Trending Topics:

A Palestinian state has always been a fiction for Zionists

on 45 Comments

From the Israeli leadership perspective, a Palestinian state in any true capacity has always been a ‘Never-Never Land’ that should remain in the realms of fiction. When Israel and the Palestinians embarked upon the famous ‘peace process’ in Madrid in 1991, Prime Minister Itzhak Shamir coined the ‘teaspoon policy’: endless negotiating sessions at which countless teaspoons amounting to mountains of sugar would be stirred into oceans of tea and coffee, but no agreement would ever be reached. For Israel, with or without a ‘peace process’, this continues to be policy: the more it draws out the time, the more opportunity it gets to annex, the more it shrinks Palestinian enclaves into Bantustans and open air prisons.

Israel has no intention of realising a real Palestinian state, and it never had.

Let me review the history. Israel took over four-fifths of historical Palestine in 1948 and ethnically cleansed five-sixths of the Palestinian population therein, and then 19 years later it ‘completed the job’ territorially, ethnically cleansing another roughly 250,000 Palestinians as well as over 100,000 Syrians. So in 1967, Israel was left with a ‘greater Israel’ territorially – yet it had now further taken under its control roughly the same number of Palestinians it had expelled in 1948. 

Thus the ‘Palestinian demographic problem’ was not solved.

The preferred option for Israelis was to forget Palestine altogether. Prime Minister Golda Meir said that Palestinians didn’t exist, and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan said that “there is no more Palestine – finished.” But that was wishful thinking on behalf of the Zionists. Palestinians were not completely ‘finished off’, and even if Israel wanted to provide itself the genocidal prospect of erasing them conceptually, it had to continue its campaigns to make them shrink demographically.

So this time, 1967, Israel would be cautious not to annex the conquered territory, as it would entail a large Palestinian population. While saving the option for slow-motion ethnic cleansing, Israel had to make sure that the ‘limbo’ territory under the status of ‘belligerent occupation’ would not be claimed by anyone, to challenge Israel’s effective sovereignty. In the 1948 paradigm, the ‘existential threat’ to the Jewish State was related to the demographic issue of the refugees, and denial of their return was essential to avert this ‘threat’. In 1967 nonetheless, the ‘existential threat’ tripled: not just the refugees, but the new ‘demographic problem’, as well as the need to avoid future ‘foreign’ claim to the territory.

Israel sought to solve the territorial issue by settlement – creating ‘facts on the ground’. Such ‘facts’ also facilitate the eviction of the population, on claims of ‘security’ (although nowadays outright theft of Palestinian land via Israeli law does not seem to require the ‘security’ alibi at all).

The Palestinian PLO position before the mid-1970’s was comfortable for Israel, in that it sought a liberation of the whole of historical Palestine, and Israel could claim it was an untenable zero-sum claim, which it would fight as a wholesale existential threat. But in mid-1970’s, the PLO was making steps which very seriously approximated the international consensus on Israeli withdrawal to June 4, 1967 lines, proposing a Palestinian state within the remaining 22% of historical Palestine.

Israel thus stepped up its belligerence to avert this Palestinian ‘peace offensive’ as Israeli strategic analyst Avner Yaniv called it (see 1981-2 Fez plan). The averting of this ‘peace offensive’ meant of course Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, in an attempt to destroy the PLO’s political power (the PLO leadership was exiled in Lebanon). From the next exile in Tunisia, PLO leader Yasser Arafat came to Geneva in 1988 for a special UN gathering, due to the USA’s refusal to grant him an entry visa. There he spoke and said that

“The PLO will seek a comprehensive settlement among the parties concerned in the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the State of Palestine, Israel, and other neighbors, within the framework of the international conference for peace in the Middle East on the basis of resolutions 242 and 338 and so as to guarantee equality and the balance of interests, especially our people’s rights, in freedom, national independence, and respect the right to exist in peace and security for all.” 

No one was expecting Israel to agree to this without pressure, as it would destroy its plans for the takeover of entire historical Palestine. The 1st Intifada was already on its way, a predominantly unarmed civil uprising– met with bone-breaking policy by Defense minister Yitzhak Rabin. But the popular resistance was not quashed, and continued into the 1990’s.

Israel was beginning to appear as the rejectionist, and so a semblance of willingness to ‘negotiate’ had to be provided.

Thus Israel and the Palestinians embarked upon the famous ‘peace process’ which started in Madrid in 1991, hence Shamir’s mentioned ‘teaspoon policy’. Although many around the world thought that the Oslo accords (1993 and 1995) meant a Palestinian state, even Rabin, just before his assassination in 1995, assured the Knesset that it would be “less than a state”. The ‘temporary’ Oslo division of the West Bank, appropriating Israel more than 60% full control of the West Bank, became permanent, and a means to assure that whatever Palestinians would eventually get, their lands would effectively be a set of Bantustans, with Israel controlling them from all sides.

