We have studied in previous chapters the first 9 commandments of the Zionist movement emanating from the Bazl congress held in August 1897; we proceed herewith to tackle the 10th and last commandment, which represents the organic complement of the previous 9, focusing on the adopted methods by the Zionists.

     This commandment doesn't define the methods' nature that the Zionists should adopt in order to achieve their movement's objectives; it's rather for time, circumstances and capabilities to define this subject; however, the 10th commandment specified its general concept regarding the methods, leaving to the responsible the implementation mission afterwards, according to his own interpretative.

     It is possible to sum up the main and general rules of the methods' concepts within the Zionist principles as following:

Firstly, there is no single and definitive method suitable to be adopted in all the situations and circumstances, able to lead the way ahead of all other methods in priority. Hence, there are various methods to capitalize on, and it is up to the wise leadership to set up its program of priorities in a given period of time. What could appear as a suitable method today might not be the case tomorrow, and its impact could be either weaker or stronger in another given place. The smart military leader knows how to choose his weaponry, when and where; as for the expert political leader, he is fully aware of how and when to select the appropriate methods provided to him, taking into account his own circumstances and capabilities, but also the others' circumstances and capabilities. All this set up should be adopted within the framework of a detailed strategic program, following the assessment of different options and prospects.

     Practically, this process means the presence of various methods at the disposal of the decision maker; as for the adherence to defined methods and the dismissal of the other ones in all situations, it should prove a fatal committed blunder since the methods are displayed to serve the cause, not to harm it; hence, the persistence in proceeding a single path would weaken the options presented before the responsible, and could lead to reveal his pattern of dealing, and ultimately void the impact of this rigid technique.

Secondly, all the methods are legitimate ones, there should be no ethical ideas within the framework of displaying the methods and using them. Moreover, there are no useful methods and poor ones, no good and bad regarding these methods. The good and useful is the one that secure the success and victory in order to win the battle round; the bad and evil is the method failing to lead its practitioner to his ultimate goal whatever its value might be from the ethical and behavioral points of view. Thus, the bad method adopted to achieve a bad goal is much better than a good method seeking to achieve a righteous goal, if the first one was successfully achieved and the second one failing to do the same.
 

     Success is the sole criterion of the method's authenticity; there is no ethical or legitimate consideration in this matter; it is very logical that this idea is emanated from "The End justifies the Means" principle, which is a very ancient concept adopted by many political philosophers and decision makers in human history. Perhaps, no one between them was accurately and decisively able to practice this principle the way Zionists have put it under practical work throughout the last 100 years, except the Hebrews who excelled in adopting it within their dealing procedures with regard to Palestine's people according to the "sacred" novels mentioned in Torah and the literatures of the ancient Jewish history.

     Once again, we would like to bring your attention, dear reader, to the fact that these assessments are inspired from the Jewish sources recognized by the Jews themselves, and we don't rely on the books rejected by the Jews and the civilized world like the "Protocols of Zion Sages", since the insolence and explicitness of the renowned novels and the mentioned revelations of the Jews' disgraceful conducts (related to those who lived through the year 2000  BC and the year 1000 BC) are enough for us to be aware of the Hebrew approaches and conducts, serving us against the reliance on the doubtful modern books.

     The morale conclusion of that ancient history, driven to life once again through the Zionist modern behavior and conduct, is that the success of a given work is able to decide its ethical value, while any work outside the frame of practical conclusions has no right to decide its ultimate failure or success.

Thirdly, the graduation, currently named as temporary procedures, is a necessary method within the process of continuing toward a defined goal; there is no difficult target that could be achieved within the space of just a single day, and there is no vice to proceed through successive steps. For the Zionist to acquire some of the claims enabling him to reach his ultimate target is better than resorting to claim his defined goals that could escape him by a single fatal and killing strike he might oppose. Let's take, for instance, the extortion process of Palestine: it started by the claim of a refuge for the Jews in any place for human purposes; this place was later defined by religious means to get transformed into a sovereign state for all Jews in some regions of Palestine, later developed to reveal a state for all the Jews in all over Palestine, before progressing to expand the Palestinian borderlines in order to protect the Jewish presence, and finally establish itself as a Jewish state for only the Jews, without any participation from other peoples.

