It's nice to see Beinart dealing with reality for a change. What we often hear from Palestinian apologists is if the two state solution dies or becomes infeasible, a "one state solution" is the only inevitable result. But this is not true, as Beinart admits in this column.
But there is yet another option, one that Beinart didn't think of, which is the Jordanian option:
Regarding mass expulsions from the West Bank, although this is certainly undesirable, it's not unprecedented as a way of resolving conflicts. Israel and Palestine were not the only example in history of a partition and resulting population transfer. India and Pakistan's creations led to a million dead and many more forced to leave their homes. And of course millions of Germans were expelled from their homes at the end of World War II.
Let's also not forget that the pro-Palestinian activist class are insistent that all 500,000 Israeli settlers be expelled, and of course are big proponents of the "right of return" which would involve 10 million Palestinians leaving their homes and going to Israel. So the idea of mass movement as a prerequisite to end the conflict isn't unprecedented or even undesirable, at least according to Amnesty International, who calls for every settler to be removed from the West Bank.
The real issue, the one that Beinart can't talk about, is that the Palestinians do not want peace with Israel under any circumstances and under any conditions. That's why the Second Intifada "broke out" (aka planned and executed by Arafat so he could maintain his legitimacy after signing the Oslo Accords, any move towards peace with the Yahud makes Palestinian leaders lose legitimacy in the eyes of their people). Let us all hope the Palestinian leadership finally chooses peace and human rights over war and terrorism. The Palestinians have much more to lose from the death of the two state solution than the Israelis.
The Jordan option is worth taking seriously—Shlomo Ben Ami, former PM Barak’s foreign minister, recently proposed revisiting it after panning the idea in his excellent book from the mid- 2000’s. But the Allon plan died because it was rejected by Jordan. It would be even less appealing to them now. What new incentives would Jordan be offered now to accept the costs? Let me guess: even more generous American-financed security welfare on Israel’s behalf.
Furthermore, the only “Jordanian option” that would be acceptable to Israel would be one where Israel annexes almost the entirety of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In exchange, under this plan, Jordan would grant citizenship to West Bank Palestinians who, at Israel’s discretion, might or might not be allowed to remain living in the WB as foreign nationals.
In other words, a windfall for Israel and a shit sandwich for Palestinians and Jordan and everyone else. It’s a non-starter.
Jordan "not wanting it" is hardly a reason not to pursue it, if it's a viable solution maybe the next step is just convincing the Jordanians? Maybe we should use the Palestinian model for "convincing:" boycotts, divestments, and sanctions at first, and then blowing up their restaurants and nightclubs next? I'm kidding of course, war crimes like that would be inexcusable if people other than Palestinians were committing them.
I can't see the future like you, so I don't know what the specifics of the Jordan option could be, but I know that if the current situation is so bad, Palestinians living as equal citizens in an Arab majority state that shares their values in terms of things like shar'ia law, Islam as the official religions, and total lack of democracy sounds a lot better. According to their supporters, Palestinians literally are being genocided by the baby-eating Israelis right now, surely a "shit sandwich" is better than the status quo?
Again, I'm not advocating the Jordanian option per se, I'm just saying it's more desirable and feasible than the "one state solution" Beinart has been pushing lately. Both are shit sandwiches, the difference who is eating it.
Would you propose the same for Ukrainians, say Ukrainians who have been displaced by Russians can go live in say Lithuania because they share culture and language?
Why would natives have to give up their land and power to westerners just because they are without the wherewithal?
The context here is that the commenters—Winters and Anonymous, typically—take the position that Beinart is a Bad Person because he adopted support for a 1SS/“equal rights for all” position with obvious downsides for Israeli Jews.
Because there are supposedly perfectly good and viable alternatives on the table he could have taken instead, in their view, Beinart’s insistence on 1SS support can therefore be taken as evidence of his malice and bad-faith towards Israel and Jews in general. They regularly make this point over and over again as if it’s their paid job, which I suspect it is.
I’ve generally countered in my comments over the past year that those alternatives—including the 2SS—aren’t actually realistic either, so perhaps the 1SS, the Jordanian option, and others are all fair game for due consideration. It seems the only thing the commenter and I agree in is that only shit-sandwiches appear to be in the menu
Sorry, Paul, as far as I know there's only one person here who's paid to post how people they don't like are Bad People , and that person is Peter Beinart.
I'm not going to speak on anyone else's behalf, but I think Beinart is a bad person because he pushes for the one state solution even though he doesn't live in Israel and won't suffer any consequences should it fail. And there's a plethora of evidence that it will fail: historical precedent, opinion polls, and comments from people like Omar Barghouti that their goal is one Palestinian state in which Jews are oppressed or suppressed (if not worse). So either Beinart doesn't know about that, in which case he is an ignoramus, or he knows about it and doesn't care, which makes him malicious.
I also find Beinart intellectually dishonest and inconsistent. He's made a career lambasting Jews for having their own nation-state, but full-throatily defends Ukraine's fight to survive against Russian annexation. He is unable to provide an intellectually honest explanation for why he considers Jews racist for having their own nation-state, but considers Ukrainian nation-statehood and Palestinian statehood worth fighting and killing for.
Beinart is also a bad person because he claims to care about the welfare of the Jewish people while consistently ignoring anti-Semitism when it emanates from people who share his politics, including some in this very talkback section. In fact Paul you and the rest of the commentators have said nothing about USofW's antisemitism on this thread. Funny that.
"and comments from people like Omar Barghouti that their goal is one Palestinian state in which Jews are oppressed or suppressed (if not worse)" -- I know that Omar Barghouti has said that his preference is for all of the land of Palestine to become the sovereign territory of one state, rather than two states, or the current one state in the majority of the land while the rest is controlled by that state's military, but what *comments* has he made that his goal is that this be a state "in which Jews are oppressed or suppressed (if not worse)"?
“If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you’d have a Palestine next to a Palestine.”
“I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land.”
How are Jews in Palestine right now? There are none. It's completely reasonable to think they would be treated in that "Palestine next to a Palestine" the way Christians are now: oppressed or suppressed.
I'm for 1SS, always been. One state where all, Jews, Christians, Muslims, white, brown, and all colors are treated equally. This is possible.
USA is Israel's buttress. Were it not for America, who supports them financially even goes against the grain to support apartheid, Palestine would not have lost their land. The colonizers would have been long gone.
The sad part is that both democrats [including Joe Biden and his ilk], and republicans are flush with money from Israel support groups. Jews [zionists) play a big part in American politics and support those politicians who are pro-Israel. Also, some Jewish Americans have vested interest in Israel. They in turn support Israel over Palestine. In short, dual citizenship, Israel & American (or other western country) is derimental to the Palestians.
Winters and Anonymous are most likely paid to post on this site. Maybe they're not even Jews? Ever noticed the alacrity in their responses to comments? This may be their full time job. There's lot of money to counter Palestine supporters. They may have been sent to monitor "antisemites" like Peter and his followers.
Again, 1SS, those who are not willing to share land and planet earth with other equally deserving humans can be sent back to the West, or better go to Mars.
USoW, I think you grossly underestimate broad durable support for Israel among normal Americans—the vast majority of which are not Jews or Zionists. In fact, American Jewish voters in aggregate hew liberal, if not outright progressive, and in 2020 went by a 3:1 margin for the Democratic opponent of the most “pro-Israel” US president in history. most Americans would probably cite personal moral, religious, and/or ideological reasons for that support for Israel, as opposed to it being the by-product of some nefarious moneyed lobbying groups. For example, I suspect most Americans probably see the historical WWII role in ending the Nazi regime as one of pride and national identity and see early and continued support for a Jewish state in the aftermath as an extension of that.
