an echo of what was propagated by the racism of the European white man, the owner of the colonial project, that their colonization aims to spread democracy and freedom among primitive peoples. As for its second sentence, it can be considered consistent with the most brazen justifications in the history of the European white man when he portrayed the world outside Europe as barren waiting for (the European civilized savior to reconstruct it), and here he is now in the form of the Zionist colonizer, as Ursula sees it.

Ursula did not hide her racism, her ideology of the white man, and her remarkable enthusiasm for the Zionist colonial project. Nevertheless, it is not surprising that ideological ties exist between the two projects: European colonialism and its ideology since the sixteenth century, and the Zionist colonial project and its ideology formed since the middle of the nineteenth century. Rather, it is more than that: the second project can be considered the offspring of the first, as the man is white here and there, and the colonizer is here and there. And his (civilized) argument to justify his racism and colonization here and there, but more and more: the religious justification, represented by the slogan of the Promised Land and God’s chosen people present here and there, with the Catholic Church and Protestantism that promoted colonialism at the time, and with the Zionist movement and the cross-pollination it created between its political project and the biblical text.

Ursula said the essence that the European Union and the French government did not succeed in their position on Ben Gvir and Smotrich in camouflaging it with weightless formalities. European policy is the same as it was for centuries: racism par excellence and imperialism par excellence.