Baskin is out of his mind if he thinks any significant number of Israelis support anything but genocide and ethnic cleansings. They are clearly a depraved society.
I am disappointed that ironically Mehdi still repeats Western propaganda. Hamas was established after Israel repressed the Palestinians. They are fighting occupiers and the military is only one branch. Israel is a terrorist state, its history of genocide since 1948 is clear. Palestinians have the right to defend themselves of the occupiers. Also, it is well known that most of those who were killed on Oct 7 were killed their own army under the Hannibal directive. Netanyahu doesn’t care about the Israeli hostages and clearly knew that Oct 7 was coming. The whole Biden ceasefire was a sham. I am sorry Zeteo doesn’t really helps us understand what Israel is: Frankenstein’s monster. The Mossad and its nefarious acts are well known to us from South America.
"it is well known that most of those who were killed on Oct 7 were killed their own army under the Hannibal directive.” That is a stunning statement offered without any reference or evidence, which means it undermines your whole message.
IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive
'There was crazy hysteria, and decisions started being made without verified information': Documents and testimonies obtained by Haaretz reveal the Hannibal operational order, which directs
Israel never wanted peace, war is that is what this military nation has been feeding and getting fatter every year.
Britain’s famous Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell’s Last Message written in 1970, please read and you will see that this is not, a normal nation:
“ The development of the crisis in the Middle East is both dangerous and instructive. For over 20 years Israel has expanded by force of arms. After every stage in this expansion Israel has appealed to “reason” and has suggested “negotiations”. This is the traditional role of the imperial power, because it wishes to consolidate with the least difficulty what it has already taken by violence. Every new conquest becomes the new basis of the proposed negotiation from strength, which ignores the injustice of the previous aggression.
The aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no state has the right to annexe foreign territory, but because every expansion is an experiment to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate. ”
That's rich, how come the Israelis are always afraid when it's they who are doing all the killing, Killing tens of thousands of innocents. Why is the legitimate fear of the Palestinians not considered. Israel always gets preference, why do their needs and desires outweigh those of others. They are not special and should not always get the lion's share and the biggest say in everything. It seems that always playing the victim succeeds. I'm not sure if Mr Baskin is truly 100 percent unbiased in the whole affair. Just saying.
I agree with you Rosalind. The amount of Palestinians massacred is never said in the same breath as Israeli deaths on the 7th. Neither is there a correction of the Israeli deaths attributed to Hamas. I also felt that Baskin was biased, especially when he has chosen to portray Israelis as frightened, when Israeli police and “settlers” murder Palestinians and the IOF killing frenzy continues.
Gershon asserts that Israel’s victims of 75 years, should prioritize an attempt to make Israelis feel safe… that Palestinians should set aside their attempts to survive, stop worrying about the children wasting away before their eyes (if they haven’t already been bombed to smithereens), and really FOCUS on Israelis’ feelings. Never mind that that would be an insane thing for any Palestinian to do. Never mind that Israelis’ fears are often fake. Never mind the fact that Israelis are (and always have been) infinitely safer than Palestinians. Gershon’s advice is for Israel’s victims to coddle Israelis.
Irrational:
The one-state solution is no more "Utopian" than Gershon's assertion that in a post two-state solution, Israel will transform into "a state for all of its citizens," rather than the apartheid state that it currently is. It is a far MORE pollyannaish assertion to claim that Israel would ever voluntarily start treating the non-white, and/or non-Jewish minority in white-colonialist, Jewish-supremacist Israel, as equals.
Nevertheless, Gershon — because the latter is his preference, and the former is not — applies an entirely different level of scrutiny (a.k.a. none), and simplistically asserts, "We have to make sure that it becomes a state of all of its citizens."
Gerson even refers to it as “annexation,” to relinquish stolen, illegally settled land in the West Bank. That’s what passes for reasonable in Israel. Israel simply will not tolerate a one-state political structure, where Palestinians have a vote that matters as much as the vote of a white Jewish Israeli. THAT is what stands, immovably, in the way of any one-state solution.
Entitlement:
Who is Gershon to offer 20% of occupiers the right, “if they want to,” to stay in Palestine, within a two-state political structure?
Gershon’s supposed solutions are fantasy, and his supposed history is fiction. It’s nice that he doesn’t seem to be seething with bloodlust, but is that now where the bar is set to be considered a reasonable Israeli?
Gershon blames “October 7” for his dismissal of a one-state solution, as if the fact that anyone fought BACK, is more of a barrier to peace than genocide & apartheid. There’s nothing reasonable about that. Gershon’s default is to forgive/overlook/deny Israel’s hostility, savagery, sabotage, and perpetual-provocation. There’s nothing reasonable about that. The only reason Palestinians wouldn’t be the majority in a one-state solution, is because of how many Palestinian people Israel has slaughtered.