While portraying the ‘conflict’ as the competing claims to the land of two sides, Israel maintains the powerful position in all aspects, demanding that Palestinians remain surrounded and disempowered even after an ‘agreement’ is reached.

The illusion of the Palestinian Never-Never Land is maintained not only by denial of Palestinian statehood, but also by the denial of the colonialist paradigm that governs the Zionist venture, hence the Jewish State. Denial of this paradigm aids in the creation of the illusion of the ‘two more-or-less-equal parties’, and suggests that this is a mere territorial dispute that can be likened to Israel vis-á-vis Egypt, over the Sinai. But this is not a dispute between two states. It is a matter of colonialist control by a one state, over a disempowered native population.

The Palestinian state does not arrive, because Israel doesn’t intend, and never has intended, for the Palestinian dream to come true, as pragmatically tailored as it has become. Palestine is anathema to Zionism, and this is why Israel will not recognize Palestine. It will pay lip service to political correctness and go as far as saying ‘Palestinian authority’ and ‘Palestinians’ as long as they are committed to Bantustans – but it will not go beyond that.

So the left Zionist Union leader Herzog provides us with a 10-point plan, which entails a 10-year ‘waiting period’ for that dreamed-of Palestinian state– only after which ‘negotiations’ may begin. He ends his presentation saying:

“This is how we’ll save the settlement blocs and keep them under Israel’s sovereignty. It will be Zionism’s real victory. A new reality of security and mutual trust will ultimately forge a peace process and prevent disaster.”

Journalist Gideon Levy suggests an 11th point, to perfect the plan:

“The parties should announce a 10-year period during which Isaac Herzog will remain in a cage. During this time, they will move toward realizing the two-state vision. At the same time, the economic development of the cage will be accelerated dramatically, among other things through regional and international assistance. Pieces of bread will be thrown into Herzog’s cage from time to time, and over the years the addition of various spreads will be considered. The parties will work to renovate the cage, including building a seesaw (subject to strict security arrangements). If his behavior conforms to expectations, Herzog will be entitled to declare his cage a state with temporary borders. At the end of the 10-year period (if Herzog is still alive), and on condition that he has behaved properly, the jailors will begin direct negotiations with the cage’s occupant, backed by the countries of the region and the international community, with no preconditions, as equals, seriously and resolutely, while moving toward a full and final peace agreement.”   

The liberal Zionists seem to love these sorts of dreams more, whilst the rightists irritate them by being more unabashed about annexation and injuring Israel’s global image. Theodor Herzl’s “if you will it, it is no dream” (the famous claim ending his 1902 novel Altneuland), means that Palestine and a Palestinian state must remain in the realms of fiction. Palestine must remain a fairy-tale, whilst Jews return to the promised land.

Who cares if it’s a legend. What matters is only if we, the Jews, wish it to be true. As to Palestinian wishes – their wishes are consigned to Never-Never Land.  


Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

45 Responses

  1. Maghlawatan on March 5, 2017, 1:15 pm

    The Zionists though the Holocaust meant they could do whatever they wanted forever. and they believed that they were superior beings to the Palestinians. And that pauperisation would drive them out of Eretz Israel hashlemah. And that 1967 was a messianic sign. And that the US Jews would provide the political cover. And that out of sight equals out of mind.

    They built based on these beliefs.
    And now they have apartheid.

    “Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain”

    • JLewisDickerson on March 6, 2017, 8:55 pm

      Largest Oil discovery in US – Due to Trump blessing Israel?

    • aloeste on March 6, 2017, 11:12 pm

      yawn. will see on 28 iyar , 2067 for the 100th anniversary celebration of liberated jerusalem….

      • eljay on March 8, 2017, 7:22 am

        || aloeste: yawn. will see on 28 iyar , 2067 for the 100th anniversary celebration of liberated jerusalem…. ||

        Where “liberated” = “militarily occupied and colonized by the religion-supremacist ‘Jewish State’ of Israel”. You Zionists have a strange way with words.

        Anyway, it’s a shame you won’t be around to celebrate the 1000th anniversary of the “Jewish State”. I’m sure it’ll be a swell party.

      • Maghlawatan on March 8, 2017, 3:46 pm

        Bukra fi mishmish

      • on August 14, 2017, 6:05 am

        The 1000 year Reich. Where else have we seen that?

