“It’s worse than Iraq,” Rharrit, a former U.S. diplomat, told Mehdi, adding how she watched pictures “going viral of U.S.-made bombs that would say USA and then would show the children that were killed by those bombs.”
I’m no fan of Biden’s policies and have nothing but contempt for Netanyahu and his fascist government, but claiming our c…
“It’s worse than Iraq,” Rharrit, a former U.S. diplomat, told Mehdi, adding how she watched pictures “going viral of U.S.-made bombs that would say USA and then would show the children that were killed by those bombs.”
I’m no fan of Biden’s policies and have nothing but contempt for Netanyahu and his fascist government, but claiming our commitment to Israel’s security is worse than Iraq is rich, to say the least.
Foremost, Biden didn’t start the war, nor did Israel, Hamas committed an atrocity against Israel. We can debate Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians before the terror attack, but it still doesn’t justify the slaughter of innocent civilians, or the hostage taking.
Secondly, Biden didn’t manufacture a war that caused the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi civilians. Remember, “Shock and Awe”? The bombing of civilian buildings were part of for the course. Not to mention, the $2.5 trillion price tag and over 10k American deaths and 50k casualties.
And lastly, Israel isn’t the 51st state of America, nor is it a protectorate. They are an ally, and when a country’s national security is at stake, they will rarely take advice from anyone, even the country providing them with weapons.
Our relationship with Israel is deeper than the Israeli/Palestinian problem. We have other priorities in the region, including reducing Iran’s influence in the region, and Israel is a big part of the overall security blanket we need to secure our other Allie’s in the region.
We are reluctant partners with Netanyahu, but you can’t change an entire national security strategy because of the Palestinian conflict. Additionally, where is the outrage against Hamas?
Ask yourself why we have an entire Republican Party, including their presidential nominee in Putin’s pocket?
When you can answer that question, feel free to get back to me.
It comes down to strategic interests. The reason we can’t control our Allie’s (not just Israel, we have the same issues with the Saudi’s), is the fact that “countries have no friends, only interests.”
Our commitment to a Israel is due to the fact that Israel is part of a wider security apparatus in the region; military and intelligence, that all share a common interest, controlling and reducing Iran’s aggression, power and proxies in the region.
"When you can answer that question, feel free to get back to me"
Asking and answering his own question :)
"It comes down to strategic interests."
We are yet to learn what "security apparatus" Israel provide us (the USA) that is worth so many Billion a year and the political cost that we pay to shield this genocidal regime in the UN.
And would we need this "security apparatus" if we were not so complicit in their crimes against humanity.
"When you can answer that question, feel free to get back to me"
Oh please, they aren’t a genocidal regime. They’ve committed acts of genocide after being brutally attacked by a TERRORIST REGIME! And what regime in the ME isn’t genocidal? Every regime in the ME has committed acts of genocide.
Where’s your outrage in Yemen? Iran, the Saudi Arabia and UAE have killed more people than Israel, against other Muslims: 150k by bombing, and famine has killed another 275k people. In addition, in the last nine years over 4.5 million people have been displaced. So again, where’s your outrage of a genocide that has been going on for a decade?
Or the 500k killed by Assad in Syria during the Arab Spring: millions displaced and even more dying of starvation and disease.
And how about the Sudan? Eight million displaced and 14,500 killed since December alone!
Or how about the ethnic cleansing of Armenians taking place in Azerbaijan? 100,400 ethnic Armenians, representing 99% of the remaining population of Nagorno-Karabakh, fled by the end of September, last year. Tens of thousands killed and even more wounded.
So don’t talk about genocidal regimes, unless you’re willing to admit that terror and destruction is caused by all parties. Hamas treats the Palestinians under their rule with an iron fist. NGO’s and journalists alike live in fear when working in Gaza. And not just because of the Israeli’s. Hamas disappears people and tortures them to death.
So wake up from your perennial stupor of ignorance. It’s the Middle East; we can either continue to argue about the past, or find a solution to the future.
And no one wins this argument because all it leads to is more death, destruction and chaos.
Whataboutism? Please! I’m calling out your hypocrisy, ignorance and biases. It’s about being Jewish and your hatred of Jews. Otherwise, you’d acknowledge the other regimes are far worse. Yet you won’t even acknowledge the actual genocides taking place in all the wonderful Arab and Muslim countries in the region. Or their treatment under Muslim monarchies and dictatorships.
How are Jews treated in every other Arab state? Oh that’s right, they’ve been driven out and forced into ghettos. Yet, 2.5 million Palestinians live in Israel; living side by side with their fellow Jewish citizens.
Get a grip, you don’t even understand the word “preemptive”. What a joke!
A line straight out of AIPAC playbook, I can see you have done your homework. For clarity, I have nothing against Jews, it is the Zionist who have become Zayo NOT-Z that I hate.
"Otherwise, you’d acknowledge the other regimes are far worse"
As much as I despise the Arab monarchs/dictators which they all pretty much are in power due to our own backing of those regimes, I honestly can't think of any of them to be as bad and genocidal as the Zionist regime. Perhaps Saudis are the next worst regime that I can think of. Needless to say, you keep referring to every one of those atrocities as "genocide" yet only the Zionist regime has been found of that crime so while you peddle on your own projection, I go more by what the international law and organization have identified.
"How are Jews treated in every other Arab state?"
Well, I don't know, We have not seen any reports of killing and genocide of Jews in any of those nations, have we? I know the second largest Jewish community in ME is in Iran and they do have a representative in their parliament.
I’m done debating, and I despise AIPAC. So I’ll leave you with some links to human rights organizations in regard to genocides taking place in Yemen, Sudan, Syria and Azerbaijan (Armenians).
By the way, I’m glad you mentioned the “one” Jewish representative in Iran’s Parliament. As though their elections are fair, and Iran is a democracy (it’s called propaganda). Too funny…:)
At last, something in common, so lets join hands and words in calling
1776 - Independence from England tyranny
2024 - Independence from Zionist/AIPAC tyranny
"As though their elections are fair, and Iran is a democracy (it’s called propaganda). Too funny…:)"
I didn't claim it to be fair or democratic. it is just as sham as it is in Israel, although arguable more people that are under the Ayatolah rule have rights to vote than those under the Zionist rule so maybe it is more democratic than the Zionist State.
How are elections a sham in Israel? The elections aren’t rigged like in Iran, where only approved candidates can run for office. This is how I now your understanding of Israel is distorted and twisted.
And we know Israel’s elections aren’t rigged because they allow the tin-foil hat crack pots (religious fanatics and settlers) to hold office.
In Iran, the only people allowed to hold office are the religious fanatics. So there’s that!…:)
Israel and Egypt have for many years been the largest recipients of US aid as a bribe for signing a peace treaty with each other when Jimmy Carter was President. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat said words to the effect that he didn’t care how heavily every Israeli man, woman and child were armed just so long as there was peace. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin — a former terrorist himself — went along with this because even though he wanted the West Bank for Israel this would make him look like a “peacemaker” to the Americans.
The result is ambivalent at best. On the one hand, the Israelis and Egyptians haven’t gone to war with each other since 1973. On the other, we’ve managed to attach ourselves to some odious figures on both sides, starting with Sadat and Begin.
Sadat was killed by the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ayman al-Zawahiri, was one of the masterminds of the Sadat assassination, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and went to jail. He later became Osama Bin Laden’s second in command in Al Qaeda.
Don’t fool yourself; the region is filled with shady characters on both sides. We can’t avoid them, and in most cases, we have to deal with them. And if not them, then characters far worse.
Hence, all the simple, easy to understand, wrong answers to a complex problem we call the Middle East. In short, it’s always been a Powder Keg…:)
"We can debate Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians before the terror attack, but it still doesn’t justify the slaughter of innocent civilians, or the hostage taking"....There's nothing to debate anymore. 2 Billion Muslims and Billions more are demanding that Israel pay for Killing over 500,000 innocent Palestinians since 1948, over 98% of them Muslims...Jesus said an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth....So it's it's only fair we have an Israeli for every Palestinian that was slaughtered by the Illigal Zionist occupiers...That's the only way Israel will stop the genocide.. ..Take your antisemitism and violence crap and stick it where the sun doesn't shine....You don't seem to have the same respect for any non-jewish life or for non-jewish religion.....The world will not tolerate your hypocrisy moving forward....The fact is the day my fellow American brothers and sisters wake up and see how the Zionists are using this country and American blood Israel will disappear
I have a lot of respect for non-Jewish lives, apparently you don’t have any respect for Jews. 500,000 killed since 1948? I’m sorry, I believe it was several Arab states that started the wars in 48’, 67’, 73’ and the PLO using Lebanon as a staging ground for terror attacks against Israel. And that’s after the PLO invaded Lebanon in 1975; creating a state within a state, as they started a civil war that has destroyed Lebanon, its economy, and left 150,000 dead, tens of thousands wounded, and hundreds of thousands displaced and left destitute. And this war didn’t include Israel. Lebanon still hasn’t recovered.
Additionally, where is your outrage against Assad? He killed over 500k of his own people during the Arab Spring? Or Saddam, who gassed 300k Kurds? Or the Iran/Iraq war in which Iran sacrificed over a million kids, forcing them to walk into mine fields, just to clear them for their troops. Or the continued demonic treatment of the Afghans under the Taliban rule. Or Turkey committing atrocities against the Kurds!
I can play this game better than you, since you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about or the complexities of the region.
So do us both a favor, and take your own advice, and stick your opinion up your ____!
And if I ever want your advice, I’ll give it to you! Have a great day!…:)
You're misrepresenting the "who started it." Here's the correct sequence of events with regards to 1947-1949. The Palestinians refused to accept UN resolution 181. This partition plan attempted to impose a settlement by giving two-thirds of the indigenous population only 44% of the land. Moreover, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was not given a seat at the table to present their case (whereas the Ben-Gurion was). The Zionists ask was 80% of the land for a population entirely consisting of immigrants from Europe (the indigenous Mizrahi Jewish population in 1900 was about 15,000 - the total Jewish population in 1947 was about 600,000). The UN presented itself as "fair minded" by only awarding them 56%. Not incidentally, early Zionists were very clear in their writings - partition was the first step to gaining control of all of historic Palestine (which has been the Zionist endeavour from the get go).
After the Palestinians rejected the partition plan (November 1947), Zionist militias (Irgun, Haganah, Stern Gang) put into motion the ethnic cleansing (which the Zionists sanitised by calling it 'transfer') to depopulate Palestinian villages, towns and cities. By May 1948 - when Israel declared its independence - over 250,000 Palestinians were already expelled and the neighbouring Arab countries were faced with a refugee crisis, which is what led them to attack Israel. Needless to say, they all got walloped which is why 78 percent of the land was captured by the Israelis and another half million were driven out in the process (in addition to 15,000-20,000 killed).
Again 1967 was a pre-emptive strike too - another naked land grab. Egypt, Syria, Jordan were caught totally unaware (foolishly and naively in my opinion). Egypt left it's airfields totally exposed and it's airforce was wiped out in a matter of hours. Hardly what a country intending to launch an attack does.
1973 - the Egyptians launched the strike pre-emptively to try and get back the Sinai Peninsula. Jordan joined to try and get the West Bank back. Ultimately I think this paved the way for the pacification of both countries where they realised they couldn't prevail militarily against Israel.
I can cite more souces/provide more details if you like, but to get into this 'in the playground' type of framing of "they started it" doesn't line up against the historical record. The Zionist project is a settler colonial one, where the West, to absolve itself for its shameful history of anti-semitism, gave away somebody else's land without any regard for the people who lived there for centuries (these aren't my words, they're Ilan Pappe's, see: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-palestine-nakba-destroyed-twelve-months-gone-on-75-years). That this would breed resentment and resistance is hardly surprising. The same happened in other settler colonies/military occupations whether it's Ireland, Kenya, Algeria, Vietnam the list goes on. People don't like to have their land taken away from them and to be under the yoke of a foreign military power.
When it comes to moral argument (i.e. where's the outage for Hamas), the words of military historian Robert Asprey are an apt response:
"Terror is the kissing cousin of force, and real or implied, is never far removed from the pages of history. To define and condemn terror from a peculiar social, economic political and emotional plane is to display a self righteous attitude that's totally unrealistic and doomed to be disappointed by harsh facts."
Palestinians don't need to accept anything...It's there land and the occupiers need to either leave voluntarily or by force....and it's almost guaranteed that it would be latter
You lost me with "I believe" ....you can find countless sources to disprove your beliefs. The foundation of the state of Israel was a colonial zionist project.
I was being sarcastic in response to his claim that Israel started every war. They didn’t and is easily proven by history.
And the foundation of every society today in the Middle East and Central Asia was a colonial project, including our countries founding. I’m sorry, did you not learn who created all the nation states and kingdoms in the Middle East today? The European colonists.