     However, the main important issue in understanding this point is that the single step, whatever little or marginal it might be, shouldn't contradict the previously-planned program, nor create a concession or retreat toward a given claim by the Zionists; every step has its own planning and place on the comprehensive worksheet. If the step was driven beyond the planned program ,it should be considered as a failure; hence, there is no room for random, mercurial and unpredictable steps within
 

the process path; there is a rather balance initiated by a comprehensive strategic view to this path according to the detailed calculations labeled with various practical options.

     Let's change topic in saying that many Arabs are unfortunately wrong when claiming a defending role toward the compromise political trend currently under way, arguing that it will produce secondary acquisitions en route to the ultimate liberation of our land. This is completely incorrect, and is opposed to the state of things and objectives; if the liberation of only that single inch of Palestinian land is a right step toward the Palestinian soil's complete liberation, we wouldn't oppose this trend and describe it as a surrounding political approach by these Arab figures. The acquisition of that alleged single inch is just a straying in the desert, a complete rejection of our full right in Palestine. Additionally, we don't know that Zionism had relinquished, during the last 100 years, one single inch of its objectives in a complete and final way. What we really know, and the time had prove it, that Zionism made from the acquisition of one single inch of land a complementary step to previous acquisitions and a preparatory step before the upcoming ones.

Fourthly, the non-definition of attitudes, meanings, promises and programs, and the non-announcement of intentions by the Zionists: as long as the relations, communications, accords and announcements are extensible and ambiguous, as long as they are good for them, since the definition of things could entail the commitment Zionists aren't ready to respect. Hence, it is much appropriate for them to evade the direct tackling of this subject in order to ease the way for a forthcoming retreat. Generalization and blackout are the Zionist negotiator's weapon against any given side opposing him.

     Manipulating expressions was a principal method used by the Zionists in dealing with other countries, governments and communities since Herzl's reign until our present time. The members of Bazl congress (nearly 250 Jewish figures) have spent many hours arguing about the legitimate status topic of their desired country in Palestine, before accepting a state idiom that could harm the Zionist movement at that period of time. Hence, the proceeded studies of the mentioned congress had completely excluded this wording, before replacing it by the word "Commonwealth". The ambiguous expressions are much safer for the Zionists, and there is no doubt that they have learned those tricks at the hands of the international prevarication art masters, the British.

Between 1915/1916 and 1967, 50 years passed since the British initiated the paronomasia process against the Arabs regarding the Palestinian issue, using the disguised promises, ambiguous terms and definitions that hold many explanations; I'm referring to the Macmahon-Hussein correspondences with regard to the fate of the Arab region in West Asia and its future after World War 1, then came the infamous 242 resolution (set up by a British diplomat who claimed being a close friend to the
Arabs) announced by the United Nations at the end of 1967 war, handling the issue of the  Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab lands. 80 years have passed since the aforementioned correspondences have been launched, 30 other years followed the release of the United Nations resolutions, yet the Arabs are still hesitating, rather lost between this meaning or the other one; confusion and obscurity within the expressions of those historical documents have been working to the advantage of the Zionists, at the expense of the Arabs.

     The Zionist student even surpassed his British teacher in the art of circumvention and wording manipulation; this was clearly displayed during the last 7 years, beginning with the initial preparation rounds for the Madrid conference (and the accompanying promises and commitments), until the Hebron protocol which is the last accord signed between the Palestinian and Israeli sides to date, within the framework of the phony peace negotiations; the different and contradictory readings in most cases of the accords and clauses and related announcements during the last 7 years (exceeding 10, altogether) are only a clear reading of a hidden text to the Zionist contracting method with other sides.

     In this context, it is very shameful that the Arab-Palestinian negotiator didn't learn the lesson and take an example from his true experience, or even he doesn't want to learn the lesson and take an example for known or hidden reasons. Thus, he stumbles time and again in fatal blunders just when he achieves an accord with the Zionists and signs it. He isn't aware, or ignores, that Zionists seek in each contact with the Arabs that these people don't manage to know exactly what the Zionists really want to achieve.

