As is well known, during the Middle Ages, the Christian states of Europe were under the sway and authority of the Inquisition and the Pope. The Church's members were assumed to communicate directly with God, which led to a legal system, religious life, and state administration founded on the notion that the Pope and the Inquisition were divine interlocutors. Therefore, neither their actions could have been questioned nor subject to law.
For instance, in the Middle Ages, a man traveled to another country and did not return for some time. His wife petitioned the Inquisition, which declared him dead. The man eventually returned alive, which posed a challenge to the Inquisition's authority. To maintain their infallibility, the Inquisition ruled that the man was the devil in disguise and ordered him to be burned at the stake.
From any perspective – whether considering human rights, animal rights, plant rights, or LGBTQ+ rights – this example from the Middle Ages is a bizarre and inhumane violation, starkly contrasting with the democratic values that now prevail in contemporary Europe.
A lot of water has flowed under the bridge. With the effect of factors like the Protestant movements in Europe, the emergence of the United States as a democratic country, and the French Revolution, our world was saved from these absurd perversions. In fact, from World War II until 9/11, there was almost a Nirvana of democracy and freedom in the West.
Western states experienced liberation after the Middle Ages, enjoying several centuries of relief from the Inquisition's grip. However, it is noteworthy that this historical siege has evolved into a new form of control, with contemporary Western states facing a "Zionist siege."
But the Zionist siege is more sophisticated, detailed, and effective than the siege of the Inquisition. In the Middle Ages, the papacy and the Inquisition used religious values to lay siege. Today, Zionism has enslaved Christians using all modern means.
Today, in the U.S., Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom, if intellectuals or artists take a stand against Zionism, its monopoly over the media or finance, or Israel's massacre of civilians, they almost lose their lives. The artist cannot perform, the columnist cannot write, the cartoonist is fired from his/her newspaper, and the novelist's novels are not published. So, I believe the siege of Zionism is a lot more troublesome than the Inquisition.
Another typical example is from U.S. politics. Every candidate for Congress needs funds to be elected, and the funds are provided by Jewish bankers. They follow up very closely and watch every step of the politicians they support.
Generally speaking, Democrats tend to be more attuned to issues of human rights, including the prevention of civilian deaths, genocide and massacres, compared to Republicans. In a provocative comparison, one might consider how a figure like Benjamin Netanyahu – disregarding both local and international law – would be received when he addressed the American Congress. This raises a hypothetical question: How would a historical figure like Adolf Hitler, who is infamous for committing genocide against the Jews, be received in a similar scenario?
If Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were to address the U.S. Congress dressed in black, even with the presence of the CIA, it is hard to imagine the level of applause he would receive. Conversely, Netanyahu, who has slaughtered more than 39,000 unarmed civilians, including mostly children and women, with the European Court of Justice poised to label him a war criminal and Israel a genocidal state, raises the question: Why would such a person receive a standing applause under these circumstances?
The stories about Zionism we heard in our childhood seemed like implausible conspiracy theories. Consider this: if the President of the U.S. tomorrow is Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, the fact that Congress members, elected with funds from Zionist bankers, can give such applause on their feet to a figure accused of genocide suggests that their autonomy may be compromised. It raises the question of whether their will is genuinely their own or if they are, in effect, beholden to Zionist interests. Much like the Inquisition's grip on Christians in the Middle Ages, it seems that Zionists are exerting a similarly pervasive influence over all people, including Jews.
The U.S. Congress has cast a dark shadow on history by applauding acts of massacre, genocide, and murder rather than upholding the principles of democracy, human rights and humanitarianism.
Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian MP who stood alone in protest among Congress members, and Bernie Sanders are commendable figures. Sanders, referencing Netanyahu's assertion that "victory" in Gaza involves "smashing glass" into ever smaller pieces, questioned: "How many more children and innocent people will be shattered in this process? And why is the United States contributing to this humanitarian catastrophe?"
We appreciate that, through the example of these two individuals, we maintain a small but vital hope that humanity, justice and legal sensitivity are still alive.