Gershon implicitly suggests that Palestine would try to make itself “devoid of Jews,” if it isn't forced to concede Jewish inclusion. In REALITY, Palestine has NEVER been “devoid of Jews.” There have been Jewish Palestinians from the start. (You’ve seen them. They’re those nonwhite Jewish people, who get shoved to the side in Israel.) It’s not the fact that Jewish people exist on Palestinian land, that caused the problem; it’s the fact that EUROPEANS decided to COLONIZE, ANNEX & ETHNICALLY CLEANSE Palestine, that caused the problem.
It's not practical to suggest the Palestinians must satisfy the fears of the Israeli people before their rights are recognized. Recognition of Palestine does not require Israel. Palestine is a state, and Israel has displaced and occupied that state, displaced the Palestinians from their sovereignty through violence, and the Palestinians have every legal and moral right to use the same or greater force used against them in order to recapture their sovereignty.
There's a fundamental dishonesty in the way Baskin portrays Rabin. He was never a proponent of full Palestinian statehood on 22% of their historic homeland. Rather, what he supported was "limited autonomy" in which Israel's military presence would still be entrenched in the West Bank (see: https://www.972mag.com/yitzhak-rabin-never-supported-palestinian-statehood/).
Limited Palestinian sovereignty on even less than 22% of the land (which wouldn't have territorial contiguity), a limited right of return (less than 100,000 - symbolic at best) and a capital that isn't even in all of East Jerusalem (but rather a village on the outskirts known as Abu Dis) is the furthest the so called 'Israeli left' (be it Rabin, Barak or Olmert) has ever been willing to go.
From the get go Zionism was about establishing a Jewish ethno-state on historic Palestine by getting rid of the land's indigenous inhabitants. Theodore Herzl said so. David Ben Gurion said so. Chiamm Weissman said so. Berl Katznelson said so. Menachem Ussishkin said so. The Likud party charter says so. The Knesset just said do. Do I really need to keep going? Until and unless Israel writ large accepts the Green Line (i.e. June 4, 1967 borders) no ifs ands or buts, all talk of a two-state solution, peace etc. is smoke and mirrors.
Settlement building was from the get go an exercise of colonisation. It was about "creating facts on the ground" that made a contiguous and viable Palestinian state an impossibility. According to Israeli NGO Peace Now, the number of settlers and settlements in the OWB and OEJ have quadrupled since the Oslo process began in 1993 (see: https://peacenow.org.il/en/30-years-after-oslo-the-data-that-shows-how-the-settlements-proliferated-following-the-oslo-accords). This behaviour is perfectly representative of a movement that covets all of the land. It's really not that complicated.
I'm often reminded of the words of Israeli historian Avi Shlaim whenever I hear dishonest Israeli spokespersons masquerading as peaceniks such as this guest - the Israelis, with its Western backers, have sought to make this "all process and no peace."
In order for there to be peace, both sides of a conflict must want it. Otherwise is just a charade. I was reminded of the situation between Japan and the US before Pearl Harbor. One of the reasons why Dec 7th 1941 would live in “infamy” is because this attack was executed while peace negotiations were in progress. Should the attack on a current negotiating party for peace be perceived as anything other than infamy today?
I'm sorry, but he lost me when he said Israel is not Palestine's enemy. I was already disagreeing with much of what this guy said, but this is too much.
I found it so biased and simple minded and not worth my time. I disagree with your guests on his illustration of the issue that Palestinians have lived for decades under brutal, genocidal occupation.
Mehdi is brilliant and yet for the purposes of his presentation, he adopts a dumb patina. He and Baskin keep being amazed: "Don't they realize that this makes everything worse?" "This makes Israel less secure." etc. After it happens once or twice you have to realize that the players WANT this outcome. Of course the politicians know how badly it works to assassinate and bomb people. That is what they want! They know that they can't eliminate an ideological base by murder and bombing. That shows how evil the national politicians of Israel and the US really are.
Why are there so many traitors in Libanon and Iran helping Israeli agents to commit these assassinations. Without local help Israel would not be able to do this time and time again.
Baskin is out of his mind if he thinks any significant number of Israelis support anything but genocide and ethnic cleansings. They are clearly a depraved society.
I am disappointed that ironically Mehdi still repeats Western propaganda. Hamas was established after Israel repressed the Palestinians. They are fighting occupiers and the military is only one branch. Israel is a terrorist state, its history of genocide since 1948 is clear. Palestinians have the right to defend themselves of the occupiers. Also, it is well known that most of those who were killed on Oct 7 were killed their own army under the Hannibal directive. Netanyahu doesn’t care about the Israeli hostages and clearly knew that Oct 7 was coming. The whole Biden ceasefire was a sham. I am sorry Zeteo doesn’t really helps us understand what Israel is: Frankenstein’s monster. The Mossad and its nefarious acts are well known to us from South America.