The nature and detail of how that abstract “support” became specific US policy and material and how that has evolved over the last 40 years may be another matter. Even there, I’d suggest you consider the influence of Evangelical conservatives, usual military-industrial defense lobbies, and our hawkish foreign-policy establishment in the Global War on Terror era that thrives on global conflict and has plenty of natural reasons to align with Israel without needing trope-y appeals to explain it.
Good point on the WWII. US thrives on wars. They dont even hide that the military industry complex creates jobs. How wicked!
Dont get me started on the Evangelicals and Christianity in general. They are the reasons for Zionism and the real antisemites. The origin of antisemitism and its perpetuation has been chalked up to Christianity. How can Americans and Jews get along while their religions are diametrically opposed to one another? That the Jews know that in the end, according to Christians, they'll have to convert to Christianity or will be killed? Do they really believe this? Religions are all about power not God.
You're right. American Christians support Israel more than the Jews. Never mind their Bible is clear that they are the "children of the devil."
Peter writes this whole column, and never talks about the elephant in the room: The complete and total refusal by Palestine to live in peace with Israel. Notice that he never gives any agency to any Palestinians in this article. They are never responsible for their own fate and situation, all they do is just live under the conditions imposed on them by Israel and react accordingly.
Israel is faced with a hostile nation, Palestine, that has trained its people for generations at this point to hate Israel and Israelis and Jews. Its only aspiration in life is to wipe Israel off the map. Fatah is the governing party of the PA, and the closest Palestine has to a "moderate" party, yet it writes in its charter that their goal is the "eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." This enemy has no moral qualms whatsoever, no interest in following international law or basic morality, and is more than willing to target Israel's civilians, use their own civilians as human shields, and use child soldiers like we saw last week in Jenin. Such war crimes are in Palestine's DNA.
Peter is right. In Israel, peace is no longer seen as a reasonable possibility, because everyone in Israel and really across the world knows Palestine doesn't want it. Palestine refused peace offers ten times and has never been able to make peace with any Israeli government, left, right, and center. So, the viewpoint in Israel has turned to "conflict management" or as Peter mentioned "shrinking the conflict." They realize that Palestine will never want peace with Israel and will continue the murdering and war crimes no matter what Israel does, so Israel needs to find methods that "shrink" the conflict, or reduce the violence to as low a level as possible while still recognizing it will never stop entirely. This includes things like lowering the number of checkpoints, but still keeping some of them, and, yes, working with the Palestinian Authority to stop attacks before they happen, like the intervention in Jenin this week. Peter of course hates this idea, because if Palestinians and Israelis aren't actively killing each other, he won't be asked to speak on CNN about how Israel is bad.
I'm not a big fan of the Palestinian Authority either, but I certainly don't have a problem with them stopping terror attacks and reducing the violence. That's probably the least objectionable thing about the PA.
If Peter thinks the current situation is so bad and "apartheid", let's hear him insist on Palestine ceasing the terror attacks and making actual steps towards a lasting peace with Israel. He didn't talk much about actual peace with Israel in his article because he cannot deny Palestine doesn't want it, and if Palestine is to blame for something, that something isn't worth discussing.
These comments by Winters are definitely from the hasbara handbook. Winters is probably sitting in Israel somewhere looking into a laptop, copying and pasting, perhaps with Anonymous assisting. Peter, do something about these bad, bad people.
The “Hasbara Handbook” explains many standard techniques of propaganda and deceptive rhetoric. It rehearses specific arguments and counter-arguments and outlines a program of training for advocacy and rebuttal. It also stresses the importance of labeling or “name-calling” – the linking of a person or idea to a negative symbol. The handbook places itself in a larger context. It commends the work of “CAMERA” – the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America – an organization notorious for the viciousness of its efforts to blacken the reputations of those who criticize Israel or advance accounts of events that deviate from the official Israeli narrative by branding them as “anti-Semitic” or “self-hating Jews.” It notes that CAMERA provides a free monthly magazine full of timely hasbara materials for Jewish students in the United States. A myriad of Israel-oriented think tanks provide similar guidance online, as do numerous websites in Israel itself.
I'm truly surprised it took you guys this long to pull out the "hasbara" and "paid shill". Usually it's deployed the second anyone criticizes Palestine. Part of the preprogrammed dehumanization of anyone who is pro-Israel that's standard for Palestine supporters. A lot easier to abuse and bully someone if they're not actually fully human.
That is pretty rich, even for you, to accuse me of "copying and pasting", since literally everything you post is a copy and paste from someone else, including your second paragraph, which is plagiarised from the Middle East Policy Council! What's with the hypocrisy, dude??
"Israel is faced with a hostile nation, Palestine, that has trained its people for generations at this point to hate Israel and Israelis and Jews. Its only aspiration in life is to wipe Israel off the map."
So now Palestine is a *nation*, like Israel? And a nation that has *life*, and an *aspiration* in that life? We understand "Palestine" as a geographic term. You purport to be enlightening readers here (largely people with a certain sophistication in their level of knowledge of Palestine and Israel) with your perspective that is better than our host's perspective, and yet you start off by talking about "Palestine" and making us try to infer just what you mean by that term from the contexts in which you use it.
Of course Palestine is a nation, that's what I said and unlike some people around here I say exactly what I meant. I recognize the existence of both the nation of Palestine and the state of Palestine (declared in 1988). You don't? Am I more pro-Palestinian than you? That would certainly be an ironic twist.
I don't understand you seeming to ignore the history of modern Israel. Are you holding a too liberal point of view with regard to the Palestinians? Do you not remember that every time Israel gave up something to them, that the Palestinians promptly carried out attacks against Israel and its citizens? Are you blissfully unaware that the Palestinians have continually chanted "Death to the Israelis!" and "Drive them into the sea" since the nation was formed (and before!)? I'm sure you know that history, so I can't figure out your motivation or your viewpoint. I would love to hear a defense of your position.
Stop calling Israel a colonial regime and the PA a subcontractor…you see Mr Beinart your perspective is a western one that is condescending and alien to the region; before European ideas were introduced by colonial forces like England and France no one thought like you and everything was based on religion, tribe and clan…you, my lettered friend, think everyone thinks like you..THEY DO NOT…Jews are indigenous based on history, archaeology and communal tradition to this land and have always been there and aspired to return. The PA is at fault for not nurturing reconciliation, nation building and security. Stop being a social worker and start being a realist.
"Jews are indigenous based on history, archaeology and communal tradition to this land and have always been there and aspired to return."
Do you mean that all Jews are indigenous to this land? And conversely, that all the people indigenous to this land are Jews? How do you understand indigeneity? If a person's ancestors were all living in this land 2000 years ago, at which time they were all Jews, but later ancestors were all Christians and Muslims after conversion, does that mean that the person does not belong to a people indigenous to the land?
The Jewish nation is indigenous to the land. If ancestors convert and join other, foreign, nations and abandon their Jewish nationality, they can no longer claim indigenousness.