At least Israel, as a project, which you suggest was the only one created by the United Nations. It would be two, if the Palestinians accepted the partition. Oh wait, weren’t these lands under the control of Jordan and Egypt? Both nations which refused to give Palestinians control or a separate state? That’s right!
This whole idea that Israel is the only “colonial” project created in the region is ridiculous. Seriously, if this is your best argument, first educate yourself!
“Again 1967 was a pre-emptive strike too - another naked land grab. Egypt, Syria, Jordan were caught totally unaware (foolishly and naively in my opinion). Egypt left it's airfields totally exposed and it's airforce was wiped out in a matter of hours. Hardly what a country intending to launch an attack does.”
I’m not misrepresenting anything. It is said that most lies are “lies of omission.” This is when someone simply fails to mention critical facts about a particular situation, purposely misleading the reader to the wrong conclusion.
I wont speak for the Irgun or Stern, as I consider them terror groups like I view the West Bank and East Jerusalem settlers. However, it wasn’t forced deportation of Palestinians after they refused the partition plan. It was the 1948 war initiated by the Arab states who also refused to accept the UN mandate.
Remember, the Palestinians had no homeland, and weren’t a government in 1947. The Brits controlled what is mostly current day Israel, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Jordan controlled the West Bank and Jerusalem, while the Egyptian’s controlled Gaza. Neither nation agreed to give up land for a Palestinian state. So the Palestinians rejection, was a moot point. The Egyptian’s did allow a Palestinian government, but it was just a puppet government with no real power.
The whole truth is that an estimated 726,000 Arabs fled their homes during Israel’s War of Independence. That war was instigated not by the Jews but by the Arabs, who rejected the United Nations’ plan partitioning the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Israel accepted that plan, but the Arabs chose war.
The vast majority of Arabs left their villages out of their own free will to avoid being caught in the crossfire of war. They were encouraged to do so by their leaders, who told the Arab public that they would soon remove the Jewish population by force and after which they could return to their homes. So nice try.
And Palestinian groups were also attacking Israeli’s. And given that 2.5 million Palestinians are Israeli citizens inside Israel proper, supports my conclusion that it wasn’t ethnic cleaning, but fighting amongst Palestinians and Jewish groups.
That’s said, your interpretation of the 67’ war is rich. It’s been documented that Egypt, Jordan and Syria were planning a coordinated attack. The difference was Israeli intelligence, which thwarted their plans with a “preemptive” attack.
You, yourself, used the word “preemptive,” which literally means (definition) to preempt or forestall something, especially to prevent attack by disabling the enemy. These were your own words, so stop with the false narrative. Those countries were about to attack and moved their troops and tanks close to the Israeli borders, which they claimed were military exercises at the time.
1/5: What makes you think actors only strike pre-emptively in the face of an imminent threat? That’s the limitation international law places. But anyone living in the real world should know full well that pre-emptive force is often used to gain decisive strategic advantages. For opportunistic reasons when your adversary isn’t expecting it in order to change the circumstances on the ground in your favour. This is what the Israelis successfully managed to achieve in 1967 and what the Egyptians failed to accomplish in 1973 (more on that later). Alas, this isn’t the only shortcoming in your response. It’s yet another farrago of distortions and misrepresentations that demonstrate a factually incorrect and shallow understanding of the historical context which in turn render the conclusions you’ve drawn fundamentally flawed.
Anyone who’s reasonably knowledgeable on this subject should’ve clearly understood the overarching context and background behind my previous post re: what transpired between November 1947 to May 1948. The historical record isn’t disputed amongst serious observers. However, since you seem to be unaware of it, I’ll lay it out in greater detail for your benefit.
Zionism, at least its mainstream stand, is a settler colonial ideology that originated amongst European Jewry in the late 1800s to establish a homeland in between the between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. In fact there are others, albeit a minority, who subscribe to the boundaries laid out in the Book of Exodus – from the Red Sea to the Euphrates River. At the turn of the 20th century, ~95% of the population on this land was Palestinian Arab (overwhelmingly Muslim with a small Christian community). There was also a small Mizrahi Jewish community of ~15,000 (3.2%) who’d lived there for generations alongside their Muslim and Christian neighbours. Early Zionists were fully cognisant of this demographic challenge from the get go. They knew that the creation of a Jewish majority state on all of the territory they coveted would require a drastic form of social engineering. And just to be clear, at no point were the Zionists ever interested in establishing bi-national state or a permanent partition of historic Palestine. According to Israeli historian Simha Flapan, partition was at most viewed as a first step, or a tactical manoeuver in their eventual goal. Flapan quotes David Ben-Gurion, who said in the late 1930s, “after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” So much for “Israel accepted the plan, but the Arabs chose war.” As to why the Palestinians rejected the partition plan, briefly there were two reasons. First, the Palestinians, unlike the Zionists, weren’t allowed lobby their case to the UN. Second, Palestinians, who’d called this land their home for at 40-50 generations if not longer and made up two-thirds of the population were only given 44% of the land whereas the remaining 56% was given to a settler population of new migrants who’d been there for ~50 years. Failing to acknowledge that this was a fundamentally unjust proposal is “lying by omission.”
Going back to the social engineering that would be necessary for the Zionists to accomplish their ambition. From the very beginning, early Zionists knew that it’d have to involve ethnic cleansing. Theodore Herzl articulated this in somewhat benign, ambiguous terms when he wrote in his diary in 1895, “Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment…. Both the process of expropriation and removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” By the mid-1930s however, Zionist leaders voiced their plans were far more explicitly. In fact, the Jewish Agency held a closed door meeting in June 1938 in which they recognised that the only way to accomplish their goal was through “compulsory transfer.” Ben-Gurion clarified in no uncertain terms what this meant when he wrote in 1941, “it is impossible to imagine (a) general evacuation of the Arab population without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.” Israel’s chief historian Benny Morris makes it very clear that “the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century.”
2/5: When it became clear that the UN wasn’t going to try and mediate a more equitable solution (that consulted with the majority population and took demographics into account) than the 56-44 partition plan, the Zionists seized the opportunity to alter the conditions on the ground decisively in their favour. Between November 1947 and May 1948 (i.e. before Israel declared its independence), Zionist militias started the process of forcibly depopulating cities, towns and villages of its Palestinian inhabitants. By late February 1948, after the British withdrew all their forces to the port city Haifa, the militias seized doubled down to accelerate this process (putting into effect Plan Dalet a couple of weeks later). By the end of April, Palestinians were driven out of their homes en masse in the cities of Haifa, Jaffa, Safad, Beisan, Acre and West Jerusalem. This was followed by massacres such as Deir Yassin which increased the fear amongst the population and caused more people to flee. Over 250,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled and fled to neighbouring Arab countries. In response to this rapidly escalating refugee crisis, the Arab armies reluctantly attacked Israel after its declaration of independence in May 1948. In short, it’s blatantly dishonest to suggest that the “Arabs chose war.”
In fact, the record shows that the neighboring Arab states were reluctant to attack Israel as they were militarily inferior. After all, the Zionist militias which became the IDF had developed into a formidable fighting force under the tutelage of the British in the 1930s and 1940s when they brutally crushed the 1936 Palestinian revolt and fought alongside the British Army in North Africa during WWII. Inevitably, the Arab armies were successfully repelled and another 0.5 million Palestinians were ethnically cleansed as Israel expanded beyond the partition plan borders and captured 78% of the land by the time the armistice was signed in 1949. You’ve raised three factually incorrect points which relate to the 1947-49 period that I’ll address separately in greater detail in the interest of clarity – the status of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, Palestinian citizens of Israel and the Arabs fled voluntarily.
Israeli elites at that time were remarkably candid about their fundamental character as a colonising force, and cognisant of the antagonism that this would ferment amongst Palestinians and the larger Arab world. In the wake of the 1948 war, Ben-Gurion candidly told the President of World Jewish Congress, “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel, It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” Or Ze’ev Jabotinsky who wrote, “Colonisation is self-explanatory and what it implies is fully understood by every sensible Jew and Arab. There can only be one purpose in colonisation. For the country’s Arabs that purpose is essentially unacceptable. This is a natural reaction and nothing will change it.”
As such, an honest reading of the historical record shows that the 1949 armistice gave birth to a new and uneasy status quo. On one hand, there was Israel whose territorial aspirations weren’t completely fulfilled (I’m just focussing on the mainstream Zionist interpretation of “river to the sea” here). On the other hand, there were the neighbouring Arab countries who were humiliated in 1948 and faced with a more powerful, adversarial and expansionist settler colonial state that they wanted to push back against and ideally dismantle in what was in essence an anti-colonial endeavour from their perspective.
3/5: To digress slightly before discussing June 1967, it is patently false to claim that the West Bank and Jerusalem were part of Transjordan in 1917. Nice try to redraw the map and reinvent history! Look at any map of Mandatory Palestine, throughout 1917-1948, included what is today Green Line Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from 1917-1948. Even an arm of the Israeli Hasbara machine got it correct (refreshingly for a change, see: https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/The%20League%20of%20Nations%20Mandate%20for%20Palestine%20-%201920.aspx?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template). Cities and towns that are in the West Bank today, such as Jericho, Nablus, Jenin, Ramallah etc. were all part of Mandatory Palestine, never Transjordan. Jerusalem too was under British control throughout the mandate. This is completely in line with the intent expressed in the Balfour Declaration. Gaza and the West Bank only came under Egyptian and Jordanian control post 1948 (I’ll discuss Gaza separately further below in response to your point on the Palestinian citizens of Israel). In his book “Collusion Across the Jordan,” British-Israeli historian Avi Shlaim provides a detailed account of how the Hashemite King of Jordan covertly negotiated with the Zionists before the end of the British mandate to gain control of the West Bank because he wanted access to more fertile land (Jordan itself is mostly arid desert). In exchange, the Jordanians held back their forces while the Zionist militias went on to capture and ethnically cleanse cities such as Lydd and Ramleh as well as the surrounding towns and villages just beyond the West Bank and absorb them all into the state of Israel. The Israelis were prepared to temporarily accept this outcome so they wouldn’t have to contend with potentially having another ~300,000 Palestinians within their borders for the time being (contextualised further below in response to your point regarding the Palestinian citizens of Israel).
Attack by Jordan and Syria and Egypt was imminent in 1967: this assertion is patently false. When Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban told Lyndon Johnson on May 26, 1967 that its Arab neighbours were about to launch an attack, Robert McNamara refuted this claim with reports from three separate intelligence groups who all unanimously agreed “that an attack was not imminent.” Moreover, Washington knew full well that Israel’s military was far superior to the militaries of all the Arab countries combined. Johnson’s response to Eban makes this abundantly clear: “if they do, you’ll whip the hell out of them.” Following the Six Day War, five Israeli Generals – Ezer Weizmann, Chiam Herzog, Haim Bar Lev, Matitiyahu Peled and Yeshiyahu Gavish – the affirmed this assessment. As I already mentioned in my previous post, Israel launched this pre-emptive attack in June 1967 to expand its borders, to correct the “fatal historical mistake.” This is completely in line with the territorial ambitions of the Zionist project, which coveted the West Bank from the get go. Not only was the land very fertile, but its symbolic importance in Jewish tradition is massive.
For as long as he was in power, Ben-Gurion was caught in a dilemma. On one hand, he lamented colluding with King Abdullah I in what he termed “bechiya ledorot” or a “fatal historical mistake.” Yet throughout his time in power until 1963, he ultimately resisted pressure from other factions within Israel to capture the West Bank because he firmly believed that the nascent Jewish state wasn’t in a position to absorb hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. According to Israeli historian Tom Segev, the “Greater Israel Lobby” gained far more influence after Ben-Gurion left government and pushed much harder for the annexation of the West Bank. In short, the impetus to launch an attack to achieve this end markedly increased from 1963 onwards.
This is not to say that the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians didn’t ‘poke the bear’ with provocative skirmishes with the Israelis throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Gamal Abdul Nasser employed a dangerous tactic called “brinksmanship” where he test the limits of the Israeli and UN response by deploying some troops in the Sinai Peninsula (which was to be a demilitarised zone after the 1956 Suez Crisis). While the Jordanians employed hostile rhetoric on occasion, they actually killed and captured more Palestinians attempting to infiltrate the Green Line than the Israelis did throughout the 1960s. And yes, there were tit for tat retaliations between Israel and Syria along the border. Damascus also hosted the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) which undoubtedly antagonised the Israelis. But to contend that Israel somehow faced an existential threat, an imminent attack from its neighbours is hyperbolic nonsense.