"it is well known that most of those who were killed on Oct 7 were killed their own army under the Hannibal directive.” That is a stunning statement offered without any reference or evidence, which means it undermines your whole message.
Haaretz - back to home page
Open menu
IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive
'There was crazy hysteria, and decisions started being made without verified information': Documents and testimonies obtained by Haaretz reveal the Hannibal operational order, which directs
thank you. not everyone thinks before they speak, which is often why there are conflicts.
Really, read the articles published by Haaretz, and there is plenty of public information available…but primarily Haaretz.
https://youtu.be/_0atzea-mPY?si=ZC5PTw7p4_lGRqop
Have you been living under a rock?
Israel never wanted peace, war is that is what this military nation has been feeding and getting fatter every year.
Britain’s famous Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell’s Last Message written in 1970, please read and you will see that this is not, a normal nation:
“ The development of the crisis in the Middle East is both dangerous and instructive. For over 20 years Israel has expanded by force of arms. After every stage in this expansion Israel has appealed to “reason” and has suggested “negotiations”. This is the traditional role of the imperial power, because it wishes to consolidate with the least difficulty what it has already taken by violence. Every new conquest becomes the new basis of the proposed negotiation from strength, which ignores the injustice of the previous aggression.
The aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no state has the right to annexe foreign territory, but because every expansion is an experiment to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate. ”
That's rich, how come the Israelis are always afraid when it's they who are doing all the killing, Killing tens of thousands of innocents. Why is the legitimate fear of the Palestinians not considered. Israel always gets preference, why do their needs and desires outweigh those of others. They are not special and should not always get the lion's share and the biggest say in everything. It seems that always playing the victim succeeds. I'm not sure if Mr Baskin is truly 100 percent unbiased in the whole affair. Just saying.
The reality is that Israel is the power broker in this- though there is now a window for Palestinian possibility of sovereignty and liberation.
True, but the fact is Israel is the usurper.
I agree with you Rosalind. The amount of Palestinians massacred is never said in the same breath as Israeli deaths on the 7th. Neither is there a correction of the Israeli deaths attributed to Hamas. I also felt that Baskin was biased, especially when he has chosen to portray Israelis as frightened, when Israeli police and “settlers” murder Palestinians and the IOF killing frenzy continues.
Thank goodness, I thought I was the only one who thought Baskin was biased.
Ludicrous:
Gershon asserts that Israel’s victims of 75 years, should prioritize an attempt to make Israelis feel safe… that Palestinians should set aside their attempts to survive, stop worrying about the children wasting away before their eyes (if they haven’t already been bombed to smithereens), and really FOCUS on Israelis’ feelings. Never mind that that would be an insane thing for any Palestinian to do. Never mind that Israelis’ fears are often fake. Never mind the fact that Israelis are (and always have been) infinitely safer than Palestinians. Gershon’s advice is for Israel’s victims to coddle Israelis.
Irrational:
The one-state solution is no more "Utopian" than Gershon's assertion that in a post two-state solution, Israel will transform into "a state for all of its citizens," rather than the apartheid state that it currently is. It is a far MORE pollyannaish assertion to claim that Israel would ever voluntarily start treating the non-white, and/or non-Jewish minority in white-colonialist, Jewish-supremacist Israel, as equals.
Nevertheless, Gershon — because the latter is his preference, and the former is not — applies an entirely different level of scrutiny (a.k.a. none), and simplistically asserts, "We have to make sure that it becomes a state of all of its citizens."
Gerson even refers to it as “annexation,” to relinquish stolen, illegally settled land in the West Bank. That’s what passes for reasonable in Israel. Israel simply will not tolerate a one-state political structure, where Palestinians have a vote that matters as much as the vote of a white Jewish Israeli. THAT is what stands, immovably, in the way of any one-state solution.
Entitlement:
Who is Gershon to offer 20% of occupiers the right, “if they want to,” to stay in Palestine, within a two-state political structure?
Gershon’s supposed solutions are fantasy, and his supposed history is fiction. It’s nice that he doesn’t seem to be seething with bloodlust, but is that now where the bar is set to be considered a reasonable Israeli?
Gershon blames “October 7” for his dismissal of a one-state solution, as if the fact that anyone fought BACK, is more of a barrier to peace than genocide & apartheid. There’s nothing reasonable about that. Gershon’s default is to forgive/overlook/deny Israel’s hostility, savagery, sabotage, and perpetual-provocation. There’s nothing reasonable about that. The only reason Palestinians wouldn’t be the majority in a one-state solution, is because of how many Palestinian people Israel has slaughtered.
