This is a guest post by Abdullah Noorudeen from Coolness of Hind.

This article is the first in a special Ramadan series aimed at uncovering the ideological component to the post-Gaza plan. The series will delve into how, through the discourse of denazification, Israel is looking to UAE’s approach to deforming Islam and forcing an Israel-friendly secularism through buzzwords of “peace” and “tolerance” and the patriarchal figure of Abraham.

As Muslims, it is difficult for us to focus beyond the ongoing Israeli depravity against the Palestinians in Gaza and the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

The extreme wave of brutal violence and widespread destruction in the region is intentional. Since the genocidal war’s inception, Israeli authorities have been explicit about their intention to cause significant civilian casualties. They have drawn disturbing parallels to infamous historical events, such as the devastating bombing of Dresden and the use of nuclear weapons in Japan, framing them as templates for modern warfare. The genocidal Israeli ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, has regurgitated the same, almost relishing in the fact that 600,000 civilians died in the Allied bombardment of Germany.

This calculated approach to warfare underscores a departure from traditional principles of proportionality and restraint. By invoking these dark chapters of history as precedents, Israeli officials have signalled a willingness to imitate their unethical objectives.

Traumatising Muslims

The primary aim of the Allied area bombing during World War II (WWII) was to terrorise and traumatise populations into submission.

It is precisely this military tactic that compels us to contemplate the post-Gaza strategy carefully. The Israeli government’s actions have inflicted severe collective trauma upon the Palestinian people. Enduring repeated displacements, incessant bombardment, witnessing the dismemberment of loved ones, suffering injuries, and more have contributed to a level of trauma that transcends post-traumatic stress disorder. According to a Médecins Sans Frontières representative addressing the United Nations, even children as young as five express a preference for death.

The broader Muslim world is experiencing a portion of this terror, forced to bear witness to new unfolding horrors day after day without the ability to intervene physically.

Pertinently, trauma serves as a critical precursor to subsequent actions.

Denazification

In the summer of 1945, having “terrorised” the German population, the Allied Powers collectively resolved to “destroy German militarism and Nazism,” to “wipe out the Nazi Party, Nazi laws, organizations and institutions,” and to “remove all Nazi and militarist influences from public office and from the cultural and economic life of the German people.”

These initiatives came to be known as denazification.

They were a comprehensive set of policies that resulted in the mass internment of Nazis, including those “suspected” of Nazi sympathies and vetting processes to purge such individuals from public office, Church institutions, education institutions, and trade spheres. Publishing houses were shut down, information services such as the press and radio were taken over or liquidated, street and building names were changed, and teacher training programmes were established to inhibit Nazism in schools.[1]

Israelis have been very clear they will pursue a “denazification policy” in Gaza.

It is almost comical that this needs clarification, but there is a fundamental disanalogy between the Palestinian resistance and liberation struggle and Nazi Germany. Germany and Japan epitomised empires, with Germany notably harbouring a repugnant racist, fascist regime that demonised the perceived “other” to concretise its fascism and fuel its territorial ambitions. To insinuate any semblance of parity between the two is not just erroneous but a gross distortion of historical truth. If we seek parallels, they should be drawn between the racist apartheid Israeli state and Nazi Germany.

Given how the Zionist regime has demonstrated the genocidal consequences of portraying Palestinians and Hamas as Nazis, it is evident to the reasonable mind that denazification is essentially aimed at erasing Palestinians and their religious and cultural heritage. However, as the history of Israeli brutalisation of Palestinians and two decades of the War on Terror have shown, such measures cannot lead to peace.

Nevertheless, the Zionist strategy of a pre-Geneva Conventions post-trauma policy of indoctrination of Palestinians was outlined as early as October 2023. At the time, a document from Israel’s Intelligence Ministry was leaked, outlining a plan to permanently expel Palestinians to the Sinai to “instil a sense of failure among the population.”

The document asserts that “a deep process of implementing an ideological change (de-Nazification)” was fundamental to any proposal implemented. This shift aims to replace the “old perception” with a “moderate Islamic ideology” that is not hostile towards Israel. The document describes this process as “similar to the de-Nazification carried out in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.” One mechanism the proposal suggests is “to dictate the school curricula and enforce its use for an entire generation.”