4/5: To close the loop with the argument I made in my last post, Israel undoubtedly asserted its dominance following the June 1967 war. In October 1973, Egypt launched a surprise pre-emptive attack to in an attempt to regain the Sinai Peninsula (which it had lost in the 1967 war). Once again, Israeli military superiority prevailed and Egypt finally conceded that it did not have the capacity to comprehensively defeat Israel on the battlefield. Israel too recognised that waging war on multiple fronts every few years was not sustainable (particularly because the military was now needed to maintain the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza) and therefore entered into the Camp David Accords which led to the peace deal in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. With the largest and most powerful Arab country pacified, the Jordanians eventually signed a peace treaty as well 15 years later in 1994.
The playground fight like ‘but they started it’ type of argumentation that you’ve persistently employed is inherently reductionist and invariably results in gross over-simplifications if not outright obfuscation. It’s intellectually bankrupt for anyone purporting to be knowledgeable on the subject to completely disregard the fundamental nature of the Zionist enterprise when discussing this subject. To disregard the gross asymmetry of power in favour of the Zionists and later Israel since the early 20th century due to great power patronage and how that has enabled Israel to assert its will is dishonest. You’ve raised some other absurd arguments in your comment which also warrant a response to correct the response, or at the very least add more nuance.
Palestinians had no homeland: this is a ridiculous line of reasoning. A number of villages, towns and cities in what became Mandatory Palestine (and eventually Israel) were continuously and habitually inhabited by successive generations of Arabs for at least a millennium, if not longer (40-50 generations at minimum). Family homes, farmland etc. passed down from generation to generation clearly evidences their connection to the villages, towns, cities (i.e. their hometowns) in that particular geography – i.e. their “homeland.” Just because they didn’t specifically call themselves “Palestinians” since time immemorial doesn’t in any way dilute or diminish this connection. To draw an analogy, prior to the 1850s, the Indian subcontinent consisted of various kingdoms and fiefdoms (as many as 600-700 at some points). Today, their descendants live in what is currently called India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Just because their forefathers were subjects of another political entity, be it the Mughals or the Marathas and never referred to themselves as Indians or Pakistanis or Bangladeshis doesn’t in any way dilute their progenies connection to the same land. In fact, their present day nationality originates from this very historic connection. The same logic applies to the Palestinians, just because they were at subjects of the Malmuks, the Ottomans etc. some point in history doesn’t diminish their connection to the same land that was rechristened Mandatory Palestine in 1917, and later Israel in 1948. Politics is fluid and whose authority any given territory falls under has repeatedly changed throughout history. But a change in who controls the territory it doesn’t negate a particular peoples connection to lands that they’ve lived on for generations – i.e. their “homelands.”
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that peoples cannot forge connections to new lands over time. The Scots and the English moved to North America in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s. They gradually established roots in these places cultivating the land, building homes, running businesses and so on. Today, it not controversial for their descendants to call Canada or the United States their homeland. If you go to Guyana, or Fiji or Malaysia, you’ll find plenty of Indians whose forefathers 10-12 generations ago went there from India as indentured labourers and stayed on. Again, their descendants today would naturally refer to Guyana, or Fiji or Malaysia as their “homeland.” The same standard applies to Israelis. 76 years later in 2024, there are many Jewish Israelis who are of European descent, but Israel is all they’ve ever known. There is simply no disputing the fact that Tel Aviv or Ashkelon or Nazareth or any other city, town, village to where they have family ties, economic ties etc. is their hometown in what has become their “homeland.” But argue that this affinity is only exclusive to some, while actively denying it those with a much older and longer historical connection to the same land (i.e. the Melanesians, Amazonian tribes, Malays, the Cree, the Sioux, the Palestinians) is intellectually bankrupt.
5/5: Palestinians weren’t a government in 1947: two points. Firstly, under the relatively decentralized system of administration during Ottoman times, local peoples governed their local affairs and were generally left to be as long as they pledged allegiance to the Sultan in Constantinople. Local elites were co-opted into the Ottoman nobility in what was essentially system of indirect rule. Secondly, by contrast, post WWI, early Zionists successfully lobbied the British to “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and used their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.” The use of the word “establishment” itself in the Balfour Declaration is very telling – for it recognises that massive social engineering would be required to convert a land that was 94 percent Palestinian at the time into a Jewish state. Naturally therefore, mandatory rule was designed to deny and exclude Palestinians from the polity in their homeland. Unlike all of the other British and French mandates, the Palestinians were never allowed to formally establish a quasi-governmental body representing its interests and aspirations because the British denied it to them. Although organisations such as the AHC which emerged when Palestinian elites organised themselves in the 1920s, they nonetheless remained outside the system unlike their Zionist counterparts. Various articles in the mandate for Palestine clearly evidence this. Article 2 for example only allowed for the creation of self-governing institutions for the Jewish immigrants, not the Palestinians. Article 4 gave the Jewish Agency quasi-governmental status thereby according wide-ranging powers to the Zionists to develop economic and social policy as well as acquiring international diplomatic status. Palestinians were not allowed to create their own institutions, nor were joint Jewish-Palestinian bodies ever permitted. Articles 6 and 7 gave the Jewish Agency full control over immigration and citizenship – such that European Jews immigrating could immediately acquire nationality while a Palestinian who may have been abroad prior to 1917 (for higher education let’s say) was stripped of their citizenship and couldn’t return home to their families. So yes, they didn’t have a government in 1947 because political participation was systematically denied to them. But again, deliberate political and social engineering to deny Palestinians a voice at the table doesn’t change the overarching fact that Mandatory Palestine was nonetheless their “homeland.” To tie it back to the comments I made at the start of this response, this also explains why the AHC didn’t have a seat at the table in negotiating the terms of resolution 181 with the Zionists and other UN members.
Arabs voluntarily fled, or encouraged by their leaders: this is “lying by omission.” Arabs fled out of fear, in particular after the Deir Yassin Massacre in April 1948. As the news of the brutality of the Zionist militias spread like wildfire, terrified Palestinians fled their homes. This could hardly be described as “voluntary.” As far as the Arab leaders were concerned, many of them preferred an orderly withdrawal to a chaotic and bloody one to save lives. The Zionist claim of “voluntary transfer” is completely illogical. Why would anyone flee from their homes unless they’re threatened with brutal violence? As I’ve already explained above, it was a culmination of forcible expulsions + massacres that eventually compelled the Arab armies to attack Israel and prevent the refugee crisis spilling over into their borders from becoming unmanageable. To reiterate, they were reluctant to attack because they were significantly weaker than the Zionist militias, who, under the tutelage of their British patrons during the Mandate, had become a formidable fighting force that were instrumental in putting down Palestinian rebellions in the mid 1930s and had gained fighting experience in North Africa during the Second World War.
Palestinians attacked Israelis in 1948, 2.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel so no ethnic cleansing: Sure, but again there is a simple explanation. Most of the Palestinian citizens of Israel originate from the North – particularly the Galilee. By the time the Zionist militias got to this region, news of the forcible expulsions and massacres reached them, and they organised themselves and resisted. Survival, keeping your home, are remarkably strong incentives to fight back! Resultantly, there were about 150,000 to 200,000 Palestinians that weren’t successfully expelled. Historians such as Benny Morris say the job to entirely clear the land out of its inhabitants was only partially completed by the time the armistice agreements were signed in 1949. The ~2 million remaining within the Green Line today are the descendants of those who successfully managed to resist their expulsion (this population has grown naturally, just like the Israeli Jewish population did from about 1.4 million in the early 1950s to 7.5 million today). It is absurd to argue that clearing out ~750,000 Palestinians, or ~75% of the Palestinian population from what became Green Line Israel in less than two years was not ethnic cleansing because less than ~25% of them managed to remain behind. It’s the overarching principle that’s truly informative of the intent – i.e. the only way that a Jewish majority state could have been formed in a land that just 50 years earlier was 95 percent Palestinian is ethnic cleansing. And if the intent was never forcible expulsion, then why did the UN resoundingly pass resolution 194? Why haven’t the Palestinians languishing in refugee camps in neighbouring countries been allowed to return to their homes? The reason is simple. It comes down to maintaining the demographic reality that was engineered in 1947-49. As a consequence of their resistance, Palestinian citizens of Israel were subjected to military rule until 1966 to pacify and subjugate them. This had the added benefit of fine tuning the system of military occupation that would be required to bring hundreds of thousands more Palestinians under direct Israeli control after capturing the West Bank and Gaza following the June 1967 war.
More on Gaza: to further debunk your attempt to invent the map and the history in the Mandatory period, Egypt, it was already under British control since the late 19th century (i.e. before the Mandate) and at no point before the 1948 war was Gaza ever under its jurisdiction. In fact, during Ottoman times, about a sixth of the Sinai in the north (immediately south of what is today the Gaza strip and the Negev desert) was part of the Levant province. Israel preferred for Gaza to be taken by the Egyptians in 1948 because over 200,000 Palestinian refugees fled there after being driven out of what became south and central Israel. This is completely understandable. A nascent Jewish state did not want to govern, or directly face possible resistance on two fronts because they already had the Palestinians of the North (in the Galilee in particular) to contend with. This wasn’t any different from the logic behind Ben-Gurion’s dealings with the Jordanians in 1948 re: the West Bank.
Israel is supported as far more than just an ally, in the sense that (for example) the US team at Oslo included Martin Indyk, who ran AIPAC. There is a backchannel that has been incompletely explored. Suppose the US ambassador to Israel was a Palestinian American, would that change things? There are active conflicts of interest that have encouraged Israel to put expansion above prudence.
The other problem for Israel today is unconditional US support has led to moral hazard. Israel is in mortal danger of self-destruction. For the past 7 months it has been openly killing its neighbor's kids while the entire neighborhood is watching, in real time. How do you think that will end?
Eventually, Israel must live with its neighbors, and all the US can do is provide money, weapons, vetoes, and knock off it neighbors.....Iraq, Libya, Syria. Iran is hopefully a bridge too far.
I agree with some of your comments. America is bought and paid for by special interests, but some of those interests are National Security interests, which I’ve already documented or commented on.
As for knocking off its neighbors? Not quite! Jordan and Egypt are at peace with Israel. Morocco and Tunisia also have relations with Israel. Syria supports Hezbollah, and Iran supports both Hezbollah and Hamas.
The Sunni Gulf states have had National security agreements with Israel for over a decade. Israel has even used Saudi airspace to conduct air operations against Iran and their intelligence agencies share information on Iran regularly.
What all these countries have in common is they have all used the Palestinian issue as a political football in the past. Today, all view the Palestinians as a problem no one wants to deal with.
So ask yourself why no one cares about the Palestinians? It’s because they’ve always been a thorn in the side of every one of these countries.
The biggest mistake Israel made was occupying these territories. They tried to give Gaza back to the Egyptian’s during the return of the Sinai Peninsula, but Egypt didn’t want Gaza back. Jordan was offered the West Bank and flatly refused.
Yet, here we are. Today, while we argue about the history, and all the wrongs and atrocities committed by not only Israel, but all of these nations, including the Palestinians (see Lebanon Civil War in which the PLO created a state within a state), the religious fanatics on by sides grow stronger and more intransigent.
Perhaps a paradigm shift in these discussions is warranted…:)
The Palestinians are the only group with legal standing to contest the land, which is why Israel wants them gone. The model they are mimicking is that of the US and native americans... attrition, killing, expulsions, and thats whats been happening, and it continues.
The difference now is that the US is no longer as dominant. Israels behavior is a threat to US national security because it is accelerating US decline. The script has flipped. Biden is living in nostalgia, and his professionals are disgusted.
It is also really dumb to attack students with weapons rather than arguments. This will only mean that the protests grow. This is why the Lobby is pushing the nuclear option of pushing for a law that makes criticism of Israel illegal. Like frankenstein they are panicking in the sunshine, they prefer the shadows.
I agree with this assessment. I have not defended Netanyahu or his fascist government. This invasion was a revenge tour that’s only making matters worse, and pulling all of Israel into a rabbit hole; while these religious fanatics are deciding the fate of both countries.
And I agree, Israel is bringing us down with them. I was only defending Israel’s right to exist, and the ridiculous argument that Gaza is worse than the manufactured war in Iraq.
Otherwise, we agree that this is a travesty and the Palestinians are suffering greatly.
I don't think any country has a "right" to exist. The Israelis are sensitive on this point, and they need to get over it. The charge of antisemitism is getting silly, specially when it is now applied to Jewish Americans.
It is becoming increasingly clear to all that the Palestinians are the victims. Again, a role reversal.
Huh? No country has the right to exist? That’s your story and you’re sticking to it? I won’t bother even trying to respond!
I agree, it’s not all anti-semitism. Many on this site are Hamas supporters. So you’re right, it’s not anti-semitism, it’s pure hatred of Jews. How many will even suggest that Hamas slaughtered Jews? All I hear are people saying Jews deserved it.
Suppose I tell you the US has no right to exist. Or, China, or Iran. Or for that matter, you or me. Would you blow your stack? Of course not, you would laugh it off. That's what Israel needs to do.