There are no absolutes; Jews as a communal and national group are indigenous which does not mean that every one living there now is. Most Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians have a rightful claim-I never said they did not-what is wrong is their beliefs that Jews do not have this same equally valid claim
Most Palestinians have always and continue to believe in your options 5 and 6. The reason there was no national infrastructure in 1967 territories when Israel defended itself from Jordanian and Egyptian aggression is because those respective areas were controlled by other states-notice how despite being created in 1964/65 no Palestinian nationalist group called for Jordanian and Egyptian expulsion and the creation of a Palestinian state in those areas…
Why does Peter Beinart insist on condescending ly infantilizing the PA and not holding them accountable; the whole idea behind Oslo was for them to make places like Jenin orderly and part of their civil catchment area…if they did that the IDF would not have to act alone. Mr Beinart feels he knows what’s best for the Palestinians-this is a typical form of intellectual colonialism and pandering. Face it: The PA and it’s corrupt, nepotistic and I democratic hierarchy is run like a crime family by a converted Jew who only cares about staying in power by feigning impotence in English and instructing his minions to glorify terrorists, stoke irredentism and spout anti demotic rhetoric in Arabic.
An interesting analysis of the appalling situation that the apartheid Zionist state of Israel is imposing on the Palestinian people. No doubt the Zionists who for some reason (guilt? Who knows?) hang around the comment threads here will reject the clarity of what you wrote and somehow blame Palestinians for having the temerity to live in Israel/Palestine.
Those of us around the world who want to see Palestinians allowed to return and live peacefully in their homeland must stay informed as to the malign intentions of violent Zionism and its followers who, as is miserably and painfully clear, will not stop until they have cleared Israel/Palestine of the last Palestinian. But the Palestinian movement is vigorous and popular, and it has right on its side.
Here in the UK, we can support the excellent and courageous work of Palestine Action which is successfully building local movements of direct action against the Israeli state-owned arms trade and its factories, such as Elbit Systems. The British state has responded by prosecuting these brave people, and they surely need our backing.
James, no one is "imposing" anything on the Palestinians. They are in a situation entirely of their own making through 80 years of terrorism, murder, and war crimes. No one is blaming them for "having the temerity to live in Israel/Palestine" but that kind of dishonest strawman is quite typical among Palestine supporters who are not able to approach this situation with any kind of intellectual honesty.
If you want to talk about malign intentions, let's talk about Palestine's. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Sound familiar? How about this nugget from Fatah's charter, the goal of "the eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence"?
If you want Palestinians to "live peacefully in Palestine", they're welcome to do so at any time. All they have to do is recognize Jewish people as their fellow human beings and sign on the dotted line. We're all waiting.
“ They are in a situation entirely of their own making through 80 years of terrorism, murder, and war crime.”
If that is the case, why is Israel so afraid of putting their case at the International Criminal Court. The Palestinians have no such fear.
“ If you want Palestinians to "live peacefully in Palestine", they're welcome to do so at any time.”
All Palestinians have to do is let Jewish settlers aided and abetted by Israel, to continue to steal their land, to evict them from their homes, to treat them like animals.
"If that is the case, why is Israel so afraid of putting their case at the International Criminal Court"
It is the case, and the decisions of the Israeli government in regards to unelected officials in Brussels have nothing to do with whether or not it is the case.
"All Palestinians have to do is let Jewish settlers aided and abetted by Israel, to continue to steal their land, to evict them from their homes, to treat them like animals."
In a peaceful 2SS like the ones Israel has offered Palestine multiple times, the EEEVIL settlers will either be in Israel and away from the poor innocent blameless Palestinians or under the control of the the Palestinian government so the Palestinians can enforce their laws and stop the settlers' bad behavior themselves. Either way, those things you mentioned won't happen. If you actually didn't like settler violence (I know you really do like it, because it makes Palestinians victims), you'd want peace just as much as I do.
You should stick with copying and pasting plagiarised material, Sean. Your own thoughts aren't very substantive.
I am proud to copy and paste the writings of Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Robert Herbst, Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, Peter Beinart, and many more righteous Jews, because with those writers one will always read the truth about Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.
"Here in Israel your hands are dirty, and if you are not actively fighting against the occupation, you are supporting the occupation. Period." Ayelet Waldman & Michael Chabon."
Ah, so when YOU copy and paste things, that's fine. But when I post my own thoughts and views, that makes me "hasbara." Got it. Thanks for explaining it to me.
And then here we go, yet another copy and paste, and this time it's the the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality, followed by a personal attack. The favorite viewpoint of bullies and tyrants everywhere. Of course, the same logic doesn't apply to Palestinian terror and murder, right? If you're not actively fighting it, then you're against it?
Are you actively fighting Palestinian murder and terrorism, Sean?
Wouldn't you know all about bullies & tyrants, aren't there many of them in Israel? Over half a century of bullying Palestinians and when they resist you call them terrorists.
For a long time, Zionists have been propagating fear based propaganda to their followers. It's misleading and unfair to focus on what Palestinians might allegedly do in the future, while the past and present of Palestinians are filled with Israeli war crimes. These types of accusations are meant to deflect and confuse the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The core issues of the conflict are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING (compulsory population transfer) of the Palestinian people for the past 7+ decades. It should be emphasized that the conflict would have been at the same level of intensity, even if both warring parties had been Muslims, Christians, or even Jewish.
Since the inception of Zionism, its leaders have been keen on creating a "Jewish State" based on a "Jewish majority" by mass immigration of Jews to Palestine, primarily European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." Year after year, the plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution". David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated the "transfer solution" as the following:
In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th, 1938:
"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement].... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it."
"If you want to talk about malign intentions, let's talk about Palestine's. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Sound familiar? "
Yes, I've heard it at many rallies. You are showing that you have misunderstood it. To Palestinians and their allies, "Palestine" is a geographic term, referring to the land delineated by the boundaries of the former Palestine Mandate. So talk of Palestine's "intentions", malign or otherwise, doesn't even make sense. The literal meaning of the slogan is that, unlike in the present, all of the land in question will be free some time in the future.
If Palestine is a geographic term, then the phrase makes no sense. Land isn't people, so land can't be "free." Unless they're talking about selling it for no cost, which seems just a little bit unlikely.
Everyone here knows what that phrase means. You can't try to mansplain something different. We all know Palestinians and their allies want Israel gone and an Arab Muslim state from the river to the sea. That's what the polls say. That's what the leadership says. That's what the phrase means. You will never be able to convince anyone of anything different, so don't even bother to try. The only person here "misunderstanding" the phrase is you.
Any thoughts on the Fatah charter quote, about a goal being "the eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence"? Care to mansplain away that one?
"If you want to talk about malign intentions, let's talk about Palestine's. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Sound familiar?"
Ever heard of the "OLD TESTAMENT? Yahweh mapped out the boundaries of the promised land, Zion, and it gave to his special few, the chosen people, the Jews. Genesis 12:7, 15:18-21, 28: 13, etc.
Exodus 23:31 is more specific and pertinent in this argument as it describes the borders as marked by the Red Sea and the River Euphrates.
Is this testament OLD or the promise still holds? It's in the Jewish "Holy Book."
Ever heard of whataboutery? I'm far more interested in what Palestinians and their supporters are chanting today than what was written down thousands of years ago.
Your comment about Israel having expulsion in its DNA is not only Anti Zionist but feeds into the meme in the Arab world of the expansionist and evil “ Jews.” Also, Israel accepted partition in 1948 and where not the ones who closed off The Strait of Tiran and fought as a coalition to throw the Jews in the Sea…Apartheid is also faulty and inappropriate in your thesis…Arab citizens of Israel vote and serve in the Knesset and receive state based civic services and benefits. Further Jews are indigenous to this land while White Europeans were never indigenous to South Africa
Peter's full "comment about Israel having expulsion in its DNA" is this: "Of course, Israel has in its political DNA this history of a mass expulsion at its founding, and another mass expulsion that people don’t talk about so much in 1967, and smaller scale expulsions kind of in-between."
