In separating between those who institute colonialist policy (respected Zionists and American spokesmen) and those who may not institute it but still tolerate it while going along with it, important points are made in the cited post. It is not that the people who go along with the agenda of leaders are innocent, but the people who compose the top of society are guiltier than those at the bottom. Pragmatically, is it not worth appealing to people who tolerate a bad idea but do not create the idea? Would one not appeal to a capitalist to drop his/her capitalism? Then one should also appeal to Israelis to drop their imperialism in favor of progressive nationalism and to address the grievances of Palestinians adequately without conceding to either Islam or America. These appeals will be less effective when Israelis have a sort of external enemy to rally against, even though Israeli policies and Zionist leadership before Israel have played a role (along with material conditions and cultural clash) in making Israel’s own enemies.
Even though Israel has successfully oppressed Palestinians and many crimes have been committed, truly radical Muslims who may desire leadership by no means have a proletarian mentality. They would prefer to appeal to theology and identity based arguments to unify Muslims than to actually appeal to secular reasons which could divide the oppressor. They may appeal against Zionism, but not as a theoretical appeal against imperialism and capitalism. They appeal against American imperialism but they use the wrong precepts. Why? Because a true class conscious approach would also lead to the end of Islamic Fundamentalism. While they attack American imperialism, they dream of their own imperialism.
As for more secular Palestinian leaders, if they are of the bourgeoisie, then they merely give lip service to anti-Zionist rhetoric. Let us not forget that Arafat had chances to form a state, but did not go capitalize. Why? If he did, then people would no longer rally around him. The job would be finished. Which brings me to a great realization: supposed radicals in the Palestinian community depend on Zionism just like Republicans depend on talking about abortion. Do Republicans really get rid of abortion when they are the majority, or do they leave it in place so they can campaign against it again?
As noted in the post which is cited, many people are unwilling to adopt a viewpoint which separates between those who promote an ideology and those who go along with it. Bourgeois leaders have a vested interest in keeping Israel as an enemy. The proletariat class of Palestinians could potentially fall into the arms of its own bourgeois class, and if so, the ruling Palestinian class will continue to throw the dog a bone, but it will make sure the bone stays outside of the cage so the dog cannot actually grasp the bone. In other words, the cynical secular bourgeois community within Palestine (as opposed to the Islamic bourgeoisie) will continue to use anti-Zionism as a rallying cry, as opposed to actually making the issue no longer an issue. The end result will not aggravate a struggle against imperialism, but merely give lip service to it. The issue will be used and replayed like a song at a rock concert is played each time a band tours.
A thorough understanding of issues similar to Marx’s analysis is the only real solution. The more people become class conscious, the more people will know how to find solutions to the problems, as opposed to digging them deeper.