If after 75 years they are still insecure about whether they should exist or not this is their problem!! They should see a "country shrink". Or perhaps it is just guilty conscience, given that the genocide of Palestinians enabled their existence? You decide!
See this is the ignorance. “The genocide of Palestinians led to Israel’s existence!”
Evidence please? What genocide took place in 1948? Obviously. History is being rewritten so it wasn’t Palestinians that left of their own free will; when their leaders told them to (so they could exterminate all the Jews and then return). Now it was a forced expulsion of the Palestinians. Got it, I’ll make sure to update the history books.
And what Palestinian state existed? Gaza was under Egyptian control and Jordan controlled the West Bank and Jerusalem. You do understand this simple concept, right? So when you say there was a Palestinian genocide so Israel could exist, please explain?
Both Egypt and Jordan refused to recognize a Palestinian state at the time, or give up territory for a Palestinian state. So are they also complicit in the “imaginary” genocide of the Palestinian people as well? Or is this another Jewish conspiracy to rid the world of the Palestinian people that I’m just learning about for the first time?
That said, some Jewish terror groups did exist and were responsible for the deaths of innocent Palestinians at the time? Yes, the Irgun and Stern Gang were terrorists, but several Palestinian Terror groups also existed and were murdering innocent Jews. I guess that part has been whitewashed from history.
As for whether China or any other country has the right to exist is immaterial, since they do exist. This is my point, we live in the real world, yet, you live in a fantasy world.
You’re so excited. Please refer to ICJ proceedings, and numerous historians. Try Ilan Pappe to start, he is being harassed at airports these days. Your verbal harangues mean little. Try a new form of hasbara please!
I’m not excited, just not interested in the regurgitation of a false history. Your whole argument is based on the words of Dr. Mohamed Hussein:
“If the United Nations decides to amputate a part of Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state, no force on earth could prevent blood from flowing there. … [O]nce such bloodshed has commenced, no force on earth can confine it to the borders of Palestine itself.”
— Dr. Mohamed Hussein Heykal Pasha, Egyptian delegate to UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, 1947
His argument that partitioning part of Palestine for a Jewish state would lead to genocide. A self fulfilling prophecy, since it was the Arab states that started the war.
As though, the only bloodshed to exist in the ME is all the fault of Jews. All the Islamic terror ground that exists today, only exists as a bulwark against Zionism.
All the ill-treatment of Muslim Arabs only exists because Jews. The Taliban in Afghanistan, a Zionist plot. Rinse, lather, repeat.
"when a country’s national security is at stake, they will rarely take advice from anyone, even the country providing them with weapons."
Well, if they know the country supplying them with weapons will ALWAYS supply them with weapons no matter what, that does tend to reduce the incentive to take the advice, doesn't it?
Secondly, do you seriously believe that Israel is being made MORE secure by what they're doing today in Gaza?
In answer to your second question, I have said NO! If you actually read my comments, you’d know I was against the invasion, and have no love lost for Netanyahu, or his fascist cohorts in the Knesset.
They are war criminals, as is Hamas. What’s missing from many who comment, is the outrage of other actual genocides taking place in the region, in which Israel isn’t involved. Where’s the outrage or condemnation? Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Armenia, etc….
In answer to your first question, we supply Israel with weapons for several reasons. Under the terms of the Israel/Egyptian Peace Accord (1977), we are required to arm both Israel and Egypt. Secondly, like I’ve tried to convey in earlier posts, it’s not just about the Palestinians.
America has strategic interests in the region. Like it or not, when we stop needing oil, and our western and Asian Allies stop needing oil, no one will give a damn about the region: it’s called realpolitik and every nation chooses sides for their own strategic interests.
Additionally, We have an obligation to our Allies, as the only true superpower, to make sure the oil keeps flowing; keeping global prices constant or as stable as possible for all of our economies to prosper. 25% of the global oil supply ships out of the Persian Gulf. The Straight of Hormuz is only 21 miles wide (certain parts) and easy pickings if Iran wanted to shut down the ship lanes. Which would cause oil prices to rise into the stratosphere. Israel is part of the strategic bulwark that keeps Iran’s aggression and proxies in check, so they can’t act with impunity.
Look how bent and out of shape Americans get when the national price of oil is above $5 a gallon? they’re willing to elect a fascist authoritarian kleptocrat and replace democracy forever.
This is my point Steve. This issue is complex. Yet, all I hear from commenters are simple, easy to understand wrong answers to this conundrum.
So we can continue to debate the past, or try to resolve the conflict for the future. I choose the latter option!
Seriously Davena, learn the meaning of the word troll before you continue to embarrass yourself. I was the one initially posting, you and Steve are the trolls! If you don’t like my views, you don’t need to respond.
No wonder you don’t understand the complexities of the Middle East conflict, you don’t even know what a troll is. Maybe one day you’ll at least finish your GED; good luck and god speed…:)
We can agree on that point. I’m not arguing any of this is right, but what is your solution? Apparently, the solution of most of the commenters, is that Israel needs to pick up and leave or be killed.
Only delusional imbeciles would think this option is possible or achievable. Israel is a nuclear nation (fourth largest stockpile in the world), with one of the best militaries, and best intelligence network in the region. They are the third largest economy in Central Asia; behind Turkey and Saudi Arabia, respectively. And while Israel has little natural resource wealth, they are close to a $600 billion GDP in a country of 8.5 million. Compare that to Saudi Arabia’s GDP of $750 billion, and a population of 40 million.
Additionally, Israel’s economy is based on technology. And next to Silicon Valley, Israel’s high tech sector is second to none.
That said, I’d like to find a solution, not continually hear from the dreamers who live in a false reality. So when this newsletter is about Gaza being worse than the manufactured war in Iraq, I call BS. It’s not even close, and only hurts any possible chance of reconciliation into the future, since we’re arguing about the past, and not focusing on the future.
Depends which side of history you want to be on. Do you want to be the simple-minded moralizer arguing slavery is wrong, or do you want to be the sophisticated guy pointing out how essential slavery is to the economy of the South?
Defending Israel’s right to exist is in your mind defending slavery? Got it! It’s all Israel’s fault!
Seriously, find a good therapist, you definitely have a few bats flying around the attic. And only a simple minded moron would even make that suggestion. I’ll leave it at that! Have a good evening!
1) Some issues are clearer when looked at in retrospect. With time, we can gain a moral clarity that's harder to achieve when we're immersed in the argument.
2) "Practical considerations" are often used to justify the continuation of the status quo.
You ever seen The Sorrow and The Pity, about the Nazi occupation of France? The people who were in the resistance are interviewed, none of them have anything very sophisticated to say beyond "I wanted the Germans out of my country", but the people who stood by and did nothing, or even aided the occupiers, oh boy do they have some sophisticated arguments to make.
Steve, with all due respect, I don’t need to see a holocaust documentary to understand the Holocaust. I lost 75% of my family to the Nazi’s and Russians, something you’ll never understand and hopefully never experience.
Secondly, you seem to think you’re on the right side of history, yet you have no conception of history, and conflate actions of individual men with the state of Israel, at a time of great mass confusion, a genocide and years of conflict in Palestine.
I, like many Jews do not believe the Israeli response was required. Netanyahu is sending Israel down a rabbit hole, which will only make matters worse for all parties, and only intensify future conflicts.
Many of us believe in a two state solution, and would like to handover Netanyahu and his cohorts to the ICC for crimes against humanity. The treatment of the Palestinians in the territories is inhumane.
I’ve actually been fighting through the J Street, which is a Jewish PAC that supports a two-state solution and is the antithesis of AIPAC. I have family in Israel fighting for Palestinian rights. What are you doing except criticizing people in a comment section? Exactly!
Furthermore, you believe Iran, where women are beaten to death for not wearing a hijab is far more democratic nation than Israel? It’s this stupidity, and your compete ignorance of the region that makes people like you dangerous.
I’ve lived in Beirut, Tel Aviv, Morocco, Tunisia and traveled to Jordan, Egypt and the UAE on business for weeks and months at a time. I listen to different viewpoints all the time, and my opinions evolve over time. I judge each individual event separately, rather than conflating decades and centuries of pain experienced by all parties. What’s your experience and understanding of the issues? You read a few newsletters and documentaries?
And you actually think watching a documentary makes you an expert, and gives you all the answers? I’ve listened to your nonsense as much as I’m willing to put up with.
What’s interesting is that in your comments you manage to say a lot of things, yet nothing worthwhile; all at the same time. A difficult feat, indeed!
So continue with your useless rants and ridiculous nonsense, I really couldn’t care less!
Robert McNamara was a brilliant man, well-read, well-travelled, conversant with all the experts on Southeast Asia. He knew far more and had much more sophisticated ideas than the students who were chanting "Hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today?"
Looking back on it now, who was wrong and who was right?
(Now let's all watch Robert deliberately misinterpret this as "He's saying Israel=Vietnam! That's just CRAZY TALK!")
George Schultz, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State was much more widely read, more widely travelled, more generally knowledgeable about the world than the college students in their encampments demanding divestment from Apartheid South Africa. Schultz had many sophisticated arguments for why the students demands were unrealistic and even hurtful to the people they claimed to be helping.
It's not a documentary about the Holocaust, it's a documentary about the occupation of France (although the Holocaust does feature in it, with regard to Jews shipped from France for extermination.)
And my point, which you're repeatedly (maybe deliberately?) missing is that "My analysis is sophisticated and yours is not" is not quite the devastating put-down you seem to think it is. Throughout history, people have always had "sophisticated" arguments for why we can do no more than to accommodate evil. that any fundamental change based on admittedly simple moral principles is impractical and even impossible. Usually these people are wrong, I can supply other examples if you're interested, but I'm guessing you're not.
If you’re accusing me of standing by or being complicit, think again. You’re as much a bystander as I am. And I never defended Netanyahu or his policies. I’ve been extremely critical of him, and his tin-foil hat religious wing-nut government; even before this war.
As far as I’m concerned, this invasion is and was a mistake, especially Rafah. Netanyahu is heading Israel down a rabbit hole; the same revenge tour w conducted after 9/11. And the total damage still incalculable.
That said, I take issue with this whole idea that the state of Israel itself is illegitimate and a colonialist experiment or project. The entire ME was divided by the West. Are you suggesting all the gulf and Sunni governments relinquish their control and leave? Or what is your solution? I actually haven’t heard anything come from your comments except criticism of me. No actual refuting of the facts.
And you are naive, because you don’t understand the complexities of the region; if you did, you’d be actually providing evidence that I’m wrong.
So don’t expect me to respond to your next comment. I’d rather focus my time on finding solutions to this tragedy, instead of having to defend Jewry against a bush of anti-Semitic individuals (not suggesting your are one) who think Gaza is worse than Iraq, or worse than any of the other genocides taking place in the ME, Africa and Central Asia, as we speak.
Hey, whatever you think of my comments, you really should watch The Sorrow And The Pity, it's generally considered to be a masterpiece, one of the greatest documentaries ever made.
One of the things I learned from it is that people who cooperate with evil always have their reasons, and those reasons usually start with "It's complicated..."
Palestinians have lived in an open air prison aka concentration camp controlled by Israel for decades. Please know your middle eastern history before repeating Israeli propaganda.
Human Rights Groups have been writing extensive damning reports against Israel for years. Have you not been following along? Or that just doesn't fit your narrative? Is it too uncomfortable for you to read them?
I know my history, and according to you, Palestinians have been treated badly in the occupied territories since 48’. Perhaps you’re confusing the treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank, by Egypt and Jordan, respectively; since Israel did t control the territories until 1967.
And Nakba did occur, but not in the scale you say. Palestinians did leave on their own accord, because the Arab leaders told them to. And the Arab countries attacked the new state of Israel in 1948; this is not in dispute. And Whether you agree that Israel should, or not exist by a UN mandate, is irrelevant since it does, in fact exist.
That said, I’m not going to debate the past. I have never supported the occupation. I don’t support the Netanyahu government, and I certainly didn’t support the response to the horrendous terrorist attack by Hamas on October 6th.
The difference between me and a lot of people in this discussion, is I believe in a two state solution, and condemn the current Israeli government, while it appears you, and many others support the Hamas government that is responsible of the attack.
By the way, these same world human rights groups that criticize Israel (I agree) for their treatment of the Palestinians, also criticize Hamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Hezbollah, and every other Middle Eastern government in the region.
“It’s worse than Iraq,” Rharrit, a former U.S. diplomat, told Mehdi, adding how she watched pictures “going viral of U.S.-made bombs that would say USA and then would show the children that were killed by those bombs.”
I’m no fan of Biden’s policies and have nothing but contempt for Netanyahu and his fascist government, but claiming our commitment to Israel’s security is worse than Iraq is rich, to say the least.
