Wednesday, November 26, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
The term "Imperial Israel" is in scare quotes, but by making it their headline, the New York Times is endorsing this characterization of Israel as an imperial power.
Later on, we get the source of the quote:
The region is adapting to what Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a prominent political scientist in the United Arab Emirates, calls an “imperial Israel,” a country that will kill enemies anywhere: from Lebanon to Syria, Gaza to Iran, Yemen to Qatar. Pre-emptive Israeli strikes are the new norm.That is a bizarre definition of "imperial." Imperialism involves establishing control over territories and peoples. Conducting military strikes against adversaries - which many countries do - is fundamentally different.
Abdulkhaleq Abdulla is indeed a prominent political scientist, but he wasn't interviewed for this article. (There are no other quotes from him in the article besides those two words.)
Abdulla used that term in different interviews, for different media, in different contexts altogether.
He was quoted in the Washington Post last September in an article about Israel threatening to annex parts of the West Bank:
Emirati political scientist Abdulkhaleq Abdulla said many in the Persian Gulf country were already questioning the wisdom of normalizing ties with Israel.“It’s a very clear message not just to Israel, but to the Americans: It’s either the Abraham Accords or annexation of the West Bank, it’s your choice,” said Abdulla, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. “The sentiment in the UAE is: Don’t take us for granted. We value peace and stability, but we won’t go along with this kind of imperial Israel that Netanyahu and company are showing. It’s just not the kind of Israel that we want to be associated with.”
Abdulla used the term correctly in that context - annexation of foreign territory is genuinely an imperialist act, even though Israel has legitimate legal claims to parts of the West Bank under international law
I found Abdulla quoted in June as well in a more ambiguous way, describing how Israel might be supplanting Iran as the region's imperial power:
"In many ways, we have the end of imperial Iran, losing most of its bargaining power. Without proxies, missile and a strong nuclear power, Iran is weak and that's good for the region we haven't seen that for the past 45 years," Abdulla said, while adding: "The rise of imperial Israel is not good either for the stability of region."
In this context, Abdulla appears to be using 'imperial' loosely to mean 'dominant regional power' - a usage that's analytically imprecise for both Iran and Israel, neither of which were building empires in the classical sense.
Roger Cohen took one of these quotes out of context, applied it to a situation that cannot possibly be called "imperialism" by any definition, and the New York Times placed it in their headline!
"Imperial" is an inflammatory term, used only as an epithet, evoking European style colonialism. It has nothing to do with Israel.
That is not journalism. That is anti-Israel advocacy.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy
