Why Zionism Needed The 'War On Terror' | Prof. Kees v.d. Pijl

## The central argument: Zionism as a ruling-class project in the age of permanent war The conversation laid out a bold reframing: modern Zionism should not be read primarily as a narrow ethno-religious movement rooted exclusively in Jewish communities, but as a transnational political current that has become an instrument of a broader Atlantic ruling class. This argument, advanced most directly by Prof. Kees van der Pijl in his recent book, places Zionism in a lineage of elite projects that reinvent themselves to preserve global capitalist dominance. 9/11 and the subsequent “war on terror” are treated not merely as discrete events but as catalytic moments that the transnational ruling class—including networks aligned with Zionist ideas—exploited to consolidate geopolitical power. The conversation insists we think historically and structurally: crises are rarely neutral; powerful actors shape their aftermaths to advance long-standing strategic agendas. ## Academic consequences and the politics of speech The recorded exchange began not with abstract theory but with an episode of institutional conflict. Van der Pijl recounted how a controversial public remark about 9/11 and Israel provoked a sustained reaction from colleagues, press, and university administrators—ultimately prompting him to choose resignation over enforced censorship of his emeritus status. That incident is revealing less for its sensationalism than for what it signals about academic environments: scholarship that questions powerful state or corporate narratives can trigger reputational and professional pressures. The scholar’s decision to relinquish institutional privileges rather than submit to pre-publication oversight is posed as an act of intellectual autonomy, emblematic of a broader problem: when universities rely on donors and networks tied to specific political projects, independent inquiry into those projects becomes fraught. The fallout, in this telling, exemplifies how institutional power can police permissible debate about geopolitics and history. ## The making of an Atlantic ruling class A central conceptual frame in the conversation was transnational ruling-class formation. Van der Pijl traces this process back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when British finance and industry first sought transatlantic alliances to meet new geopolitical and social challenges—above all, the rise of a unified, industrial Germany and the political force of organized labour. The response of financiers and political elites was to build cross-border networks linking the City of London and Wall Street, a constellation that later expanded to include power-brokers across continental Europe in the aftermath of the First World War. This Atlantic ruling class, the argument goes, is not a conspiracy of identical minds so much as an institutional tendency: elites coordinating across borders to stabilize capitalist rule when national institutions, rival states, or mass social movements threaten their interests. Within that longue durée, Zionism is presented as the latest iteration of elite adaptation. Earlier phases of transnational class formation relied on colonialism, imperial war, and economic integration; the present phase, according to van der Pijl, features a strand of Zionism that has been integrated into Atlantic strategic thinking. This integration is both ideological and material: Zionist narratives and statecraft become useful for projecting power, while political, financial, and media networks entrench alliances between Israel and other pillars of the Atlantic order. ## Zionism as transnational movement rather than purely Jewish nationalism A sustained analytic move in the discussion is to distinguish Zionism from Judaism. Van der Pijl insists that Zionism, historically, developed in particular contexts—Eastern Europe, British Protestant thought, and later transatlantic political cultures—and that it became a political ideology with an imperial logic. Zionism’s founding leaders, as discussed in the exchange, prioritized the creation of a global Jewish movement, cultural revival (notably of Hebrew), and territorial claims in Palestine as instruments of that movement. The conversation underscores that Zionism, in this view, has never been monolithic: it mingled secular nationalism, religious myth, and strategic alliances with non-Jewish elites. Significantly, the argument resists simple scapegoating of Jewish communities. The conversation warns against conflating Jewish identity or Judaism as a religion with the political project of Zionism. Instead, it locates Zionism in the hands of particular social and political actors—some Jewish, some not—whose aim was to fashion a geopolitical lever that could be embedded within larger patterns of Atlantic power. ## Christian Zionism, supremacy narratives, and colonial resonance One of the sharper claims in the tape is that modern Zionism drew crucial support