Foremost, Biden didn’t start the war, nor did Israel, Hamas committed an atrocity against Israel. We can debate Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians before the terror attack, but it still doesn’t justify the slaughter of innocent civilians, or the hostage taking.
Secondly, Biden didn’t manufacture a war that caused the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi civilians. Remember, “Shock and Awe”? The bombing of civilian buildings were part of for the course. Not to mention, the $2.5 trillion price tag and over 10k American deaths and 50k casualties.
And lastly, Israel isn’t the 51st state of America, nor is it a protectorate. They are an ally, and when a country’s national security is at stake, they will rarely take advice from anyone, even the country providing them with weapons.
Our relationship with Israel is deeper than the Israeli/Palestinian problem. We have other priorities in the region, including reducing Iran’s influence in the region, and Israel is a big part of the overall security blanket we need to secure our other Allie’s in the region.
We are reluctant partners with Netanyahu, but you can’t change an entire national security strategy because of the Palestinian conflict. Additionally, where is the outrage against Hamas?
"And lastly, Israel isn’t the 51st state of America"
Then why the F we are paying them each and every year and why is it that they have so many Congressmen in our congress?
Ask yourself why we have an entire Republican Party, including their presidential nominee in Putin’s pocket?
When you can answer that question, feel free to get back to me.
It comes down to strategic interests. The reason we can’t control our Allie’s (not just Israel, we have the same issues with the Saudi’s), is the fact that “countries have no friends, only interests.”
Our commitment to a Israel is due to the fact that Israel is part of a wider security apparatus in the region; military and intelligence, that all share a common interest, controlling and reducing Iran’s aggression, power and proxies in the region.
That’s the short answer…:)
"When you can answer that question, feel free to get back to me"
Asking and answering his own question :)
"It comes down to strategic interests."
We are yet to learn what "security apparatus" Israel provide us (the USA) that is worth so many Billion a year and the political cost that we pay to shield this genocidal regime in the UN.
And would we need this "security apparatus" if we were not so complicit in their crimes against humanity.
"When you can answer that question, feel free to get back to me"
Oh please, they aren’t a genocidal regime. They’ve committed acts of genocide after being brutally attacked by a TERRORIST REGIME! And what regime in the ME isn’t genocidal? Every regime in the ME has committed acts of genocide.
Where’s your outrage in Yemen? Iran, the Saudi Arabia and UAE have killed more people than Israel, against other Muslims: 150k by bombing, and famine has killed another 275k people. In addition, in the last nine years over 4.5 million people have been displaced. So again, where’s your outrage of a genocide that has been going on for a decade?
Or the 500k killed by Assad in Syria during the Arab Spring: millions displaced and even more dying of starvation and disease.
And how about the Sudan? Eight million displaced and 14,500 killed since December alone!
Or how about the ethnic cleansing of Armenians taking place in Azerbaijan? 100,400 ethnic Armenians, representing 99% of the remaining population of Nagorno-Karabakh, fled by the end of September, last year. Tens of thousands killed and even more wounded.
So don’t talk about genocidal regimes, unless you’re willing to admit that terror and destruction is caused by all parties. Hamas treats the Palestinians under their rule with an iron fist. NGO’s and journalists alike live in fear when working in Gaza. And not just because of the Israeli’s. Hamas disappears people and tortures them to death.
So wake up from your perennial stupor of ignorance. It’s the Middle East; we can either continue to argue about the past, or find a solution to the future.
And no one wins this argument because all it leads to is more death, destruction and chaos.
"They’ve committed acts of genocide after being brutally attacked by a TERRORIST REGIME"
That makes them a genocidal regime.
Again you ask and answer your own question.
And your Whataboutism has not been lost on me.
Whataboutism? Please! I’m calling out your hypocrisy, ignorance and biases. It’s about being Jewish and your hatred of Jews. Otherwise, you’d acknowledge the other regimes are far worse. Yet you won’t even acknowledge the actual genocides taking place in all the wonderful Arab and Muslim countries in the region. Or their treatment under Muslim monarchies and dictatorships.
How are Jews treated in every other Arab state? Oh that’s right, they’ve been driven out and forced into ghettos. Yet, 2.5 million Palestinians live in Israel; living side by side with their fellow Jewish citizens.
Get a grip, you don’t even understand the word “preemptive”. What a joke!
"It’s about being Jewish and your hatred of Jews"
A line straight out of AIPAC playbook, I can see you have done your homework. For clarity, I have nothing against Jews, it is the Zionist who have become Zayo NOT-Z that I hate.
"Otherwise, you’d acknowledge the other regimes are far worse"
As much as I despise the Arab monarchs/dictators which they all pretty much are in power due to our own backing of those regimes, I honestly can't think of any of them to be as bad and genocidal as the Zionist regime. Perhaps Saudis are the next worst regime that I can think of. Needless to say, you keep referring to every one of those atrocities as "genocide" yet only the Zionist regime has been found of that crime so while you peddle on your own projection, I go more by what the international law and organization have identified.
"How are Jews treated in every other Arab state?"
Well, I don't know, We have not seen any reports of killing and genocide of Jews in any of those nations, have we? I know the second largest Jewish community in ME is in Iran and they do have a representative in their parliament.
I’m done debating, and I despise AIPAC. So I’ll leave you with some links to human rights organizations in regard to genocides taking place in Yemen, Sudan, Syria and Azerbaijan (Armenians).
By the way, I’m glad you mentioned the “one” Jewish representative in Iran’s Parliament. As though their elections are fair, and Iran is a democracy (it’s called propaganda). Too funny…:)
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/yemen-genocide-emergency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_genocide
https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/syria
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw4dk2kzy5wo
" and I despise AIPAC"
At last, something in common, so lets join hands and words in calling
1776 - Independence from England tyranny
2024 - Independence from Zionist/AIPAC tyranny
"As though their elections are fair, and Iran is a democracy (it’s called propaganda). Too funny…:)"
I didn't claim it to be fair or democratic. it is just as sham as it is in Israel, although arguable more people that are under the Ayatolah rule have rights to vote than those under the Zionist rule so maybe it is more democratic than the Zionist State.
How are elections a sham in Israel? The elections aren’t rigged like in Iran, where only approved candidates can run for office. This is how I now your understanding of Israel is distorted and twisted.
And we know Israel’s elections aren’t rigged because they allow the tin-foil hat crack pots (religious fanatics and settlers) to hold office.
In Iran, the only people allowed to hold office are the religious fanatics. So there’s that!…:)
Israel and Egypt have for many years been the largest recipients of US aid as a bribe for signing a peace treaty with each other when Jimmy Carter was President. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat said words to the effect that he didn’t care how heavily every Israeli man, woman and child were armed just so long as there was peace. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin — a former terrorist himself — went along with this because even though he wanted the West Bank for Israel this would make him look like a “peacemaker” to the Americans.
The result is ambivalent at best. On the one hand, the Israelis and Egyptians haven’t gone to war with each other since 1973. On the other, we’ve managed to attach ourselves to some odious figures on both sides, starting with Sadat and Begin.
Sadat was killed by the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ayman al-Zawahiri, was one of the masterminds of the Sadat assassination, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and went to jail. He later became Osama Bin Laden’s second in command in Al Qaeda.
Don’t fool yourself; the region is filled with shady characters on both sides. We can’t avoid them, and in most cases, we have to deal with them. And if not them, then characters far worse.
Hence, all the simple, easy to understand, wrong answers to a complex problem we call the Middle East. In short, it’s always been a Powder Keg…:)
"We can debate Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians before the terror attack, but it still doesn’t justify the slaughter of innocent civilians, or the hostage taking"....There's nothing to debate anymore. 2 Billion Muslims and Billions more are demanding that Israel pay for Killing over 500,000 innocent Palestinians since 1948, over 98% of them Muslims...Jesus said an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth....So it's it's only fair we have an Israeli for every Palestinian that was slaughtered by the Illigal Zionist occupiers...That's the only way Israel will stop the genocide.. ..Take your antisemitism and violence crap and stick it where the sun doesn't shine....You don't seem to have the same respect for any non-jewish life or for non-jewish religion.....The world will not tolerate your hypocrisy moving forward....The fact is the day my fellow American brothers and sisters wake up and see how the Zionists are using this country and American blood Israel will disappear
I have a lot of respect for non-Jewish lives, apparently you don’t have any respect for Jews. 500,000 killed since 1948? I’m sorry, I believe it was several Arab states that started the wars in 48’, 67’, 73’ and the PLO using Lebanon as a staging ground for terror attacks against Israel. And that’s after the PLO invaded Lebanon in 1975; creating a state within a state, as they started a civil war that has destroyed Lebanon, its economy, and left 150,000 dead, tens of thousands wounded, and hundreds of thousands displaced and left destitute. And this war didn’t include Israel. Lebanon still hasn’t recovered.
Additionally, where is your outrage against Assad? He killed over 500k of his own people during the Arab Spring? Or Saddam, who gassed 300k Kurds? Or the Iran/Iraq war in which Iran sacrificed over a million kids, forcing them to walk into mine fields, just to clear them for their troops. Or the continued demonic treatment of the Afghans under the Taliban rule. Or Turkey committing atrocities against the Kurds!
I can play this game better than you, since you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about or the complexities of the region.
So do us both a favor, and take your own advice, and stick your opinion up your ____!
And if I ever want your advice, I’ll give it to you! Have a great day!…:)
You're misrepresenting the "who started it." Here's the correct sequence of events with regards to 1947-1949. The Palestinians refused to accept UN resolution 181. This partition plan attempted to impose a settlement by giving two-thirds of the indigenous population only 44% of the land. Moreover, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was not given a seat at the table to present their case (whereas the Ben-Gurion was). The Zionists ask was 80% of the land for a population entirely consisting of immigrants from Europe (the indigenous Mizrahi Jewish population in 1900 was about 15,000 - the total Jewish population in 1947 was about 600,000). The UN presented itself as "fair minded" by only awarding them 56%. Not incidentally, early Zionists were very clear in their writings - partition was the first step to gaining control of all of historic Palestine (which has been the Zionist endeavour from the get go).
After the Palestinians rejected the partition plan (November 1947), Zionist militias (Irgun, Haganah, Stern Gang) put into motion the ethnic cleansing (which the Zionists sanitised by calling it 'transfer') to depopulate Palestinian villages, towns and cities. By May 1948 - when Israel declared its independence - over 250,000 Palestinians were already expelled and the neighbouring Arab countries were faced with a refugee crisis, which is what led them to attack Israel. Needless to say, they all got walloped which is why 78 percent of the land was captured by the Israelis and another half million were driven out in the process (in addition to 15,000-20,000 killed).
Again 1967 was a pre-emptive strike too - another naked land grab. Egypt, Syria, Jordan were caught totally unaware (foolishly and naively in my opinion). Egypt left it's airfields totally exposed and it's airforce was wiped out in a matter of hours. Hardly what a country intending to launch an attack does.
1973 - the Egyptians launched the strike pre-emptively to try and get back the Sinai Peninsula. Jordan joined to try and get the West Bank back. Ultimately I think this paved the way for the pacification of both countries where they realised they couldn't prevail militarily against Israel.
I can cite more souces/provide more details if you like, but to get into this 'in the playground' type of framing of "they started it" doesn't line up against the historical record. The Zionist project is a settler colonial one, where the West, to absolve itself for its shameful history of anti-semitism, gave away somebody else's land without any regard for the people who lived there for centuries (these aren't my words, they're Ilan Pappe's, see: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-palestine-nakba-destroyed-twelve-months-gone-on-75-years). That this would breed resentment and resistance is hardly surprising. The same happened in other settler colonies/military occupations whether it's Ireland, Kenya, Algeria, Vietnam the list goes on. People don't like to have their land taken away from them and to be under the yoke of a foreign military power.
When it comes to moral argument (i.e. where's the outage for Hamas), the words of military historian Robert Asprey are an apt response:
"Terror is the kissing cousin of force, and real or implied, is never far removed from the pages of history. To define and condemn terror from a peculiar social, economic political and emotional plane is to display a self righteous attitude that's totally unrealistic and doomed to be disappointed by harsh facts."
Palestinians don't need to accept anything...It's there land and the occupiers need to either leave voluntarily or by force....and it's almost guaranteed that it would be latter
Well said!
You lost me with "I believe" ....you can find countless sources to disprove your beliefs. The foundation of the state of Israel was a colonial zionist project.
I was being sarcastic in response to his claim that Israel started every war. They didn’t and is easily proven by history.
And the foundation of every society today in the Middle East and Central Asia was a colonial project, including our countries founding. I’m sorry, did you not learn who created all the nation states and kingdoms in the Middle East today? The European colonists.
At least Israel, as a project, which you suggest was the only one created by the United Nations. It would be two, if the Palestinians accepted the partition. Oh wait, weren’t these lands under the control of Jordan and Egypt? Both nations which refused to give Palestinians control or a separate state? That’s right!