Gershon implicitly suggests that Palestine would try to make itself “devoid of Jews,” if it isn't forced to concede Jewish inclusion. In REALITY, Palestine has NEVER been “devoid of Jews.” There have been Jewish Palestinians from the start. (You’ve seen them. They’re those nonwhite Jewish people, who get shoved to the side in Israel.) It’s not the fact that Jewish people exist on Palestinian land, that caused the problem; it’s the fact that EUROPEANS decided to COLONIZE, ANNEX & ETHNICALLY CLEANSE Palestine, that caused the problem.
Happy to be introduced to Gershon Baskin
Yet, racism is so bred in the bone of Israelis that I can hardly see them as accepting Palestinians as equals
It's not practical to suggest the Palestinians must satisfy the fears of the Israeli people before their rights are recognized. Recognition of Palestine does not require Israel. Palestine is a state, and Israel has displaced and occupied that state, displaced the Palestinians from their sovereignty through violence, and the Palestinians have every legal and moral right to use the same or greater force used against them in order to recapture their sovereignty.
There's a fundamental dishonesty in the way Baskin portrays Rabin. He was never a proponent of full Palestinian statehood on 22% of their historic homeland. Rather, what he supported was "limited autonomy" in which Israel's military presence would still be entrenched in the West Bank (see: https://www.972mag.com/yitzhak-rabin-never-supported-palestinian-statehood/).
Limited Palestinian sovereignty on even less than 22% of the land (which wouldn't have territorial contiguity), a limited right of return (less than 100,000 - symbolic at best) and a capital that isn't even in all of East Jerusalem (but rather a village on the outskirts known as Abu Dis) is the furthest the so called 'Israeli left' (be it Rabin, Barak or Olmert) has ever been willing to go.
From the get go Zionism was about establishing a Jewish ethno-state on historic Palestine by getting rid of the land's indigenous inhabitants. Theodore Herzl said so. David Ben Gurion said so. Chiamm Weissman said so. Berl Katznelson said so. Menachem Ussishkin said so. The Likud party charter says so. The Knesset just said do. Do I really need to keep going? Until and unless Israel writ large accepts the Green Line (i.e. June 4, 1967 borders) no ifs ands or buts, all talk of a two-state solution, peace etc. is smoke and mirrors.
Settlement building was from the get go an exercise of colonisation. It was about "creating facts on the ground" that made a contiguous and viable Palestinian state an impossibility. According to Israeli NGO Peace Now, the number of settlers and settlements in the OWB and OEJ have quadrupled since the Oslo process began in 1993 (see: https://peacenow.org.il/en/30-years-after-oslo-the-data-that-shows-how-the-settlements-proliferated-following-the-oslo-accords). This behaviour is perfectly representative of a movement that covets all of the land. It's really not that complicated.
I'm often reminded of the words of Israeli historian Avi Shlaim whenever I hear dishonest Israeli spokespersons masquerading as peaceniks such as this guest - the Israelis, with its Western backers, have sought to make this "all process and no peace."
In order for there to be peace, both sides of a conflict must want it. Otherwise is just a charade. I was reminded of the situation between Japan and the US before Pearl Harbor. One of the reasons why Dec 7th 1941 would live in “infamy” is because this attack was executed while peace negotiations were in progress. Should the attack on a current negotiating party for peace be perceived as anything other than infamy today?
https://www.historynet.com/pearl-harbor-bombing-date-infamy/
I'm sorry, but he lost me when he said Israel is not Palestine's enemy. I was already disagreeing with much of what this guy said, but this is too much.
I found it so biased and simple minded and not worth my time. I disagree with your guests on his illustration of the issue that Palestinians have lived for decades under brutal, genocidal occupation.
Mehdi is brilliant and yet for the purposes of his presentation, he adopts a dumb patina. He and Baskin keep being amazed: "Don't they realize that this makes everything worse?" "This makes Israel less secure." etc. After it happens once or twice you have to realize that the players WANT this outcome. Of course the politicians know how badly it works to assassinate and bomb people. That is what they want! They know that they can't eliminate an ideological base by murder and bombing. That shows how evil the national politicians of Israel and the US really are.
It's not about Hamas it's about ethanic cleaning . after Gaza , west bank and Jordan
Why are there so many traitors in Libanon and Iran helping Israeli agents to commit these assassinations. Without local help Israel would not be able to do this time and time again.
Thanks a lot for this interview. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has enormous complexity, and I'm very grateful for the additional insights.
The Palestinians demilitarized once already, yes? So what happened???