from Protestant and Christian currents in Western Europe and North America. The Reformation and subsequent Protestant movement had elements that fetishized a return to sacred origins and a special place for the Jewish homeland in eschatological narratives. That theological sympathy, merged with imperial-minded ideologies, created fertile ground for Zionism’s political expansion. Van der Pijl highlights how this religious strand helped translate the biblical idea of “chosen peoples” into modern political supremacism—the conviction that a community can claim exceptional status and therefore a special legal or moral standing toward others. The conversation also maps why Zionist rhetoric resonates especially in settler societies like the United States and parts of the Americas. Colonial practices of dispossession and the ideology of frontier settlement create affinities between Zionist territorial claims and the foundational myths of settler states. Far from a mere theological oddity, Christian Zionism becomes a geopolitical lubricant: it gives moral cover to expansionist policies, helps mobilize public support, and dovetails with networks of political influence that are integral to the Atlantic ruling class. ## 9/11, the ‘war on terror,’ and the usefulness of crisis Van der Pijl’s book is perhaps most controversial in how it situates 9/11 within these larger processes. The conversation does not insist on a single conspiratorial narrative about who physically orchestrated the attacks. Rather, it emphasizes an analytic point: irrespective of authorship, 9/11 functioned as a transformative crisis that the transnational ruling class could, and did, exploit. The “war on terror” provided legal, political, and military rationales for expansive surveillance, foreign interventions, and the reconfiguration of alliances—outcomes that, in this reading, disproportionately benefited networks aligned with Atlantic Zionism. Equally important is the claim that Israel and Zionist-linked actors were an absent but structurally salient factor in many discussions about 9/11. Van der Pijl argues that scholarship and media narratives tended to marginalize the role of Israeli intelligence, strategic priorities in the Middle East, and the ways in which Zionist diplomacy could shape U.S. responses. Whether or not one accepts the strongest versions of his empirical claims, the analytical lesson is clear: crises like 9/11 are rarely neutral inflection points; they are moments of opportunity that powerful transnational actors can convert into long-term institutional gains. ## Systemic decline, the danger of escalation, and the politics of alternatives The conversation ends by situating these developments in the present moment of systemic decline. When major capitalist powers face economic stagnation, geopolitical contestation, and rising multipolarity—manifest in formations like BRICS—ruling-class strategies often pivot toward militarized solutions or tighter ideological cohesion. The transnatio

Why Zionism Needed The 'War On Terror' | Prof. Kees v.d. Pijl Modern zionism—a mostly christian and exclusively western political ideology—is nothing but the third installment of the transnational capitalist ruling class reinventing itself to continue to dominate the world capitalist system. This is the main thesis of Professor Kees van der Pijl's new book "Zionism and 9/11" which we discuss in this interview. DISCLAIMER: I (Pascal) am skeptical of the view that 9/11 was an inside job. To me, the level of planning and secrecy just seems too huge a hurdle. Applying Occam's Razor (when presented with competing explanations for a phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one that makes the fewest assumptions) I am still tending to view 9 /11 as an externally induced act—albeit one that laid bare the level of incompetence of US homeland defense. However, the argument of Prof. van der Pijl still holds that the transnational ruling class and Zionism are the greatest benefactors of the US violent reaction to 9/11. One can just as well assume that the attacks took place "organically" and still view the outcome as a catalyst to the transnational zionist ruling class, under the motto "never let a good crisis go to waste." In the same vein, one does not need to assume that Israel carried out the October 7th attacks itself, but that it barely took advantage of the Hammas attack once it had happened for the advancement of the Zionist project. Please also note that this video explicitly assumes that Zionism is not a jewish phenomenon but a mostly christian, western-European political ideology used by the transnational elites to kling on to their colonial grip over the global capitalist system. We must not make the mistake of blaming the jews for Zionism. Judaism is a peace-loving and pacifist religion and is together with indigenous muslims and christians among the victims of the onslaught of radical zionism. Kees's Links: Israel and 9/11: The Rise of Atlantic Zionism (English): https://deblauwetijger. com/product/kees-van-der-pijl-israel-and-9-11-english-edition/ Israël en 9/11 (Dutch): https://deblauwetijger.com/product/kees-van-der-pijl-israel-en-9-11/ The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class: https://www.versobooks.com/products/1133-the-making-of-an-atlantic-ruling-class Papers and book announcements: https://independent.academia.edu/KeesVanderPijl Neutrality Studies Links: Neutrality Studies Substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Support Neutrality Studies: https://neutralitystudies.com/donate Neutrality Studies shop: https://neutralitystudies.com /shop Time Stamps 00:00 The book and the academic freedom dispute 07:27 How an Atlantic ruling class emerged 17:55 Christian Zionism and colonialism 25:19 Zionism, Judaism, and transnational power 38:55 Van der Pijl’s 9/11 thesis and sources 47:48 The origins of the “war on terror” 56:40 Systemic decline and the danger of war 01:05:36 BRICS, national sovereignty, and social change #Pascal Welcome back, everybody, to Neutrality Studies today for the second time with Professor Dr. Kees van der Pijl, a very eminent scholar in the area of, well, international relations and sociology. We've -- 1 of 18 -- talked before, and I'm very happy that you're back here with us today, Kees. Thank you, Pascal. I'm also glad. You are here because you published a new book, and it's a book that really deserves discussion. It has a very provocative title, and we will discuss all of it: Israel and 9/11: The Rise of Atlantic Zionism. Kees, there's a lot that is in this book, because it's also a very personal account of you. And maybe this is the right way to actually introduce the topic. Can you tell us a little bit about your background and, you know, what happened to you? Because you were a professor, an emeritus professor at the University of Sussex, and then things started happening. #Kees v.d. Pijl Yeah. Well, 9/11 for me was always—I always understood it as the big bang of the era of permanent war that we're basically in now, without knowing too much about the events and the backgrounds and so on. And at some point, I mean, I was collecting, while working on other topics, I was collecting readings on the matter, critical readings. And at some point I got hold of Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9/11. And then when I read that, I realized that the literature on 9/11 had one blind spot, and that was the role of Israel. Of course, as you rightly say, I put it a bit provocatively in the title, but that is not because Israel handled it all on its own. That wouldn't be possible, but because it was always the missing link. And Christopher Bollyn gave an analysis, a very journalistic analysis in the sense, you know, he picked up the phone, he went to see people and so on. But he came with an explanation of the events of 9/11 in which Israel was very prominent. And I had just read that when somebody on Twitter summed up all the crimes of the Saudis, and the first one was bringing down the Twin Towers. And I couldn't resist responding right away: “Not Saudis, Israelis brought down the Twin Towers with help from Zionists in the U.S. government.” Hmm. And that created—I mean, I won't bother you with all the details—but that created a Twitter storm. There were press reports in the Daily Mail, Independent, even Russian Sputnik. And, well, it ended with a story that's described in the book as a preface, in which the university began to threaten me if I wouldn't take back this statement, which they thought was anti-Semitic, as many complainants actually said. And at that point, I realized... And they also said they would keep an eye on me in the future. #Pascal Just for everybody to understand, you were a professor at the University of Sussex for how many years? And then, at that point in 2018, you were retired already for how many years? #Kees v.d. Pijl No, no, no. I was a professor there from 2000 to 2012. And then I retired and, you know, repatriated to the Netherlands. So in 2018, when this happened, I had already six years of retirement behind me. And then I realized that since I... yeah, my life fulfillment is intellectual labor. I realized that if I would be watched henceforth, not saying anything... Also, it reminded me of -- 2 of 18 -- Voltaire, you know, the French philosopher, who said, "Tell me whom I am not allowed to speak about, and I will tell you who rules the roost." And that was... So when they threatened to take away my emeritus status, I responded by saying, "Well, then I'd rather resign myself, because I want to be—well, it's not a matter of wanting. I have to be free to be able to work." #Pascal Because for everybody in the academic world, once you retire, you are allowed to call yourself emeritus professor, which is still linked to the university, but no more teaching obligations. And, well, that's what they wanted to get you with and say, like, if you want to call yourself emeritus professor, then we will watch you, and you