This whole idea that Israel is the only “colonial” project created in the region is ridiculous. Seriously, if this is your best argument, first educate yourself!
You lost me with your ignorance!…:)
“Again 1967 was a pre-emptive strike too - another naked land grab. Egypt, Syria, Jordan were caught totally unaware (foolishly and naively in my opinion). Egypt left it's airfields totally exposed and it's airforce was wiped out in a matter of hours. Hardly what a country intending to launch an attack does.”
I’m not misrepresenting anything. It is said that most lies are “lies of omission.” This is when someone simply fails to mention critical facts about a particular situation, purposely misleading the reader to the wrong conclusion.
I wont speak for the Irgun or Stern, as I consider them terror groups like I view the West Bank and East Jerusalem settlers. However, it wasn’t forced deportation of Palestinians after they refused the partition plan. It was the 1948 war initiated by the Arab states who also refused to accept the UN mandate.
Remember, the Palestinians had no homeland, and weren’t a government in 1947. The Brits controlled what is mostly current day Israel, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Jordan controlled the West Bank and Jerusalem, while the Egyptian’s controlled Gaza. Neither nation agreed to give up land for a Palestinian state. So the Palestinians rejection, was a moot point. The Egyptian’s did allow a Palestinian government, but it was just a puppet government with no real power.
The whole truth is that an estimated 726,000 Arabs fled their homes during Israel’s War of Independence. That war was instigated not by the Jews but by the Arabs, who rejected the United Nations’ plan partitioning the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Israel accepted that plan, but the Arabs chose war.
The vast majority of Arabs left their villages out of their own free will to avoid being caught in the crossfire of war. They were encouraged to do so by their leaders, who told the Arab public that they would soon remove the Jewish population by force and after which they could return to their homes. So nice try.
And Palestinian groups were also attacking Israeli’s. And given that 2.5 million Palestinians are Israeli citizens inside Israel proper, supports my conclusion that it wasn’t ethnic cleaning, but fighting amongst Palestinians and Jewish groups.
That’s said, your interpretation of the 67’ war is rich. It’s been documented that Egypt, Jordan and Syria were planning a coordinated attack. The difference was Israeli intelligence, which thwarted their plans with a “preemptive” attack.
You, yourself, used the word “preemptive,” which literally means (definition) to preempt or forestall something, especially to prevent attack by disabling the enemy. These were your own words, so stop with the false narrative. Those countries were about to attack and moved their troops and tanks close to the Israeli borders, which they claimed were military exercises at the time.
1/5: What makes you think actors only strike pre-emptively in the face of an imminent threat? That’s the limitation international law places. But anyone living in the real world should know full well that pre-emptive force is often used to gain decisive strategic advantages. For opportunistic reasons when your adversary isn’t expecting it in order to change the circumstances on the ground in your favour. This is what the Israelis successfully managed to achieve in 1967 and what the Egyptians failed to accomplish in 1973 (more on that later). Alas, this isn’t the only shortcoming in your response. It’s yet another farrago of distortions and misrepresentations that demonstrate a factually incorrect and shallow understanding of the historical context which in turn render the conclusions you’ve drawn fundamentally flawed.
Anyone who’s reasonably knowledgeable on this subject should’ve clearly understood the overarching context and background behind my previous post re: what transpired between November 1947 to May 1948. The historical record isn’t disputed amongst serious observers. However, since you seem to be unaware of it, I’ll lay it out in greater detail for your benefit.
Zionism, at least its mainstream stand, is a settler colonial ideology that originated amongst European Jewry in the late 1800s to establish a homeland in between the between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. In fact there are others, albeit a minority, who subscribe to the boundaries laid out in the Book of Exodus – from the Red Sea to the Euphrates River. At the turn of the 20th century, ~95% of the population on this land was Palestinian Arab (overwhelmingly Muslim with a small Christian community). There was also a small Mizrahi Jewish community of ~15,000 (3.2%) who’d lived there for generations alongside their Muslim and Christian neighbours. Early Zionists were fully cognisant of this demographic challenge from the get go. They knew that the creation of a Jewish majority state on all of the territory they coveted would require a drastic form of social engineering. And just to be clear, at no point were the Zionists ever interested in establishing bi-national state or a permanent partition of historic Palestine. According to Israeli historian Simha Flapan, partition was at most viewed as a first step, or a tactical manoeuver in their eventual goal. Flapan quotes David Ben-Gurion, who said in the late 1930s, “after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” So much for “Israel accepted the plan, but the Arabs chose war.” As to why the Palestinians rejected the partition plan, briefly there were two reasons. First, the Palestinians, unlike the Zionists, weren’t allowed lobby their case to the UN. Second, Palestinians, who’d called this land their home for at 40-50 generations if not longer and made up two-thirds of the population were only given 44% of the land whereas the remaining 56% was given to a settler population of new migrants who’d been there for ~50 years. Failing to acknowledge that this was a fundamentally unjust proposal is “lying by omission.”
Going back to the social engineering that would be necessary for the Zionists to accomplish their ambition. From the very beginning, early Zionists knew that it’d have to involve ethnic cleansing. Theodore Herzl articulated this in somewhat benign, ambiguous terms when he wrote in his diary in 1895, “Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment…. Both the process of expropriation and removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” By the mid-1930s however, Zionist leaders voiced their plans were far more explicitly. In fact, the Jewish Agency held a closed door meeting in June 1938 in which they recognised that the only way to accomplish their goal was through “compulsory transfer.” Ben-Gurion clarified in no uncertain terms what this meant when he wrote in 1941, “it is impossible to imagine (a) general evacuation of the Arab population without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.” Israel’s chief historian Benny Morris makes it very clear that “the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century.”
2/5: When it became clear that the UN wasn’t going to try and mediate a more equitable solution (that consulted with the majority population and took demographics into account) than the 56-44 partition plan, the Zionists seized the opportunity to alter the conditions on the ground decisively in their favour. Between November 1947 and May 1948 (i.e. before Israel declared its independence), Zionist militias started the process of forcibly depopulating cities, towns and villages of its Palestinian inhabitants. By late February 1948, after the British withdrew all their forces to the port city Haifa, the militias seized doubled down to accelerate this process (putting into effect Plan Dalet a couple of weeks later). By the end of April, Palestinians were driven out of their homes en masse in the cities of Haifa, Jaffa, Safad, Beisan, Acre and West Jerusalem. This was followed by massacres such as Deir Yassin which increased the fear amongst the population and caused more people to flee. Over 250,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled and fled to neighbouring Arab countries. In response to this rapidly escalating refugee crisis, the Arab armies reluctantly attacked Israel after its declaration of independence in May 1948. In short, it’s blatantly dishonest to suggest that the “Arabs chose war.”
In fact, the record shows that the neighboring Arab states were reluctant to attack Israel as they were militarily inferior. After all, the Zionist militias which became the IDF had developed into a formidable fighting force under the tutelage of the British in the 1930s and 1940s when they brutally crushed the 1936 Palestinian revolt and fought alongside the British Army in North Africa during WWII. Inevitably, the Arab armies were successfully repelled and another 0.5 million Palestinians were ethnically cleansed as Israel expanded beyond the partition plan borders and captured 78% of the land by the time the armistice was signed in 1949. You’ve raised three factually incorrect points which relate to the 1947-49 period that I’ll address separately in greater detail in the interest of clarity – the status of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, Palestinian citizens of Israel and the Arabs fled voluntarily.
Israeli elites at that time were remarkably candid about their fundamental character as a colonising force, and cognisant of the antagonism that this would ferment amongst Palestinians and the larger Arab world. In the wake of the 1948 war, Ben-Gurion candidly told the President of World Jewish Congress, “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel, It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” Or Ze’ev Jabotinsky who wrote, “Colonisation is self-explanatory and what it implies is fully understood by every sensible Jew and Arab. There can only be one purpose in colonisation. For the country’s Arabs that purpose is essentially unacceptable. This is a natural reaction and nothing will change it.”
As such, an honest reading of the historical record shows that the 1949 armistice gave birth to a new and uneasy status quo. On one hand, there was Israel whose territorial aspirations weren’t completely fulfilled (I’m just focussing on the mainstream Zionist interpretation of “river to the sea” here). On the other hand, there were the neighbouring Arab countries who were humiliated in 1948 and faced with a more powerful, adversarial and expansionist settler colonial state that they wanted to push back against and ideally dismantle in what was in essence an anti-colonial endeavour from their perspective.
3/5: To digress slightly before discussing June 1967, it is patently false to claim that the West Bank and Jerusalem were part of Transjordan in 1917. Nice try to redraw the map and reinvent history! Look at any map of Mandatory Palestine, throughout 1917-1948, included what is today Green Line Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from 1917-1948. Even an arm of the Israeli Hasbara machine got it correct (refreshingly for a change, see: https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/The%20League%20of%20Nations%20Mandate%20for%20Palestine%20-%201920.aspx?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template). Cities and towns that are in the West Bank today, such as Jericho, Nablus, Jenin, Ramallah etc. were all part of Mandatory Palestine, never Transjordan. Jerusalem too was under British control throughout the mandate. This is completely in line with the intent expressed in the Balfour Declaration. Gaza and the West Bank only came under Egyptian and Jordanian control post 1948 (I’ll discuss Gaza separately further below in response to your point on the Palestinian citizens of Israel). In his book “Collusion Across the Jordan,” British-Israeli historian Avi Shlaim provides a detailed account of how the Hashemite King of Jordan covertly negotiated with the Zionists before the end of the British mandate to gain control of the West Bank because he wanted access to more fertile land (Jordan itself is mostly arid desert). In exchange, the Jordanians held back their forces while the Zionist militias went on to capture and ethnically cleanse cities such as Lydd and Ramleh as well as the surrounding towns and villages just beyond the West Bank and absorb them all into the state of Israel. The Israelis were prepared to temporarily accept this outcome so they wouldn’t have to contend with potentially having another ~300,000 Palestinians within their borders for the time being (contextualised further below in response to your point regarding the Palestinian citizens of Israel).
Attack by Jordan and Syria and Egypt was imminent in 1967: this assertion is patently false. When Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban told Lyndon Johnson on May 26, 1967 that its Arab neighbours were about to launch an attack, Robert McNamara refuted this claim with reports from three separate intelligence groups who all unanimously agreed “that an attack was not imminent.” Moreover, Washington knew full well that Israel’s military was far superior to the militaries of all the Arab countries combined. Johnson’s response to Eban makes this abundantly clear: “if they do, you’ll whip the hell out of them.” Following the Six Day War, five Israeli Generals – Ezer Weizmann, Chiam Herzog, Haim Bar Lev, Matitiyahu Peled and Yeshiyahu Gavish – the affirmed this assessment. As I already mentioned in my previous post, Israel launched this pre-emptive attack in June 1967 to expand its borders, to correct the “fatal historical mistake.” This is completely in line with the territorial ambitions of the Zionist project, which coveted the West Bank from the get go. Not only was the land very fertile, but its symbolic importance in Jewish tradition is massive.
For as long as he was in power, Ben-Gurion was caught in a dilemma. On one hand, he lamented colluding with King Abdullah I in what he termed “bechiya ledorot” or a “fatal historical mistake.” Yet throughout his time in power until 1963, he ultimately resisted pressure from other factions within Israel to capture the West Bank because he firmly believed that the nascent Jewish state wasn’t in a position to absorb hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. According to Israeli historian Tom Segev, the “Greater Israel Lobby” gained far more influence after Ben-Gurion left government and pushed much harder for the annexation of the West Bank. In short, the impetus to launch an attack to achieve this end markedly increased from 1963 onwards.
This is not to say that the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians didn’t ‘poke the bear’ with provocative skirmishes with the Israelis throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Gamal Abdul Nasser employed a dangerous tactic called “brinksmanship” where he test the limits of the Israeli and UN response by deploying some troops in the Sinai Peninsula (which was to be a demilitarised zone after the 1956 Suez Crisis). While the Jordanians employed hostile rhetoric on occasion, they actually killed and captured more Palestinians attempting to infiltrate the Green Line than the Israelis did throughout the 1960s. And yes, there were tit for tat retaliations between Israel and Syria along the border. Damascus also hosted the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) which undoubtedly antagonised the Israelis. But to contend that Israel somehow faced an existential threat, an imminent attack from its neighbours is hyperbolic nonsense.
4/5: To close the loop with the argument I made in my last post, Israel undoubtedly asserted its dominance following the June 1967 war. In October 1973, Egypt launched a surprise pre-emptive attack to in an attempt to regain the Sinai Peninsula (which it had lost in the 1967 war). Once again, Israeli military superiority prevailed and Egypt finally conceded that it did not have the capacity to comprehensively defeat Israel on the battlefield. Israel too recognised that waging war on multiple fronts every few years was not sustainable (particularly because the military was now needed to maintain the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza) and therefore entered into the Camp David Accords which led to the peace deal in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. With the largest and most powerful Arab country pacified, the Jordanians eventually signed a peace treaty as well 15 years later in 1994.