Revealingly, under one of the options (“B”) discussing ideological change, the document points to the UAE as an ideal.

Denazification to Deradicalization to Israeli-Based Indoctrination

Since the leak, Israeli officials have drip-fed the draconian agenda to “denazify” Palestinians in the West.

In November 2023, Israel’s genocidal ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, iterated the “duty” to “denazify the Palestinians” (source here and here).

On Christmas Day 2023, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by the genocidal butcher of Palestine himself, outlining his “prerequisites for peace.” For Netanyahu, peace could only be achieved by “destroying” Hamas, demilitarising Gaza, and “deradicalizing” Palestinian society as per the post-WWII initiatives of Germany and Japan.

On the 29^th of January 2024, in an interview with anti-Muslim neocon hate preacher Douglas Murray, Netanyahu confirmed that Israelis were working on a deradicalization initiative.

Cutting through the Israel-centric “resisting a racist apartheid settler colonial state is terrorism” framing, Netanyahu’s “deradicalization” plans amount to a mind control project aimed at fostering an acceptance of the Zionist entity. Thus, Palestinian school curricula require an overhaul. Israeli atrocity propaganda, such as unproven and fabricated “Hamas rape” claims (see here, here, and here) and a denial that the Israeli military killed its own people on October 7^th (see here and here), would have to be accepted by Palestinians.

Denazification -> Deradicalization -> De-Islamising

And, of course, Islam would have to be deformed.

For this particular deformation of Islam and “cultural transformation” scheme, Netanyahu signals to Arab-Israel normalisers in the Gulf:

“More recently, since the 9/11 attacks, visionary Arab leaders in the Gulf have led efforts to deradicalize their societies and transform their countries. Israel has since forged the historic Abraham Accords and today enjoys peace agreements with six Arab states. Such a cultural transformation will be possible in Gaza only among Palestinians who don’t seek the destruction of Israel.”

In other words,

The “normalisation” of immoralities, where prostitution is blind-eyed, alcohol and co-habitation are legalised, and Shakira gyrates in front of possessed dancing Arabs as Israel slaughters Palestinians a mere stone’s throw away;

The “normalisation” of polytheism, where pagan festivals are celebrated, the Hindutva fascist leader Narendra Modi inaugurates UAE’s first Hindu temple after consecrating the Ram Temple over the ruins of Babri Masjid, and Saudi social media accounts try to revive Al-Lat, Manat, and Al-‘Uzza in aid of a new Saudi nationalism; and

The “normalisation” of Israel-accepting secularism, where “moderate Islam” is one removed from social life.

As the Arab neocon architect of the Abraham Accords and UAE ambassador to the US, Yousef Al Otaiba, explained to some Israelis at a Zionist think tank in 2020:

“The world right now is divided into two camps. One camp who promotes more ideology, more religion, more radicalization, and injects religion into every debate, and it’s Turkey, Iran, and Qatar. And then you have a bunch of countries – UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia – who are focused on a civil approach, on a pragmatic approach, on quality of governance approach, who are thinking about their future, not their past.

“This is our equivalent of capitalism versus communism. This is the defining conflict of ideologies in our part of the world. We think our approach is better for us… and there are some countries who just prefer to look backwards, focus on their history, focus on what they used to be like focusing on religion and extremism.”

(Link)

De-Islamisation: War on Islam

Otaiba’s message and, consequently, Netanyahu’s message, is clear.

Islam, conflated with “radicalisation” and “extremism,” is “backward” and should not be “injected in every debate.” By embracing an Israel-friendly secularism, the UAE and its co-conspirators against the Ummah are at war with Islam, similar to the West’s historical conflict with communism.

It becomes evident that the denazification rhetoric is code for the de-Islamisation of Muslims. In other words, Zionists who demand global recognition of their right to follow their scriptures to justify stealing land and commit a genocide against Muslims want to deny Muslims the right to adhere to the Qur’an and traditions.

To better grasp the nature of this assault on Islam, in the next part, we will delve into the Abraham Accords. These agreements shed light on the accompanying CVE-based ideological agenda required to legitimise the liberalisation of societal values aimed at diverting attention from the concomitant normalisation of relations with Israel.

References

[1] Plischke, E. (1947). Denazification Law and Procedure. American Journal of International Law, 41(4), pp.807–827. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2193091.