have to check with us what you publish. #Kees v.d. Pijl Well, exactly. And that I found an intolerable situation. So I retired with sadness because I had had many very good years at Sussex, although I could see the changes. The university had, for instance, become completely dependent on subsidies which happened to be coming from Zionist circles. And, of course, these people didn't want the sort of opinion that I had voiced. And although there were many people writing to the university and saying, well, if you're dissatisfied with what is being said here, you're, of course, entitled to ask for more explanation, which, by the way, I did. I wrote a 40- page paper simply to indicate that this was not just a loose... I wasn't a loose cannon on this topic. Anyway, and that's how it ended with my retirement. That means you can't use the library anymore. You lose part of your identity, but you get your original identity back, and that is the one of an independent scholar. And I feel much more at ease with that than with any institutional affiliation. So that's how it ended. And of course, once you dive into a topic like this—and mind you, there is also the subtitle, "The Rise of Atlantic Zionism"—that reminds you of the fact that we're talking about a much broader phenomenon, which is not confined to that little state, this colonial entity on the east coast of the Mediterranean. It's a process with very deep historical roots, which I'll try to recapitulate a little bit in the book as an introduction to what we're facing today. #Pascal Can we maybe start with that when we talk about this? I mean, the process, because in your other work, you also often work on processes, on sociological processes, right? And how groups impact each other. This transatlantic Zionism, can you roll it up for us from the place where you thought the starting point should be understood? Hey, just a very quick note. The best way to support this channel is by signing up for my free Substack. You can also help with a paid subscription there, or you can get some of our new merch on neutralitystudies.com. Links below. See you there. #Kees v.d. Pijl -- 3 of 18 -- Yeah, well, my topic, as you kindly explained and discussed in our first meeting, is transnational classes. The moment in history when a ruling class, which comprises, of course, the people owning the majority of wealth, running the state, running management of companies and so on, dominating the worldview that pervades the whole of society—the moment when the ruling class transcends its national confines, I think, happened towards the end of the 19th century, when the British ruling class, which at the time was the most powerful one in the world, was confronted with the rise of Germany as what I call a contender state. A Germany that also was able to make enormous historic advances in terms of science, philosophy, the arts—just think of music, Wagner—and, of course, economically. And there was an awareness in the British ruling class at the time that they would not be able to withstand the challenge of Germany, unified Germany, unified under Bismarck, on their own, in the way they had done withstanding the French Revolution and Napoleon. At that time, they still had been able to mobilize a conservative or reactionary coalition of European forces to defeat Napoleon in the field, while Britain shielded the maritime frontier. With Germany, that wouldn't work, and therefore they began to look to the United States for help. So the title of one of my books is The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class, and that was the moment that the Atlantic ruling class began to be formed. Now, I can't tell the whole story here because that would distract too much from the topic. But the first phase of that was based on the idea that the ruling class had to confront not just Germany as a rival player on the same plane, but also social democracy in Germany, which was the best organized in the world. Mind you that at the time there were a million members of the well-organized German trade unions, whereas France and Britain each only had 100,000 members of the trade unions. So we're talking about a massive concentration of social democratic potential, social power, in combination with these advances that Germany was making culturally, economically, and scientifically. So the British ruling class showed itself a true ruling class in the sense that it was able to distinguish this particular threat to its rule because the German social democracy, the German working class, also had developed a lifestyle of its own which could not be reduced to a cheap version of the lifestyle of the rich. And the idea of capitalism is that you do not allow dreams and aspirations in the working class to exist which are qualitatively different, which point to a qualitatively different society than the lifestyle that you are propagating, which is individualistic, aimed at your own interests and none else. Well, I don't have to describe capitalism.