The playground fight like ‘but they started it’ type of argumentation that you’ve persistently employed is inherently reductionist and invariably results in gross over-simplifications if not outright obfuscation. It’s intellectually bankrupt for anyone purporting to be knowledgeable on the subject to completely disregard the fundamental nature of the Zionist enterprise when discussing this subject. To disregard the gross asymmetry of power in favour of the Zionists and later Israel since the early 20th century due to great power patronage and how that has enabled Israel to assert its will is dishonest. You’ve raised some other absurd arguments in your comment which also warrant a response to correct the response, or at the very least add more nuance.
Palestinians had no homeland: this is a ridiculous line of reasoning. A number of villages, towns and cities in what became Mandatory Palestine (and eventually Israel) were continuously and habitually inhabited by successive generations of Arabs for at least a millennium, if not longer (40-50 generations at minimum). Family homes, farmland etc. passed down from generation to generation clearly evidences their connection to the villages, towns, cities (i.e. their hometowns) in that particular geography – i.e. their “homeland.” Just because they didn’t specifically call themselves “Palestinians” since time immemorial doesn’t in any way dilute or diminish this connection. To draw an analogy, prior to the 1850s, the Indian subcontinent consisted of various kingdoms and fiefdoms (as many as 600-700 at some points). Today, their descendants live in what is currently called India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Just because their forefathers were subjects of another political entity, be it the Mughals or the Marathas and never referred to themselves as Indians or Pakistanis or Bangladeshis doesn’t in any way dilute their progenies connection to the same land. In fact, their present day nationality originates from this very historic connection. The same logic applies to the Palestinians, just because they were at subjects of the Malmuks, the Ottomans etc. some point in history doesn’t diminish their connection to the same land that was rechristened Mandatory Palestine in 1917, and later Israel in 1948. Politics is fluid and whose authority any given territory falls under has repeatedly changed throughout history. But a change in who controls the territory it doesn’t negate a particular peoples connection to lands that they’ve lived on for generations – i.e. their “homelands.”
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that peoples cannot forge connections to new lands over time. The Scots and the English moved to North America in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s. They gradually established roots in these places cultivating the land, building homes, running businesses and so on. Today, it not controversial for their descendants to call Canada or the United States their homeland. If you go to Guyana, or Fiji or Malaysia, you’ll find plenty of Indians whose forefathers 10-12 generations ago went there from India as indentured labourers and stayed on. Again, their descendants today would naturally refer to Guyana, or Fiji or Malaysia as their “homeland.” The same standard applies to Israelis. 76 years later in 2024, there are many Jewish Israelis who are of European descent, but Israel is all they’ve ever known. There is simply no disputing the fact that Tel Aviv or Ashkelon or Nazareth or any other city, town, village to where they have family ties, economic ties etc. is their hometown in what has become their “homeland.” But argue that this affinity is only exclusive to some, while actively denying it those with a much older and longer historical connection to the same land (i.e. the Melanesians, Amazonian tribes, Malays, the Cree, the Sioux, the Palestinians) is intellectually bankrupt.
5/5: Palestinians weren’t a government in 1947: two points. Firstly, under the relatively decentralized system of administration during Ottoman times, local peoples governed their local affairs and were generally left to be as long as they pledged allegiance to the Sultan in Constantinople. Local elites were co-opted into the Ottoman nobility in what was essentially system of indirect rule. Secondly, by contrast, post WWI, early Zionists successfully lobbied the British to “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and used their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.” The use of the word “establishment” itself in the Balfour Declaration is very telling – for it recognises that massive social engineering would be required to convert a land that was 94 percent Palestinian at the time into a Jewish state. Naturally therefore, mandatory rule was designed to deny and exclude Palestinians from the polity in their homeland. Unlike all of the other British and French mandates, the Palestinians were never allowed to formally establish a quasi-governmental body representing its interests and aspirations because the British denied it to them. Although organisations such as the AHC which emerged when Palestinian elites organised themselves in the 1920s, they nonetheless remained outside the system unlike their Zionist counterparts. Various articles in the mandate for Palestine clearly evidence this. Article 2 for example only allowed for the creation of self-governing institutions for the Jewish immigrants, not the Palestinians. Article 4 gave the Jewish Agency quasi-governmental status thereby according wide-ranging powers to the Zionists to develop economic and social policy as well as acquiring international diplomatic status. Palestinians were not allowed to create their own institutions, nor were joint Jewish-Palestinian bodies ever permitted. Articles 6 and 7 gave the Jewish Agency full control over immigration and citizenship – such that European Jews immigrating could immediately acquire nationality while a Palestinian who may have been abroad prior to 1917 (for higher education let’s say) was stripped of their citizenship and couldn’t return home to their families. So yes, they didn’t have a government in 1947 because political participation was systematically denied to them. But again, deliberate political and social engineering to deny Palestinians a voice at the table doesn’t change the overarching fact that Mandatory Palestine was nonetheless their “homeland.” To tie it back to the comments I made at the start of this response, this also explains why the AHC didn’t have a seat at the table in negotiating the terms of resolution 181 with the Zionists and other UN members.
Arabs voluntarily fled, or encouraged by their leaders: this is “lying by omission.” Arabs fled out of fear, in particular after the Deir Yassin Massacre in April 1948. As the news of the brutality of the Zionist militias spread like wildfire, terrified Palestinians fled their homes. This could hardly be described as “voluntary.” As far as the Arab leaders were concerned, many of them preferred an orderly withdrawal to a chaotic and bloody one to save lives. The Zionist claim of “voluntary transfer” is completely illogical. Why would anyone flee from their homes unless they’re threatened with brutal violence? As I’ve already explained above, it was a culmination of forcible expulsions + massacres that eventually compelled the Arab armies to attack Israel and prevent the refugee crisis spilling over into their borders from becoming unmanageable. To reiterate, they were reluctant to attack because they were significantly weaker than the Zionist militias, who, under the tutelage of their British patrons during the Mandate, had become a formidable fighting force that were instrumental in putting down Palestinian rebellions in the mid 1930s and had gained fighting experience in North Africa during the Second World War.
Palestinians attacked Israelis in 1948, 2.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel so no ethnic cleansing: Sure, but again there is a simple explanation. Most of the Palestinian citizens of Israel originate from the North – particularly the Galilee. By the time the Zionist militias got to this region, news of the forcible expulsions and massacres reached them, and they organised themselves and resisted. Survival, keeping your home, are remarkably strong incentives to fight back! Resultantly, there were about 150,000 to 200,000 Palestinians that weren’t successfully expelled. Historians such as Benny Morris say the job to entirely clear the land out of its inhabitants was only partially completed by the time the armistice agreements were signed in 1949. The ~2 million remaining within the Green Line today are the descendants of those who successfully managed to resist their expulsion (this population has grown naturally, just like the Israeli Jewish population did from about 1.4 million in the early 1950s to 7.5 million today). It is absurd to argue that clearing out ~750,000 Palestinians, or ~75% of the Palestinian population from what became Green Line Israel in less than two years was not ethnic cleansing because less than ~25% of them managed to remain behind. It’s the overarching principle that’s truly informative of the intent – i.e. the only way that a Jewish majority state could have been formed in a land that just 50 years earlier was 95 percent Palestinian is ethnic cleansing. And if the intent was never forcible expulsion, then why did the UN resoundingly pass resolution 194? Why haven’t the Palestinians languishing in refugee camps in neighbouring countries been allowed to return to their homes? The reason is simple. It comes down to maintaining the demographic reality that was engineered in 1947-49. As a consequence of their resistance, Palestinian citizens of Israel were subjected to military rule until 1966 to pacify and subjugate them. This had the added benefit of fine tuning the system of military occupation that would be required to bring hundreds of thousands more Palestinians under direct Israeli control after capturing the West Bank and Gaza following the June 1967 war.
More on Gaza: to further debunk your attempt to invent the map and the history in the Mandatory period, Egypt, it was already under British control since the late 19th century (i.e. before the Mandate) and at no point before the 1948 war was Gaza ever under its jurisdiction. In fact, during Ottoman times, about a sixth of the Sinai in the north (immediately south of what is today the Gaza strip and the Negev desert) was part of the Levant province. Israel preferred for Gaza to be taken by the Egyptians in 1948 because over 200,000 Palestinian refugees fled there after being driven out of what became south and central Israel. This is completely understandable. A nascent Jewish state did not want to govern, or directly face possible resistance on two fronts because they already had the Palestinians of the North (in the Galilee in particular) to contend with. This wasn’t any different from the logic behind Ben-Gurion’s dealings with the Jordanians in 1948 re: the West Bank.
Israel is supported as far more than just an ally, in the sense that (for example) the US team at Oslo included Martin Indyk, who ran AIPAC. There is a backchannel that has been incompletely explored. Suppose the US ambassador to Israel was a Palestinian American, would that change things? There are active conflicts of interest that have encouraged Israel to put expansion above prudence.
The other problem for Israel today is unconditional US support has led to moral hazard. Israel is in mortal danger of self-destruction. For the past 7 months it has been openly killing its neighbor's kids while the entire neighborhood is watching, in real time. How do you think that will end?
Eventually, Israel must live with its neighbors, and all the US can do is provide money, weapons, vetoes, and knock off it neighbors.....Iraq, Libya, Syria. Iran is hopefully a bridge too far.
I agree with some of your comments. America is bought and paid for by special interests, but some of those interests are National Security interests, which I’ve already documented or commented on.
As for knocking off its neighbors? Not quite! Jordan and Egypt are at peace with Israel. Morocco and Tunisia also have relations with Israel. Syria supports Hezbollah, and Iran supports both Hezbollah and Hamas.
The Sunni Gulf states have had National security agreements with Israel for over a decade. Israel has even used Saudi airspace to conduct air operations against Iran and their intelligence agencies share information on Iran regularly.
What all these countries have in common is they have all used the Palestinian issue as a political football in the past. Today, all view the Palestinians as a problem no one wants to deal with.
So ask yourself why no one cares about the Palestinians? It’s because they’ve always been a thorn in the side of every one of these countries.
The biggest mistake Israel made was occupying these territories. They tried to give Gaza back to the Egyptian’s during the return of the Sinai Peninsula, but Egypt didn’t want Gaza back. Jordan was offered the West Bank and flatly refused.
Yet, here we are. Today, while we argue about the history, and all the wrongs and atrocities committed by not only Israel, but all of these nations, including the Palestinians (see Lebanon Civil War in which the PLO created a state within a state), the religious fanatics on by sides grow stronger and more intransigent.
Perhaps a paradigm shift in these discussions is warranted…:)
The Palestinians are the only group with legal standing to contest the land, which is why Israel wants them gone. The model they are mimicking is that of the US and native americans... attrition, killing, expulsions, and thats whats been happening, and it continues.
The difference now is that the US is no longer as dominant. Israels behavior is a threat to US national security because it is accelerating US decline. The script has flipped. Biden is living in nostalgia, and his professionals are disgusted.
It is also really dumb to attack students with weapons rather than arguments. This will only mean that the protests grow. This is why the Lobby is pushing the nuclear option of pushing for a law that makes criticism of Israel illegal. Like frankenstein they are panicking in the sunshine, they prefer the shadows.
I agree with this assessment. I have not defended Netanyahu or his fascist government. This invasion was a revenge tour that’s only making matters worse, and pulling all of Israel into a rabbit hole; while these religious fanatics are deciding the fate of both countries.
And I agree, Israel is bringing us down with them. I was only defending Israel’s right to exist, and the ridiculous argument that Gaza is worse than the manufactured war in Iraq.
Otherwise, we agree that this is a travesty and the Palestinians are suffering greatly.
I don't think any country has a "right" to exist. The Israelis are sensitive on this point, and they need to get over it. The charge of antisemitism is getting silly, specially when it is now applied to Jewish Americans.
It is becoming increasingly clear to all that the Palestinians are the victims. Again, a role reversal.
Huh? No country has the right to exist? That’s your story and you’re sticking to it? I won’t bother even trying to respond!
I agree, it’s not all anti-semitism. Many on this site are Hamas supporters. So you’re right, it’s not anti-semitism, it’s pure hatred of Jews. How many will even suggest that Hamas slaughtered Jews? All I hear are people saying Jews deserved it.
Suppose I tell you the US has no right to exist. Or, China, or Iran. Or for that matter, you or me. Would you blow your stack? Of course not, you would laugh it off. That's what Israel needs to do.
If after 75 years they are still insecure about whether they should exist or not this is their problem!! They should see a "country shrink". Or perhaps it is just guilty conscience, given that the genocide of Palestinians enabled their existence? You decide!
