The Israeli declaration of independence refers to the one God in order to underpin by law what it calls « the redemption of Israël ». One can actually read in the document of the ministry of foreign affairs:
Trustful in Almighty and eternal God, we sign this declaration on the soil of our fatherland, in the city of Tel Aviv, during this session of the provisional assembly of the State, held on the vigil of the celebration of the shabbat, May 14th 1948.
From what is said in the « universal dictionary of gods, goddesses and demons », edited by the Seuil, and supervised by Patrick Jean-Baptiste, it is doubtful whether that Almighty and eternal God could ensure the foundation and the restauration necessary to the undertaking of a redemption.
« Monotheism, say the authors, can never be taken for granted, and the imaginary line which separates it from polytheism can only be found in books specialized in religion history, nowhere else. Outside a small circle of an elite of theologians and philosophers, the belief in a one God, at the same time transcendant and immanent, a-temporal and historical, personal but unpresentable, omniscient and almighty, is extremely rare. Conversely, the belief in a multitude of specialized and local deities, personal and collective, never departs from the conviction that a heavenly hierarchy exists, where the god that you have chosen to worship as a priority, is in fact the only one that really counts, the other ones being subservient to that chosen one. » The dictionary also mentions, as an infringement of the transcendental dimension, the Shekinah, an entity of light or glory, an intermediary between god and man, adorned with an aramaic equivalent aimed at shrinking any anthropomorphic perception. It also mentions this irrepressible anthropomorphic need to represent, as witnessed by a coin dating back to 380 B.C., showing Yahvé with his female consort Ashera sitting next to him. Such a strong need being also shared by the Christians, God the Father, originally invisible, becoming visible in the post-Christ iconography from the first millennium onwards.
When Ben Gourion says that, faced with historical and archeological discoveries which can’t but undermine the teachings of biblical texts, he will continue to refer to that biblical teaching, he does nothing but choose the personal and collective god that he worships in priority, namely, the god of zionism. The conquest of Canaan by Joshua, although mythical, will provide, unsurprisingly, the ideological background for the territorial conquests undertaken by the zionists, « authorized armed prophets », replicas of the princes taught by Machiavel.
One can read, page 863 of the above mentioned dictionary of gods, that Yahvé is also called Elohim in Genesis, and that diverse clues let us think that that god is not an only one, surrounded as he is, by a heavenly Court of immortals, the sons of Elohim, as testified by his reaction to the eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam: « And now man has become like one of us, knowing right from wrong (Genesis 3, 22). » Well, says the dictionary: this « us » cannot be the plural of the majesty, since Yahvé always uses the first person singular, anomie, when he speaks.
That god, allegedly almighty, turns out to share his might with other deities. Pretending that this god is eternal, goes against a historicity which has been proved by historical and archeological researches. One must wait until the devastation of the Temple in Jerusalem, together with the deportation of the judean elite to Babylonia, to see the elaboration of a really universal eschatology. The Nobles and the sacerdotal class of jerusalem, settled near the Euphrate river, found themselves forced to rethink the Yahvé theology so as to be able to explain the loss of the promised land. Under the influence of great thinkers, such as Ezechiel and the second Isaïe (that of the exile), they undertook to give form to what will end up being the hebraic bible, and to turn Yahvé into the god of mankind as a whole. A late shaping, says Régis Debray on July 14th at France Culture in « Allons au fait », depicting the one God as a « latecomer, a late dropped god, even on the land of the hebrew people. » Late, because the one god had to wait until the 100 000 year old homo-sapiens set to cultivate the land and raise cattle, in other words settle, an inescapable condition without which writing would not have been created. So a human affair , not more, but equal to divine creation as regards its inventiveness. A writing in honor of which the Mesopotamia people worshipped Nabu, son of Marduk, god of agriculture who then became supreme god of the Panthéon. A revolution brought by writing that Régis Debray comments as follows: « If the god without a face, the All-Seeing does not let himself be looked at, he knew how to let himself be heard behind the curtain. Sight does not generate trust in the desert, so between myth and mirage, choosing the first one is more reliable, and the first theophany of god was audible and not visual. Then the Writings recorded interpellations, calls, murmurs, and bound them into a volume, a graphic fixation, the Torah. »
The history of homo-sapiens does not argue in favor of the alleged eternity of the one god, nor can it argue in favor of his might, since homo-sapiens has been living without needing that one god in India, Japan or China until now. In contrast, we discover in the dictionary of gods, goddesses and demons, a god dependent on raw material needed by humans, and for that reason difficult to consider as transcendantal. As a matter of fact,Yahvé seems to be a god coming from the cupriferous region south-east of the Dead Sea. His name, as we are told, appears in egyptian texts as soon as the 14th, even the 20th century before Christ, and, as the Shasous ( people living near Mount Séir) had as a principal activity the exploitation of copper mines, Yahvé is thought to have been a god of metal industry. We actually find traces of that metallurgy culture in the three signs given to Moses before his return to Egypt.