Is there anything in there that isn't true? Or is your objection that he shouldn't make factual statements that are "Anti Zionist"?
Expulsion must be viewed in its proper historical context; yes a segment of the Palestinians was expelled during these periods as a result of their refusal to accept partition and inter communal violence …ignoring the context and related Mizrachi Jewish riots and expulsions/fleeing is selectively viewing history…Anti Zionism is simply the belief that Israel should not take its rightful place among the worlds nations and is often (not always) a tool of anti semites and chauvinistic salafists or political ideologies. Zionism is nothing more than the political articulation of our 2,000 year desire to return to our ancient nation state as a polity. By the way rejecting it and being a political apologist for the PA is naïve at best and a cynical weak collaborator at worst. The Satmar have embraced the Palestinian cause based on their own naïveté and desire to preserve their religious based “cult.”
Also, you mention Gaza …where are the settlements and lack of a governing authority there…it just goes to show how faulty your logic is; even when there are no Jews and a group controls the territory no reconciliation or peace is possible. By the way you using a Jewish term to describe the celebration of the martyrdom of a “ Shahid(a)” just illustrates your ignorance and ethnocentrism …how would you like it if they called Baruch Goldstein a “ Shahid”?
No, in this context, "Jewish" makes more sense than "Zionist". Sam is talking about Zionist indoctrination in Jewish communities specifically. The difference with Zionist indoctrination in non-Jewish communities is that those communities are not indoctrinated with the idea that the state of Israel acts in their name.
Israeli Jews and Israeli Druze voters are pushed rightward due to 75 years of non acceptance, idiotic and faulty rhetoric like yours and terror. The Naqba was for the most part caused by Arab aggression and religious and ethnocentric intolerance and chauvinism. What is unthinkable is how you pander to Arabs and hold Israel to a Roberts Rules standard in the Middle East…NO AMOUNT OF SURRENDER AND COLLABORATION WILL MAKE THE PALESTINIAN STREET ACCEPT YOU…WAKE UP AND DEMAND RESPECT THROUGH ACCOUNTABILITY AND STRENGTH
"The Naqba was for the most part caused by Arab aggression and religious and ethnocentric intolerance and chauvinism."
Oh really, it was the Palestinians' own fault? Not caused by, say, Jewish aggression and religious and ethnocentric intolerance and chauvinism? I look forward to reading your book where you develop this thesis.
"On the occasion of the Nakba, the overwhelming majority places the blame for it on non-Palestinian parties while only 7% believe that the weakness of the Palestinian people is primarily responsible. The "weak and conspiratorial Arab role" comes first with 38%, followed by the British Mandate with 36%, and Zionist organizations and movements with 16%."
Only 16% of Palestinians blame Zionists (or as you would say, Jewish aggression and ethnocentric intolerance and chauvinism) for the Nakba. The vast majority blame other Arabs and the British. Very few, of course, take personal responsibility for their own fate, no surprise there.
The Jewish state of Israel accepted partition and those opposed (Irgun) were violently incorporated into IDF and the new communal and political infrastructure. Is it chauvinistic to demand equality among the worlds nations. Is it wrong to defend yourself or should we have all gone directly to the sea or ovens…I don’t need to write a book to know what was right and wrong. In any inter communal struggle their is chauvinism and there will be instances of aggression…you and your type holding Jews to a different standard are either stuck in a ghetto mentality or hopelessly unrealistic…if you attack me and I decide to expel you for my national aspirations you are partially if not mostly to blame
I honestly think that all European and American Jews should be expelled from PALESTINE, especially Americans.
Americans, both Jews and non-J, save for a few level headed like Peter, have emboldened the purported victims of the Holocaust by funding them and supplying them with weapons to steal land and kill the poor, benighted and dark Arabs.
So religious, yet so callous. Thank god I'm atheist.
Thank you so much for saying what Peter and his supporters are all really thinking. It's greatly appreciated, especially the line about the "purported victims of the Holocaust." Peter's readership love to wrap themselves in a warm blanket of smug moral superiority, it's refreshing to see the black heart hiding underneath that blanket.
I also thought the "dark Arabs" was pretty telling.
It's incredible because we know Beinart reads and responds to the comments of his Substack articles and yet he never has anything to say about comments like this. And yet he wonders why he is accused of anti-Semitism so often.
Your thoughts on USofW's statement above that "all European and American Jews should be expelled from PALESTINE, especially Americans" and that "Americans, both Jews and non-J, save for a few level headed like Peter, have emboldened the purported victims of the Holocaust by funding them and supplying them with weapons to steal land and kill the poor, benighted and dark Arabs."
Have your delicate eyes not come across that POV in print from Palestinian sympathizers before? It’s the Israel/Palestine conflict—it’s partisans regularly say harsh and uncharitable things about the other side. Reread some of your own posts, for example.
I read USoW’s opening salvo as a somewhat emotionally-wrought and mean-spirited response to the subject of the article, namely the prospects of unjust forced Arab expulsions from Palestine—as if to say “oh yeah? Well, it oughta be the non-native Jews who get expelled instead!”
Okay, it’s someone’s opinion. Substack is a pro-free speech platform. Why is anyone other than the poster morally accountable for it?
The second point, which I read as being about how Americans have actively facilitated Israel’s dispossession of Palestinians out of some sort of reparations regime for Holocaust victims and motivated in part by an inherent anti-Arab racism, is another opinion. It’s one that I think has considerable merit, although I would not have phrased it the way he did. But what of it? Did you read it differently?
Stunningly, Gaza is so outside your mind and worldview now that it never even merited a mention as one of the territories occupied in 1967. This also means you missed out on one of the major options left to Israel for the populated Palestinian areas of the West Bank--Gazification: Ghettoize, besiege and throw away the key for decades. Similar to the model that has been applied to the neighborhoods behind the wall in Jerusalem as well. Isn't it more likely that the Jenin op is laying the groundwork for this fate for these West Bank cities?
Great points. I agree with that as a more likely policy trajectory than mass forced transfers that would suffer from the unavoidably disastrous political optics for Israel.
Areas A&B would evolve into smaller isolated Gazastans in the W/B around population centers, each with their own sealed security perimeter, and annexation and civilian control everywhere else. Although most observers would probably use the word “Bantustan” drawing obvious South Africa parallels.
But one figures the RW Israeli govt would believe that the frog could be boiled slowly enough to avoid anything like the images of masses of human beings being herded to the borders that would be politically ruinous.
It's nice to see Beinart dealing with reality for a change. What we often hear from Palestinian apologists is if the two state solution dies or becomes infeasible, a "one state solution" is the only inevitable result. But this is not true, as Beinart admits in this column.
But there is yet another option, one that Beinart didn't think of, which is the Jordanian option:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allon_Plan
Regarding mass expulsions from the West Bank, although this is certainly undesirable, it's not unprecedented as a way of resolving conflicts. Israel and Palestine were not the only example in history of a partition and resulting population transfer. India and Pakistan's creations led to a million dead and many more forced to leave their homes. And of course millions of Germans were expelled from their homes at the end of World War II.
Let's also not forget that the pro-Palestinian activist class are insistent that all 500,000 Israeli settlers be expelled, and of course are big proponents of the "right of return" which would involve 10 million Palestinians leaving their homes and going to Israel. So the idea of mass movement as a prerequisite to end the conflict isn't unprecedented or even undesirable, at least according to Amnesty International, who calls for every settler to be removed from the West Bank.
The real issue, the one that Beinart can't talk about, is that the Palestinians do not want peace with Israel under any circumstances and under any conditions. That's why the Second Intifada "broke out" (aka planned and executed by Arafat so he could maintain his legitimacy after signing the Oslo Accords, any move towards peace with the Yahud makes Palestinian leaders lose legitimacy in the eyes of their people). Let us all hope the Palestinian leadership finally chooses peace and human rights over war and terrorism. The Palestinians have much more to lose from the death of the two state solution than the Israelis.
The Jordan option is worth taking seriously—Shlomo Ben Ami, former PM Barak’s foreign minister, recently proposed revisiting it after panning the idea in his excellent book from the mid- 2000’s. But the Allon plan died because it was rejected by Jordan. It would be even less appealing to them now. What new incentives would Jordan be offered now to accept the costs? Let me guess: even more generous American-financed security welfare on Israel’s behalf.
Furthermore, the only “Jordanian option” that would be acceptable to Israel would be one where Israel annexes almost the entirety of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In exchange, under this plan, Jordan would grant citizenship to West Bank Palestinians who, at Israel’s discretion, might or might not be allowed to remain living in the WB as foreign nationals.
In other words, a windfall for Israel and a shit sandwich for Palestinians and Jordan and everyone else. It’s a non-starter.
Jordan "not wanting it" is hardly a reason not to pursue it, if it's a viable solution maybe the next step is just convincing the Jordanians? Maybe we should use the Palestinian model for "convincing:" boycotts, divestments, and sanctions at first, and then blowing up their restaurants and nightclubs next? I'm kidding of course, war crimes like that would be inexcusable if people other than Palestinians were committing them.
I can't see the future like you, so I don't know what the specifics of the Jordan option could be, but I know that if the current situation is so bad, Palestinians living as equal citizens in an Arab majority state that shares their values in terms of things like shar'ia law, Islam as the official religions, and total lack of democracy sounds a lot better. According to their supporters, Palestinians literally are being genocided by the baby-eating Israelis right now, surely a "shit sandwich" is better than the status quo?
Again, I'm not advocating the Jordanian option per se, I'm just saying it's more desirable and feasible than the "one state solution" Beinart has been pushing lately. Both are shit sandwiches, the difference who is eating it.
Would you propose the same for Ukrainians, say Ukrainians who have been displaced by Russians can go live in say Lithuania because they share culture and language?
Why would natives have to give up their land and power to westerners just because they are without the wherewithal?
No, I would not, USoW.
The context here is that the commenters—Winters and Anonymous, typically—take the position that Beinart is a Bad Person because he adopted support for a 1SS/“equal rights for all” position with obvious downsides for Israeli Jews.
Because there are supposedly perfectly good and viable alternatives on the table he could have taken instead, in their view, Beinart’s insistence on 1SS support can therefore be taken as evidence of his malice and bad-faith towards Israel and Jews in general. They regularly make this point over and over again as if it’s their paid job, which I suspect it is.
I’ve generally countered in my comments over the past year that those alternatives—including the 2SS—aren’t actually realistic either, so perhaps the 1SS, the Jordanian option, and others are all fair game for due consideration. It seems the only thing the commenter and I agree in is that only shit-sandwiches appear to be in the menu
Sorry, Paul, as far as I know there's only one person here who's paid to post how people they don't like are Bad People , and that person is Peter Beinart.
I'm not going to speak on anyone else's behalf, but I think Beinart is a bad person because he pushes for the one state solution even though he doesn't live in Israel and won't suffer any consequences should it fail. And there's a plethora of evidence that it will fail: historical precedent, opinion polls, and comments from people like Omar Barghouti that their goal is one Palestinian state in which Jews are oppressed or suppressed (if not worse). So either Beinart doesn't know about that, in which case he is an ignoramus, or he knows about it and doesn't care, which makes him malicious.
I also find Beinart intellectually dishonest and inconsistent. He's made a career lambasting Jews for having their own nation-state, but full-throatily defends Ukraine's fight to survive against Russian annexation. He is unable to provide an intellectually honest explanation for why he considers Jews racist for having their own nation-state, but considers Ukrainian nation-statehood and Palestinian statehood worth fighting and killing for.
Beinart is also a bad person because he claims to care about the welfare of the Jewish people while consistently ignoring anti-Semitism when it emanates from people who share his politics, including some in this very talkback section. In fact Paul you and the rest of the commentators have said nothing about USofW's antisemitism on this thread. Funny that.
"and comments from people like Omar Barghouti that their goal is one Palestinian state in which Jews are oppressed or suppressed (if not worse)" -- I know that Omar Barghouti has said that his preference is for all of the land of Palestine to become the sovereign territory of one state, rather than two states, or the current one state in the majority of the land while the rest is controlled by that state's military, but what *comments* has he made that his goal is that this be a state "in which Jews are oppressed or suppressed (if not worse)"?
“If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you’d have a Palestine next to a Palestine.”
“I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land.”
How are Jews in Palestine right now? There are none. It's completely reasonable to think they would be treated in that "Palestine next to a Palestine" the way Christians are now: oppressed or suppressed.
I'm for 1SS, always been. One state where all, Jews, Christians, Muslims, white, brown, and all colors are treated equally. This is possible.
USA is Israel's buttress. Were it not for America, who supports them financially even goes against the grain to support apartheid, Palestine would not have lost their land. The colonizers would have been long gone.
The sad part is that both democrats [including Joe Biden and his ilk], and republicans are flush with money from Israel support groups. Jews [zionists) play a big part in American politics and support those politicians who are pro-Israel. Also, some Jewish Americans have vested interest in Israel. They in turn support Israel over Palestine. In short, dual citizenship, Israel & American (or other western country) is derimental to the Palestians.
Winters and Anonymous are most likely paid to post on this site. Maybe they're not even Jews? Ever noticed the alacrity in their responses to comments? This may be their full time job. There's lot of money to counter Palestine supporters. They may have been sent to monitor "antisemites" like Peter and his followers.
Again, 1SS, those who are not willing to share land and planet earth with other equally deserving humans can be sent back to the West, or better go to Mars.
USoW, I think you grossly underestimate broad durable support for Israel among normal Americans—the vast majority of which are not Jews or Zionists. In fact, American Jewish voters in aggregate hew liberal, if not outright progressive, and in 2020 went by a 3:1 margin for the Democratic opponent of the most “pro-Israel” US president in history. most Americans would probably cite personal moral, religious, and/or ideological reasons for that support for Israel, as opposed to it being the by-product of some nefarious moneyed lobbying groups. For example, I suspect most Americans probably see the historical WWII role in ending the Nazi regime as one of pride and national identity and see early and continued support for a Jewish state in the aftermath as an extension of that.
The nature and detail of how that abstract “support” became specific US policy and material and how that has evolved over the last 40 years may be another matter. Even there, I’d suggest you consider the influence of Evangelical conservatives, usual military-industrial defense lobbies, and our hawkish foreign-policy establishment in the Global War on Terror era that thrives on global conflict and has plenty of natural reasons to align with Israel without needing trope-y appeals to explain it.
Good point on the WWII. US thrives on wars. They dont even hide that the military industry complex creates jobs. How wicked!
Dont get me started on the Evangelicals and Christianity in general. They are the reasons for Zionism and the real antisemites. The origin of antisemitism and its perpetuation has been chalked up to Christianity. How can Americans and Jews get along while their religions are diametrically opposed to one another? That the Jews know that in the end, according to Christians, they'll have to convert to Christianity or will be killed? Do they really believe this? Religions are all about power not God.