Fifthly, one of the best and most filthy methods able to serve the Zionist goals is that the single method should boast 2 ends, 2 meanings or concepts, at the same time. The thing and its opposite, the No and Yes, the With and Against. The Zionist is completely aware that this method will bring him ultimate success. There is no difference for him if one side topples the other, as he inspires each of them his firm backing and support against his opponent: Zionism is with both Conservative and Labor parties in Great Britain, with both Republican and Democratic parties in the United States, with both the De Gaullistes and Socialist parties in France. Zionism is also with the Right and Left wings everywhere, with the countries of the Northern hemisphere as well as those of the Southern hemisphere, with the African states and their colonial counterparts, with the Apartheid regime and its opponents, with the wars and against them, with Capitalism and Socialism, with religious and atheist sides, with whites and blacks, with the labor class and its exploiting side, with the British and German Nazis in the 20's and 30's, with Britain during the first 40 years of the current century. At the end, Zionism is alongside the winning side, as long as it is able to exploit that side's victory to the full for its own interest.

     Personally, I was extremely stunned and outraged when reading for the first time the memoirs of Theodor Herzl, 30 years ago, with his talent as a phenomenal liar. He wrote to a European statesman, urging him to provide help in his quest toward getting the international license for establishing a Jewish entity in Palestine, promising him (if he reply positively) to put all the capabilities of the Zionist movement and the world Jewry at his disposal, and making of the desired entity in Palestine a stable and prominent base for the colonial interests related to that European country, by all financial, military, strategic, political and international means.

      Herzl reiterated these same promises tin his correspondence with a statesman of yet another European country who is a direct opponent to the previous one; later on, Herzl would also write yet another third, fourth, and fifth letters, attacking  in each of them the interests of the other 4 countries, and emphasizing his readiness to be a loyal and firm supporter against all the other mentioned nations, as if he wasn't aware that these documents will be printed in future after being selected as files of top secret priority, for the whole world to recognize his duplicity. Herzl would have surely replied to the one who dares asking him about this workframe that this is the profession secret of the Jews, the pure characteristic of the Zionist dealings with other peoples. He would also mention the renowned maxim: "There is no permanent antagonism, nor a permanent friendship, only permanent interests".

     If we review today the aforementioned memoirs of Herzl, we can easily notice from his wording that there is no need to define the situations, nor to honor the commitments, since both patterns would endanger the Zionist whole process. The most attractive wording of Herzl is that every reader would understand it on his own finding in it a complete alignment and support to him. The result of this deception art is clearly highlighted in 1897 when Herzl called for only a foothold in Palestine to help the persecuted Jews, while he was intending to occupy all the Palestinian territory. Furthermore, we can notice Haim Weizmann, after 20 years, appealing Arthur Balfour to establish a Jewish entity in Palestine, knowing at the same time that the Zionist dreams stretch toward all Palestine and its Arab territorial vicinity.

     Ben-Gurion emulated also his predecessors' footsteps when he forced the United Nations, after 30 years, to reward the Jews with a state expanding its sovereignty over half of the  Palestinian territory, seeking at the same time to cross this small regional size, only for his army to occupy all the Palestinian territory after yet another 20 years, as a rehearsal to the forthcoming occupation of the Arab world stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Gulf.

     Additionally, the series of Zionist deception acts continue to proceed forward during the past few years of negotiations, beginning with Rabin, passing by Perez, before the Netanyahu era which witnessed bargaining small chips from the Zionists in order to gain huge concessions from both the Palestinian and Arab sides. Hence, "Israel" is a hungry entity, its teeth are capable of biting everything under its disposal, while its stomach hosts anything provided for feed. As for its borderlines, they are as stretched as ever, able to reach region within its capabilities. But this insatiable greediness isn't a random one, as it is rather accurately programmed at the highest level, able to face all perils after taking all the circumstances into account.

     Within our review of this 10th Commandment released by the Zionist movement to its followers, we didn't involve ourselves deep into the methods' details called by the Zionists to be firmly adopted. We have been only searching deep into the principles. Since the methods are mobile and vulgar, the only established principle is this one: The necessity for implementing methods' shifting plan, according to the subsequent needs, while maintaining the game's lessons and rules that we have previously detailed.