See this is the ignorance. “The genocide of Palestinians led to Israel’s existence!”
Evidence please? What genocide took place in 1948? Obviously. History is being rewritten so it wasn’t Palestinians that left of their own free will; when their leaders told them to (so they could exterminate all the Jews and then return). Now it was a forced expulsion of the Palestinians. Got it, I’ll make sure to update the history books.
And what Palestinian state existed? Gaza was under Egyptian control and Jordan controlled the West Bank and Jerusalem. You do understand this simple concept, right? So when you say there was a Palestinian genocide so Israel could exist, please explain?
Both Egypt and Jordan refused to recognize a Palestinian state at the time, or give up territory for a Palestinian state. So are they also complicit in the “imaginary” genocide of the Palestinian people as well? Or is this another Jewish conspiracy to rid the world of the Palestinian people that I’m just learning about for the first time?
That said, some Jewish terror groups did exist and were responsible for the deaths of innocent Palestinians at the time? Yes, the Irgun and Stern Gang were terrorists, but several Palestinian Terror groups also existed and were murdering innocent Jews. I guess that part has been whitewashed from history.
As for whether China or any other country has the right to exist is immaterial, since they do exist. This is my point, we live in the real world, yet, you live in a fantasy world.
You’re so excited. Please refer to ICJ proceedings, and numerous historians. Try Ilan Pappe to start, he is being harassed at airports these days. Your verbal harangues mean little. Try a new form of hasbara please!
I’m not excited, just not interested in the regurgitation of a false history. Your whole argument is based on the words of Dr. Mohamed Hussein:
“If the United Nations decides to amputate a part of Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state, no force on earth could prevent blood from flowing there. … [O]nce such bloodshed has commenced, no force on earth can confine it to the borders of Palestine itself.”
— Dr. Mohamed Hussein Heykal Pasha, Egyptian delegate to UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, 1947
His argument that partitioning part of Palestine for a Jewish state would lead to genocide. A self fulfilling prophecy, since it was the Arab states that started the war.
As though, the only bloodshed to exist in the ME is all the fault of Jews. All the Islamic terror ground that exists today, only exists as a bulwark against Zionism.
All the ill-treatment of Muslim Arabs only exists because Jews. The Taliban in Afghanistan, a Zionist plot. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Yes, you truly are an enlightened soul!…:)
"when a country’s national security is at stake, they will rarely take advice from anyone, even the country providing them with weapons."
Well, if they know the country supplying them with weapons will ALWAYS supply them with weapons no matter what, that does tend to reduce the incentive to take the advice, doesn't it?
Secondly, do you seriously believe that Israel is being made MORE secure by what they're doing today in Gaza?
In answer to your second question, I have said NO! If you actually read my comments, you’d know I was against the invasion, and have no love lost for Netanyahu, or his fascist cohorts in the Knesset.
They are war criminals, as is Hamas. What’s missing from many who comment, is the outrage of other actual genocides taking place in the region, in which Israel isn’t involved. Where’s the outrage or condemnation? Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Armenia, etc….
In answer to your first question, we supply Israel with weapons for several reasons. Under the terms of the Israel/Egyptian Peace Accord (1977), we are required to arm both Israel and Egypt. Secondly, like I’ve tried to convey in earlier posts, it’s not just about the Palestinians.
America has strategic interests in the region. Like it or not, when we stop needing oil, and our western and Asian Allies stop needing oil, no one will give a damn about the region: it’s called realpolitik and every nation chooses sides for their own strategic interests.
Additionally, We have an obligation to our Allies, as the only true superpower, to make sure the oil keeps flowing; keeping global prices constant or as stable as possible for all of our economies to prosper. 25% of the global oil supply ships out of the Persian Gulf. The Straight of Hormuz is only 21 miles wide (certain parts) and easy pickings if Iran wanted to shut down the ship lanes. Which would cause oil prices to rise into the stratosphere. Israel is part of the strategic bulwark that keeps Iran’s aggression and proxies in check, so they can’t act with impunity.
Look how bent and out of shape Americans get when the national price of oil is above $5 a gallon? they’re willing to elect a fascist authoritarian kleptocrat and replace democracy forever.
This is my point Steve. This issue is complex. Yet, all I hear from commenters are simple, easy to understand wrong answers to this conundrum.
So we can continue to debate the past, or try to resolve the conflict for the future. I choose the latter option!
When sophisticated analysis is used to argue that our hands are tied, there's nothing we can do, it tends to give sophistication a bad name.
Don’t feed the trolls, Steve. It’s too bad. An interesting conversation was emerging.
Cheers!
Seriously Davena, learn the meaning of the word troll before you continue to embarrass yourself. I was the one initially posting, you and Steve are the trolls! If you don’t like my views, you don’t need to respond.
No wonder you don’t understand the complexities of the Middle East conflict, you don’t even know what a troll is. Maybe one day you’ll at least finish your GED; good luck and god speed…:)
"finish your GED..."
Christ, what an asshole.
We can agree on that point. I’m not arguing any of this is right, but what is your solution? Apparently, the solution of most of the commenters, is that Israel needs to pick up and leave or be killed.
Only delusional imbeciles would think this option is possible or achievable. Israel is a nuclear nation (fourth largest stockpile in the world), with one of the best militaries, and best intelligence network in the region. They are the third largest economy in Central Asia; behind Turkey and Saudi Arabia, respectively. And while Israel has little natural resource wealth, they are close to a $600 billion GDP in a country of 8.5 million. Compare that to Saudi Arabia’s GDP of $750 billion, and a population of 40 million.
Additionally, Israel’s economy is based on technology. And next to Silicon Valley, Israel’s high tech sector is second to none.
That said, I’d like to find a solution, not continually hear from the dreamers who live in a false reality. So when this newsletter is about Gaza being worse than the manufactured war in Iraq, I call BS. It’s not even close, and only hurts any possible chance of reconciliation into the future, since we’re arguing about the past, and not focusing on the future.
Depends which side of history you want to be on. Do you want to be the simple-minded moralizer arguing slavery is wrong, or do you want to be the sophisticated guy pointing out how essential slavery is to the economy of the South?
Defending Israel’s right to exist is in your mind defending slavery? Got it! It’s all Israel’s fault!
Seriously, find a good therapist, you definitely have a few bats flying around the attic. And only a simple minded moron would even make that suggestion. I’ll leave it at that! Have a good evening!
Point successfully missed:
1) Some issues are clearer when looked at in retrospect. With time, we can gain a moral clarity that's harder to achieve when we're immersed in the argument.
2) "Practical considerations" are often used to justify the continuation of the status quo.
3) Some status quos should not be continued.
You ever seen The Sorrow and The Pity, about the Nazi occupation of France? The people who were in the resistance are interviewed, none of them have anything very sophisticated to say beyond "I wanted the Germans out of my country", but the people who stood by and did nothing, or even aided the occupiers, oh boy do they have some sophisticated arguments to make.
Steve, with all due respect, I don’t need to see a holocaust documentary to understand the Holocaust. I lost 75% of my family to the Nazi’s and Russians, something you’ll never understand and hopefully never experience.
Secondly, you seem to think you’re on the right side of history, yet you have no conception of history, and conflate actions of individual men with the state of Israel, at a time of great mass confusion, a genocide and years of conflict in Palestine.
I, like many Jews do not believe the Israeli response was required. Netanyahu is sending Israel down a rabbit hole, which will only make matters worse for all parties, and only intensify future conflicts.
Many of us believe in a two state solution, and would like to handover Netanyahu and his cohorts to the ICC for crimes against humanity. The treatment of the Palestinians in the territories is inhumane.
I’ve actually been fighting through the J Street, which is a Jewish PAC that supports a two-state solution and is the antithesis of AIPAC. I have family in Israel fighting for Palestinian rights. What are you doing except criticizing people in a comment section? Exactly!
Furthermore, you believe Iran, where women are beaten to death for not wearing a hijab is far more democratic nation than Israel? It’s this stupidity, and your compete ignorance of the region that makes people like you dangerous.
I’ve lived in Beirut, Tel Aviv, Morocco, Tunisia and traveled to Jordan, Egypt and the UAE on business for weeks and months at a time. I listen to different viewpoints all the time, and my opinions evolve over time. I judge each individual event separately, rather than conflating decades and centuries of pain experienced by all parties. What’s your experience and understanding of the issues? You read a few newsletters and documentaries?
And you actually think watching a documentary makes you an expert, and gives you all the answers? I’ve listened to your nonsense as much as I’m willing to put up with.
What’s interesting is that in your comments you manage to say a lot of things, yet nothing worthwhile; all at the same time. A difficult feat, indeed!
So continue with your useless rants and ridiculous nonsense, I really couldn’t care less!
Robert McNamara was a brilliant man, well-read, well-travelled, conversant with all the experts on Southeast Asia. He knew far more and had much more sophisticated ideas than the students who were chanting "Hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today?"
Looking back on it now, who was wrong and who was right?
(Now let's all watch Robert deliberately misinterpret this as "He's saying Israel=Vietnam! That's just CRAZY TALK!")
George Schultz, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State was much more widely read, more widely travelled, more generally knowledgeable about the world than the college students in their encampments demanding divestment from Apartheid South Africa. Schultz had many sophisticated arguments for why the students demands were unrealistic and even hurtful to the people they claimed to be helping.
Looking back on it now, who was right?
It's not a documentary about the Holocaust, it's a documentary about the occupation of France (although the Holocaust does feature in it, with regard to Jews shipped from France for extermination.)
And my point, which you're repeatedly (maybe deliberately?) missing is that "My analysis is sophisticated and yours is not" is not quite the devastating put-down you seem to think it is. Throughout history, people have always had "sophisticated" arguments for why we can do no more than to accommodate evil. that any fundamental change based on admittedly simple moral principles is impractical and even impossible. Usually these people are wrong, I can supply other examples if you're interested, but I'm guessing you're not.
Steve, while I respect your opinions, you’re being naive….:)
Ha, that's what that French police chief said!
Pot-kettle, Steve?
If you’re accusing me of standing by or being complicit, think again. You’re as much a bystander as I am. And I never defended Netanyahu or his policies. I’ve been extremely critical of him, and his tin-foil hat religious wing-nut government; even before this war.
As far as I’m concerned, this invasion is and was a mistake, especially Rafah. Netanyahu is heading Israel down a rabbit hole; the same revenge tour w conducted after 9/11. And the total damage still incalculable.
That said, I take issue with this whole idea that the state of Israel itself is illegitimate and a colonialist experiment or project. The entire ME was divided by the West. Are you suggesting all the gulf and Sunni governments relinquish their control and leave? Or what is your solution? I actually haven’t heard anything come from your comments except criticism of me. No actual refuting of the facts.
And you are naive, because you don’t understand the complexities of the region; if you did, you’d be actually providing evidence that I’m wrong.
So don’t expect me to respond to your next comment. I’d rather focus my time on finding solutions to this tragedy, instead of having to defend Jewry against a bush of anti-Semitic individuals (not suggesting your are one) who think Gaza is worse than Iraq, or worse than any of the other genocides taking place in the ME, Africa and Central Asia, as we speak.
Have a good evening Steve!
Hey, whatever you think of my comments, you really should watch The Sorrow And The Pity, it's generally considered to be a masterpiece, one of the greatest documentaries ever made.
One of the things I learned from it is that people who cooperate with evil always have their reasons, and those reasons usually start with "It's complicated..."
It all started on October 6th.
Of 1948.
The Nakba never ended.
Palestinians have lived in an open air prison aka concentration camp controlled by Israel for decades. Please know your middle eastern history before repeating Israeli propaganda.
Human Rights Groups have been writing extensive damning reports against Israel for years. Have you not been following along? Or that just doesn't fit your narrative? Is it too uncomfortable for you to read them?
I know my history, and according to you, Palestinians have been treated badly in the occupied territories since 48’. Perhaps you’re confusing the treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank, by Egypt and Jordan, respectively; since Israel did t control the territories until 1967.
And Nakba did occur, but not in the scale you say. Palestinians did leave on their own accord, because the Arab leaders told them to. And the Arab countries attacked the new state of Israel in 1948; this is not in dispute. And Whether you agree that Israel should, or not exist by a UN mandate, is irrelevant since it does, in fact exist.
That said, I’m not going to debate the past. I have never supported the occupation. I don’t support the Netanyahu government, and I certainly didn’t support the response to the horrendous terrorist attack by Hamas on October 6th.
The difference between me and a lot of people in this discussion, is I believe in a two state solution, and condemn the current Israeli government, while it appears you, and many others support the Hamas government that is responsible of the attack.
By the way, these same world human rights groups that criticize Israel (I agree) for their treatment of the Palestinians, also criticize Hamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Hezbollah, and every other Middle Eastern government in the region.
So what’s your point?