You're right. American Christians support Israel more than the Jews. Never mind their Bible is clear that they are the "children of the devil."
Peter writes this whole column, and never talks about the elephant in the room: The complete and total refusal by Palestine to live in peace with Israel. Notice that he never gives any agency to any Palestinians in this article. They are never responsible for their own fate and situation, all they do is just live under the conditions imposed on them by Israel and react accordingly.
Israel is faced with a hostile nation, Palestine, that has trained its people for generations at this point to hate Israel and Israelis and Jews. Its only aspiration in life is to wipe Israel off the map. Fatah is the governing party of the PA, and the closest Palestine has to a "moderate" party, yet it writes in its charter that their goal is the "eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." This enemy has no moral qualms whatsoever, no interest in following international law or basic morality, and is more than willing to target Israel's civilians, use their own civilians as human shields, and use child soldiers like we saw last week in Jenin. Such war crimes are in Palestine's DNA.
Peter is right. In Israel, peace is no longer seen as a reasonable possibility, because everyone in Israel and really across the world knows Palestine doesn't want it. Palestine refused peace offers ten times and has never been able to make peace with any Israeli government, left, right, and center. So, the viewpoint in Israel has turned to "conflict management" or as Peter mentioned "shrinking the conflict." They realize that Palestine will never want peace with Israel and will continue the murdering and war crimes no matter what Israel does, so Israel needs to find methods that "shrink" the conflict, or reduce the violence to as low a level as possible while still recognizing it will never stop entirely. This includes things like lowering the number of checkpoints, but still keeping some of them, and, yes, working with the Palestinian Authority to stop attacks before they happen, like the intervention in Jenin this week. Peter of course hates this idea, because if Palestinians and Israelis aren't actively killing each other, he won't be asked to speak on CNN about how Israel is bad.
I'm not a big fan of the Palestinian Authority either, but I certainly don't have a problem with them stopping terror attacks and reducing the violence. That's probably the least objectionable thing about the PA.
If Peter thinks the current situation is so bad and "apartheid", let's hear him insist on Palestine ceasing the terror attacks and making actual steps towards a lasting peace with Israel. He didn't talk much about actual peace with Israel in his article because he cannot deny Palestine doesn't want it, and if Palestine is to blame for something, that something isn't worth discussing.
These comments by Winters are definitely from the hasbara handbook. Winters is probably sitting in Israel somewhere looking into a laptop, copying and pasting, perhaps with Anonymous assisting. Peter, do something about these bad, bad people.
The “Hasbara Handbook” explains many standard techniques of propaganda and deceptive rhetoric. It rehearses specific arguments and counter-arguments and outlines a program of training for advocacy and rebuttal. It also stresses the importance of labeling or “name-calling” – the linking of a person or idea to a negative symbol. The handbook places itself in a larger context. It commends the work of “CAMERA” – the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America – an organization notorious for the viciousness of its efforts to blacken the reputations of those who criticize Israel or advance accounts of events that deviate from the official Israeli narrative by branding them as “anti-Semitic” or “self-hating Jews.” It notes that CAMERA provides a free monthly magazine full of timely hasbara materials for Jewish students in the United States. A myriad of Israel-oriented think tanks provide similar guidance online, as do numerous websites in Israel itself.
I'm truly surprised it took you guys this long to pull out the "hasbara" and "paid shill". Usually it's deployed the second anyone criticizes Palestine. Part of the preprogrammed dehumanization of anyone who is pro-Israel that's standard for Palestine supporters. A lot easier to abuse and bully someone if they're not actually fully human.
That is pretty rich, even for you, to accuse me of "copying and pasting", since literally everything you post is a copy and paste from someone else, including your second paragraph, which is plagiarised from the Middle East Policy Council! What's with the hypocrisy, dude??
"Israel is faced with a hostile nation, Palestine, that has trained its people for generations at this point to hate Israel and Israelis and Jews. Its only aspiration in life is to wipe Israel off the map."
So now Palestine is a *nation*, like Israel? And a nation that has *life*, and an *aspiration* in that life? We understand "Palestine" as a geographic term. You purport to be enlightening readers here (largely people with a certain sophistication in their level of knowledge of Palestine and Israel) with your perspective that is better than our host's perspective, and yet you start off by talking about "Palestine" and making us try to infer just what you mean by that term from the contexts in which you use it.
Of course Palestine is a nation, that's what I said and unlike some people around here I say exactly what I meant. I recognize the existence of both the nation of Palestine and the state of Palestine (declared in 1988). You don't? Am I more pro-Palestinian than you? That would certainly be an ironic twist.
i'd imagine neighboring countries. I think it's only possible in the context of violence that escalates and continues for a while
I don't understand you seeming to ignore the history of modern Israel. Are you holding a too liberal point of view with regard to the Palestinians? Do you not remember that every time Israel gave up something to them, that the Palestinians promptly carried out attacks against Israel and its citizens? Are you blissfully unaware that the Palestinians have continually chanted "Death to the Israelis!" and "Drive them into the sea" since the nation was formed (and before!)? I'm sure you know that history, so I can't figure out your motivation or your viewpoint. I would love to hear a defense of your position.
Stop calling Israel a colonial regime and the PA a subcontractor…you see Mr Beinart your perspective is a western one that is condescending and alien to the region; before European ideas were introduced by colonial forces like England and France no one thought like you and everything was based on religion, tribe and clan…you, my lettered friend, think everyone thinks like you..THEY DO NOT…Jews are indigenous based on history, archaeology and communal tradition to this land and have always been there and aspired to return. The PA is at fault for not nurturing reconciliation, nation building and security. Stop being a social worker and start being a realist.
"Jews are indigenous based on history, archaeology and communal tradition to this land and have always been there and aspired to return."
Do you mean that all Jews are indigenous to this land? And conversely, that all the people indigenous to this land are Jews? How do you understand indigeneity? If a person's ancestors were all living in this land 2000 years ago, at which time they were all Jews, but later ancestors were all Christians and Muslims after conversion, does that mean that the person does not belong to a people indigenous to the land?
The Jewish nation is indigenous to the land. If ancestors convert and join other, foreign, nations and abandon their Jewish nationality, they can no longer claim indigenousness.
There are no absolutes; Jews as a communal and national group are indigenous which does not mean that every one living there now is. Most Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians have a rightful claim-I never said they did not-what is wrong is their beliefs that Jews do not have this same equally valid claim
Most Palestinians have always and continue to believe in your options 5 and 6. The reason there was no national infrastructure in 1967 territories when Israel defended itself from Jordanian and Egyptian aggression is because those respective areas were controlled by other states-notice how despite being created in 1964/65 no Palestinian nationalist group called for Jordanian and Egyptian expulsion and the creation of a Palestinian state in those areas…
Why does Peter Beinart insist on condescending ly infantilizing the PA and not holding them accountable; the whole idea behind Oslo was for them to make places like Jenin orderly and part of their civil catchment area…if they did that the IDF would not have to act alone. Mr Beinart feels he knows what’s best for the Palestinians-this is a typical form of intellectual colonialism and pandering. Face it: The PA and it’s corrupt, nepotistic and I democratic hierarchy is run like a crime family by a converted Jew who only cares about staying in power by feigning impotence in English and instructing his minions to glorify terrorists, stoke irredentism and spout anti demotic rhetoric in Arabic.