-The stick that Moses throws onto the ground and that changes into a snake (a image borrowed from the melting of bronze.) - the burning bush which burns, like metal, without wasting away.- the fact that Moses puts his hand in his tunic pocket, and sticks it out as white as snow, before giving it back its carnation after a second passage in his pocket. (a metaphor of the effects of heat over a sick bronze covered with corrosive sulfates that whiten when drying and make remelting necessary. - Moses pouring water from the Nile onto the dry soil to change it into blood,( something that recalls the means to evaluate the presence of sulfite in a vein, which does consist in moistening dust.)
So it is no accident if, as the authors of the dictionary put it, « the people of Israël appears on the historical scene around 1200, at the time of Pharaoh Merenptah. The kingdom of Alaska (Chypre), main producer of copper, is at that time threatened by the Peoples of the Sea. Merenptah must then find other metal mines for his armies at war… By moving his capital to Memphis, capital of the bronze smelters, he hopes to win the Shazous of Arabah over. The exploitation of the edomite copper mines is then relaunched, but the locals cannot stand living under the egyptian yolk, and a revolt breaks out (…) Yahvé may have played a central part in this rebellion. He presumably permitted to federate around a qenite core the tribes of Canaan, soon known as Israël.(…) For the following centuries, the power of Israël will increase at the same rhythm that the production of edomite copper, as if one did not go without the other. « Yahvé, so say the authors, was for a long time a dynastic god, and by national extension, jealous of his prerogatives. But like Assour, the imperial god of the Neo-assyriens, he was not a single god insofar as the existence of other national gods was not challenged. » This historicity argues in favor of a Yahvé, a god created by local inhabitants of a mine site who idolized a vital raw material, namely metal, constituent of arms. A kind of idolatry somewhat reminiscent of the israeli military « being in the world », whose weapon expositions throughout the world constitute the showcase.
If, say the authors of the dictionary, before their exile in Babylonia, the Judea dwellers thought that all the trials undergone by man were the consequences of his free will, (Yahvé rewarding the merits and punishing the faults for one and all, on the collective scale of the whole people), their successors of the persian period( between 539 to 330 B.C.) ended up adopting the belief in a fallen angel, Molek or Moloch, responsible with his army for chaos and evil. A late version constituting a paradigm of the zionist ideology, which puts, contrary to these jews who lived before 586 B.C., the responsability for evil doing on the Other, namely the called « terrorist » or « antisemite », embodiments of Satan.
However, free-will coupled to the feeling of responsibility (changed into « self hatred » by zionists), does not, like the idolatry of arms, come out of the blue. Ernest Renan says in Histoire générale et Système comparé des langues sémitiques : « the desert is monotheist, sublime in its uniformity, it revealed to man the idea of infinity, but not the feeling of an endlessly creative that a fertile nature inspired to other races.» Here is how Régis Debray comments on this extraxt: « it is at the periphery that the Tables of the Law are granted, this is where Moses meets God, among rocks, on Mount Oreb. Towns and their pomp confront man to man. Babylone, however is the lascivious seat of power, where the Antichrists brag about. The desert and its bareness incite to raise your head, to find an interlocutor above, since there is no neighbor around. You get then the Great Other to speak, and you become a ventriloquist. » A ventriloquy that one could apply to the comments made by a Lieberman, comparing the recent veto of the Us concerning the colonization in East-Jerusalem, and the meeting of heads of States in January 15th 2017 about the «peace process», with a new Dreyfus Affair. One can say, in that respect, that the zionist founders and their successors until now, have behaved like ventriloquists.