An interesting analysis of the appalling situation that the apartheid Zionist state of Israel is imposing on the Palestinian people. No doubt the Zionists who for some reason (guilt? Who knows?) hang around the comment threads here will reject the clarity of what you wrote and somehow blame Palestinians for having the temerity to live in Israel/Palestine.
Those of us around the world who want to see Palestinians allowed to return and live peacefully in their homeland must stay informed as to the malign intentions of violent Zionism and its followers who, as is miserably and painfully clear, will not stop until they have cleared Israel/Palestine of the last Palestinian. But the Palestinian movement is vigorous and popular, and it has right on its side.
Here in the UK, we can support the excellent and courageous work of Palestine Action which is successfully building local movements of direct action against the Israeli state-owned arms trade and its factories, such as Elbit Systems. The British state has responded by prosecuting these brave people, and they surely need our backing.
James, no one is "imposing" anything on the Palestinians. They are in a situation entirely of their own making through 80 years of terrorism, murder, and war crimes. No one is blaming them for "having the temerity to live in Israel/Palestine" but that kind of dishonest strawman is quite typical among Palestine supporters who are not able to approach this situation with any kind of intellectual honesty.
If you want to talk about malign intentions, let's talk about Palestine's. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Sound familiar? How about this nugget from Fatah's charter, the goal of "the eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence"?
If you want Palestinians to "live peacefully in Palestine", they're welcome to do so at any time. All they have to do is recognize Jewish people as their fellow human beings and sign on the dotted line. We're all waiting.
“ They are in a situation entirely of their own making through 80 years of terrorism, murder, and war crime.”
If that is the case, why is Israel so afraid of putting their case at the International Criminal Court. The Palestinians have no such fear.
“ If you want Palestinians to "live peacefully in Palestine", they're welcome to do so at any time.”
All Palestinians have to do is let Jewish settlers aided and abetted by Israel, to continue to steal their land, to evict them from their homes, to treat them like animals.
"If that is the case, why is Israel so afraid of putting their case at the International Criminal Court"
It is the case, and the decisions of the Israeli government in regards to unelected officials in Brussels have nothing to do with whether or not it is the case.
"All Palestinians have to do is let Jewish settlers aided and abetted by Israel, to continue to steal their land, to evict them from their homes, to treat them like animals."
In a peaceful 2SS like the ones Israel has offered Palestine multiple times, the EEEVIL settlers will either be in Israel and away from the poor innocent blameless Palestinians or under the control of the the Palestinian government so the Palestinians can enforce their laws and stop the settlers' bad behavior themselves. Either way, those things you mentioned won't happen. If you actually didn't like settler violence (I know you really do like it, because it makes Palestinians victims), you'd want peace just as much as I do.
You should stick with copying and pasting plagiarised material, Sean. Your own thoughts aren't very substantive.
I am proud to copy and paste the writings of Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Robert Herbst, Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, Peter Beinart, and many more righteous Jews, because with those writers one will always read the truth about Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.
"Here in Israel your hands are dirty, and if you are not actively fighting against the occupation, you are supporting the occupation. Period." Ayelet Waldman & Michael Chabon."
Winters, your hands are dirty.
Ah, so when YOU copy and paste things, that's fine. But when I post my own thoughts and views, that makes me "hasbara." Got it. Thanks for explaining it to me.
And then here we go, yet another copy and paste, and this time it's the the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality, followed by a personal attack. The favorite viewpoint of bullies and tyrants everywhere. Of course, the same logic doesn't apply to Palestinian terror and murder, right? If you're not actively fighting it, then you're against it?
Are you actively fighting Palestinian murder and terrorism, Sean?
Wouldn't you know all about bullies & tyrants, aren't there many of them in Israel? Over half a century of bullying Palestinians and when they resist you call them terrorists.
For a long time, Zionists have been propagating fear based propaganda to their followers. It's misleading and unfair to focus on what Palestinians might allegedly do in the future, while the past and present of Palestinians are filled with Israeli war crimes. These types of accusations are meant to deflect and confuse the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The core issues of the conflict are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING (compulsory population transfer) of the Palestinian people for the past 7+ decades. It should be emphasized that the conflict would have been at the same level of intensity, even if both warring parties had been Muslims, Christians, or even Jewish.
Since the inception of Zionism, its leaders have been keen on creating a "Jewish State" based on a "Jewish majority" by mass immigration of Jews to Palestine, primarily European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." Year after year, the plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution". David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated the "transfer solution" as the following:
In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th, 1938:
"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement].... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it."
"If you want to talk about malign intentions, let's talk about Palestine's. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Sound familiar? "
Yes, I've heard it at many rallies. You are showing that you have misunderstood it. To Palestinians and their allies, "Palestine" is a geographic term, referring to the land delineated by the boundaries of the former Palestine Mandate. So talk of Palestine's "intentions", malign or otherwise, doesn't even make sense. The literal meaning of the slogan is that, unlike in the present, all of the land in question will be free some time in the future.
If Palestine is a geographic term, then the phrase makes no sense. Land isn't people, so land can't be "free." Unless they're talking about selling it for no cost, which seems just a little bit unlikely.
Everyone here knows what that phrase means. You can't try to mansplain something different. We all know Palestinians and their allies want Israel gone and an Arab Muslim state from the river to the sea. That's what the polls say. That's what the leadership says. That's what the phrase means. You will never be able to convince anyone of anything different, so don't even bother to try. The only person here "misunderstanding" the phrase is you.
Any thoughts on the Fatah charter quote, about a goal being "the eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence"? Care to mansplain away that one?
"If you want to talk about malign intentions, let's talk about Palestine's. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Sound familiar?"
Ever heard of the "OLD TESTAMENT? Yahweh mapped out the boundaries of the promised land, Zion, and it gave to his special few, the chosen people, the Jews. Genesis 12:7, 15:18-21, 28: 13, etc.
Exodus 23:31 is more specific and pertinent in this argument as it describes the borders as marked by the Red Sea and the River Euphrates.
Is this testament OLD or the promise still holds? It's in the Jewish "Holy Book."
Ever heard of whataboutery? I'm far more interested in what Palestinians and their supporters are chanting today than what was written down thousands of years ago.
"written down thousands of years ago."
Then what claim as a Jew [if you're one, have my doubts] you got on Zion?
I'll answer your question once you acknowledge my point that Palestinians do not want peace with Israel.
Debatable. Put it this way: Jews and Arabs lived in harmony before the advent of Zionism.
Your comment about Israel having expulsion in its DNA is not only Anti Zionist but feeds into the meme in the Arab world of the expansionist and evil “ Jews.” Also, Israel accepted partition in 1948 and where not the ones who closed off The Strait of Tiran and fought as a coalition to throw the Jews in the Sea…Apartheid is also faulty and inappropriate in your thesis…Arab citizens of Israel vote and serve in the Knesset and receive state based civic services and benefits. Further Jews are indigenous to this land while White Europeans were never indigenous to South Africa
Peter's full "comment about Israel having expulsion in its DNA" is this: "Of course, Israel has in its political DNA this history of a mass expulsion at its founding, and another mass expulsion that people don’t talk about so much in 1967, and smaller scale expulsions kind of in-between."
Is there anything in there that isn't true? Or is your objection that he shouldn't make factual statements that are "Anti Zionist"?
Expulsion must be viewed in its proper historical context; yes a segment of the Palestinians was expelled during these periods as a result of their refusal to accept partition and inter communal violence …ignoring the context and related Mizrachi Jewish riots and expulsions/fleeing is selectively viewing history…Anti Zionism is simply the belief that Israel should not take its rightful place among the worlds nations and is often (not always) a tool of anti semites and chauvinistic salafists or political ideologies. Zionism is nothing more than the political articulation of our 2,000 year desire to return to our ancient nation state as a polity. By the way rejecting it and being a political apologist for the PA is naïve at best and a cynical weak collaborator at worst. The Satmar have embraced the Palestinian cause based on their own naïveté and desire to preserve their religious based “cult.”
Also, you mention Gaza …where are the settlements and lack of a governing authority there…it just goes to show how faulty your logic is; even when there are no Jews and a group controls the territory no reconciliation or peace is possible. By the way you using a Jewish term to describe the celebration of the martyrdom of a “ Shahid(a)” just illustrates your ignorance and ethnocentrism …how would you like it if they called Baruch Goldstein a “ Shahid”?
Spot on! New piece in The Nation today making the same case:
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/masafer-yatta-destruction-palestine-israel/?fbclid=IwAR0mBKVFc-BVlbQMJIfMwBDvFlbFDw93-1RSqW1DCXToNjIrJjKVEKBYfDw
Such an important and timely discussion. In the meantime, we deal on the ground within the Theater of Absurd:
https://sbahour.medium.com/my-clown-is-in-an-israeli-prison-again-2219690a866e?sk=19625ad412fb14f7bbca31c710687a0b
"The indoctrination of Jewish communities everywhere has become part of the problem."
Careful, Sam. You're supposed to say "Zionist". The black heart is being revealed again.
No, in this context, "Jewish" makes more sense than "Zionist". Sam is talking about Zionist indoctrination in Jewish communities specifically. The difference with Zionist indoctrination in non-Jewish communities is that those communities are not indoctrinated with the idea that the state of Israel acts in their name.
So you agree with him that Jewish communities everywhere are being indoctrinated with evil Zionist ideologies?
Biden should at least not invite Netanyahu to Washington given he can't do much else
Joe Biden is more likely to congratulate Netanyahu on being a strong and decisive leader.
Inshallah.
Israeli Jews and Israeli Druze voters are pushed rightward due to 75 years of non acceptance, idiotic and faulty rhetoric like yours and terror. The Naqba was for the most part caused by Arab aggression and religious and ethnocentric intolerance and chauvinism. What is unthinkable is how you pander to Arabs and hold Israel to a Roberts Rules standard in the Middle East…NO AMOUNT OF SURRENDER AND COLLABORATION WILL MAKE THE PALESTINIAN STREET ACCEPT YOU…WAKE UP AND DEMAND RESPECT THROUGH ACCOUNTABILITY AND STRENGTH
"The Naqba was for the most part caused by Arab aggression and religious and ethnocentric intolerance and chauvinism."
Oh really, it was the Palestinians' own fault? Not caused by, say, Jewish aggression and religious and ethnocentric intolerance and chauvinism? I look forward to reading your book where you develop this thesis.
You should check out this poll of Palestinians from the Palestinian Center of Survey and Research.
https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/940
"On the occasion of the Nakba, the overwhelming majority places the blame for it on non-Palestinian parties while only 7% believe that the weakness of the Palestinian people is primarily responsible. The "weak and conspiratorial Arab role" comes first with 38%, followed by the British Mandate with 36%, and Zionist organizations and movements with 16%."
Only 16% of Palestinians blame Zionists (or as you would say, Jewish aggression and ethnocentric intolerance and chauvinism) for the Nakba. The vast majority blame other Arabs and the British. Very few, of course, take personal responsibility for their own fate, no surprise there.
The Jewish state of Israel accepted partition and those opposed (Irgun) were violently incorporated into IDF and the new communal and political infrastructure. Is it chauvinistic to demand equality among the worlds nations. Is it wrong to defend yourself or should we have all gone directly to the sea or ovens…I don’t need to write a book to know what was right and wrong. In any inter communal struggle their is chauvinism and there will be instances of aggression…you and your type holding Jews to a different standard are either stuck in a ghetto mentality or hopelessly unrealistic…if you attack me and I decide to expel you for my national aspirations you are partially if not mostly to blame
I honestly think that all European and American Jews should be expelled from PALESTINE, especially Americans.
Americans, both Jews and non-J, save for a few level headed like Peter, have emboldened the purported victims of the Holocaust by funding them and supplying them with weapons to steal land and kill the poor, benighted and dark Arabs.
So religious, yet so callous. Thank god I'm atheist.
I hope that day comes.
Thank you so much for saying what Peter and his supporters are all really thinking. It's greatly appreciated, especially the line about the "purported victims of the Holocaust." Peter's readership love to wrap themselves in a warm blanket of smug moral superiority, it's refreshing to see the black heart hiding underneath that blanket.
I also thought the "dark Arabs" was pretty telling.
It's incredible because we know Beinart reads and responds to the comments of his Substack articles and yet he never has anything to say about comments like this. And yet he wonders why he is accused of anti-Semitism so often.
24 hours later, no condemnations or even commentary from Peter, Sean, Rebecca, Paul, and the rest. What's that phrase again? "Silence is complicity"?
What commentary or condemnation are you looking for?
Your thoughts on USofW's statement above that "all European and American Jews should be expelled from PALESTINE, especially Americans" and that "Americans, both Jews and non-J, save for a few level headed like Peter, have emboldened the purported victims of the Holocaust by funding them and supplying them with weapons to steal land and kill the poor, benighted and dark Arabs."
Have your delicate eyes not come across that POV in print from Palestinian sympathizers before? It’s the Israel/Palestine conflict—it’s partisans regularly say harsh and uncharitable things about the other side. Reread some of your own posts, for example.
I read USoW’s opening salvo as a somewhat emotionally-wrought and mean-spirited response to the subject of the article, namely the prospects of unjust forced Arab expulsions from Palestine—as if to say “oh yeah? Well, it oughta be the non-native Jews who get expelled instead!”
Okay, it’s someone’s opinion. Substack is a pro-free speech platform. Why is anyone other than the poster morally accountable for it?
The second point, which I read as being about how Americans have actively facilitated Israel’s dispossession of Palestinians out of some sort of reparations regime for Holocaust victims and motivated in part by an inherent anti-Arab racism, is another opinion. It’s one that I think has considerable merit, although I would not have phrased it the way he did. But what of it? Did you read it differently?
You're welcome!
Just to be clear not "what they're thinking", it's what some vehemently believe and hope for.
*See Holocaust Industry, Fienkelstein for "purported victims."
Stunningly, Gaza is so outside your mind and worldview now that it never even merited a mention as one of the territories occupied in 1967. This also means you missed out on one of the major options left to Israel for the populated Palestinian areas of the West Bank--Gazification: Ghettoize, besiege and throw away the key for decades. Similar to the model that has been applied to the neighborhoods behind the wall in Jerusalem as well. Isn't it more likely that the Jenin op is laying the groundwork for this fate for these West Bank cities?
Great points. I agree with that as a more likely policy trajectory than mass forced transfers that would suffer from the unavoidably disastrous political optics for Israel.
Areas A&B would evolve into smaller isolated Gazastans in the W/B around population centers, each with their own sealed security perimeter, and annexation and civilian control everywhere else. Although most observers would probably use the word “Bantustan” drawing obvious South Africa parallels.
But one figures the RW Israeli govt would believe that the frog could be boiled slowly enough to avoid anything like the images of masses of human beings being herded to the borders that would be politically ruinous.