More than to the Eternal Almighty, it is to the Prince of Machiavel, considered by Althusser as a manifest, that the authors of the Declaration of Independence should refer to, insofar as the zionist founders have always had strong similarities with the Prince, « authorized and armed prophet ».
Ben Gourion and his successors have always claimed that they were such « authorized prophets », destined to be granted a biblical land registry.
The Prince is supposed to decide and act alone. A recall of the Israeli unilateralism that refuses any intervention of a third party in the resolution of the problem of the colonization of Palestine, wrongly called Israeli Palestinian conflict. The Prince is, according to Machiavel, an armed prophet, contrary to the praying prophets, like Savonarole, ending up dying on a stake, or the prophets dedicated to knowledge called vain and ineffective like Plato or Aristotle. A paradigm here of the power of the Israeli army and of a three year long military service.
The Prince resorts to systematic forcing to found and build what will be later perceived as natural.
( For Machiavel the building of Rome, considered as a monumental achievement, absolves Romulus from the murder of Remus.) One will recognize here the policy of the accomplished facts led by Israël in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, where, over time, the effects of these « faits accomplis » become normalized paving the way for annexion. The Prince takes, in order to rebuild a corrupted State or found an empire, unchangeable measures in which moral and psychologic dispositions are considered irrelevant. An echo here of the 2 500 military orders issued by Israël since 1967 to make life in the occupied territories unbearable for the Palestinians. A recall as well, of the deafness of the Israeli government towards the condamnation by the UN resolutions of the violation of human rights. Irrelevant moral and psychologic dispositions that zionists liken to self-hatred to stigmatize the non zionist Jews.
Let us cite, in this respect, that edifying extract from book VI of the Prince by Machiavel: « if one must not ponder on Moses, since he was only a simple executor of God’s orders, there is still a reason to admire him, if only by the grace which made him worthy to communicate with the deity. But considering the deeds and the behaviour of Cyrus or of the others conquerors and founders of kingdoms, one will find a great conformity between them and Moses, although the latter was conducted by such a great master.(…) Who reads the bible sensitively, will see that in order to have his laws and institutions accepted, Moses was forced to kill a great many men. » The instrumentalisation of the mythic figure of Moses (No trace of the existence of Moses has ever been found) in the Prince by Machiavel, provided a modus operandi usable and used beyond the limits of Florence and Italy.
Concerning the Israeli idolatry for arms, one could imagine an updated declaration of independence which would incite Israeli people to worship, not the Almighty, but a god of metal, like the Sumerian Ninurta, son of Enlil, that metal constituent of the arms supplied, for example, by 21 european countries out of 27, in 2012, year of the signature of a cooperation agreement with Israël, relating to 60 programme
To conclude, let us cite this other passage of Regis Debray’ s intervention at France Culture, that somehow sums up what has been targeted throughout this article, namely -the invention of a One God -nationalism -violence resorted to in order to build a State -attack as a defense form of defense (as attested by the six day war) fed by megalomania and the ashkénaze belief in a «new virile man» coupled with a contempt for the jews of the diaspora. As many points that constitute unquestionnable landmarks of the conquest of Palestine by the zionist « authorized armed prophets »:
« The Father is actually the son of a humiliating disaster, namely the assyrien victory in 722 B.C. and the destruction of Israël. God is a reconstruction made by a captive elite in Babylone, that invents the why of the defeat. A terrible misadventure told in the Deuteronomy, not without some megalomania helping to repair a national shame. God is a supreme fighter, an anti-imperialist, an anti-assyrien, an anti-philistin, a moral booster, a banner, the weak against the strong, a means of reunification that permitted to reunite the kingdoms of Israël and Juda, and a means of strategic dissuasion, a god of anger and fight, a virile god, without children like his christian successor, but who had an espouse, Ashera, a close relative to Astarte, the goddess of Heaven , worshipped before the exile in the judean kingdom."
Philippe Cross.