      • eljay on August 14, 2017, 8:23 am

        || Paranam Kid: @eljay
        The 1000 year Reich. Where else have we seen that? ||

        In a different group of overly-confident supremacists.

        It wouldn’t surprise me to know that the ISIL boyz are similarly cocky about their Thousand Year state.

        Birds of a hateful and immoral feather…

  2. Citizen on March 5, 2017, 1:41 pm

    Seems clear the Palestinian people are entirely expendable to Trump. His guru, Jared Kushner has looked at “how the pieces fit together” in the Middle East. The strategy is a US/Greater Israeli/Sunni Arab States coalition vs. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas.

  3. HarryLaw on March 5, 2017, 2:53 pm

    “Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population.
    Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach”. This from Jabotinsky’s ‘Iron Wall’ [1923]. Netanyahu has said recently that Israel will forever live by the sword, he has also said there will not be a Palestinian state on his watch.
    Naftali Bennett has said the most Palestinians can expect is to administer areas A and B [without sovereignty], and if they refuse, then they can be compelled to.
    The number of Palestinians West of the Jordan river is approx 50/50 with people of Jewish origin. The Israeli government do not want to annex the West Bank prematurely, [being more than happy to occupy the land whilst claiming sovereignty and building more facts on the ground]. The Israelis are heading toward full blown Apartheid but don’t seem to care, they don’t care because they think whatever they do the ‘West’ will give them a pass. They can be excused that assumption because almost 50 years of Israeli war crimes has only been met with severe sanctions such as ‘This is unhelpful’. They also assume [not incorrectly] that Saudi Arabia and the other GCC countries will throw the Palestinians under the bus when it comes to aligning with Israel to counteract the Iranian “threat”. If Netanyahu’s promise of living forever by the sword is true, and it has to be accepted that some problems can never be solved short of war, and since the Palestinians on their own cannot physically defeat Israel, a larger and more formidable foe in the shape of the ‘arc’ of resistance is looming ahead, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah are growing in strength every day. That is why Iran is Israel’s number one target. Iran a nation of 80 million people, fiercely independent, self sufficient in arms manufacturing and rich in oil and gas, it supplies Hezbollah with state of the art missiles [with GPS] and more than the where with all to lay waste to Israel’s vital infrastructure situated mainly within the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. In fact Hezbollah alone could do that, Nasrallah has also threatened to destroy the Dimona nuclear site. Are the Israelis foolish enough to try to implement the ‘Land of Israel’ Zionist dream or will they come to their senses and recognize Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank including East Jerusalem.I am not holding my breath. By the way, how is the PA [slam dunk]complaint to the ICC proceeding, last I heard was it could take 12 years.

  4. ET on March 5, 2017, 4:18 pm

    Why Israel_Palestine Peace eludes all concerned parties:
    I Delusional: Advocate War Criminal Enterprise of unlawful means to unlawful objective *blueline single-state
    1 State of Palestine war criminal enterprise advocates for “historic Palestine” of dissolving sovereignty of State of Israel
    2 State of Israel War Criminal Advocates for “ertez Israel” of dissolving sovereignty of UNGA State of Palestine
    3 Parties delusionally premise that they can disregard, circumvent, or breach International Law
    3.1 UN Trusteeship Agreement of November 29th, 1947 General Assembly Resolution 181
    3.2 & all UN Resolutions addressing the context of Israel-Palestine Conflict
    4 UN Charter obligations
    II Naive or ignorant: Erroneously premise Israel_Palestine Conflict is Civil War with one party attempting secession from the other
    1 Palestinians who have adopted the Sionist Fraud of “1967 Borders” chop out their own feet while claiming Sionists shall provision statehood
    1.1 Palestinians claiming National Rights while simultaneously rejecting the International Law that provisions those National Rights of sovereignty & sovereign powers UNGA 181, UNSC 242, UNGA 3236, A/RES/43/177, A/RES/67/19, & LOAC I_973 Geneva
    2 Israelis who introduced Sionist Fraud of “1967 Borders” at 2000 Camp David purposed War Criminal Enterprise of unlawful object through lawful means of negotiations
    3 Parties premise to disregard International Law fact of UN Trusteeship Agreement of November 29th, 1947 General Assembly Resolution 181, & corollary of UNGA 273, UNSC 242, UNGA 3236, A/RES/43/177 & A/RES/67/19
    4 Sionist Fraud of “1967 Borders”
    III Dangerously stupid: “Bi-national single-state”
    1 Palestinians who premise that its been civil war to merge two separate sovereignty into a single-sovereignty
    1.1 Disavow the martyrs, Palestinian human suffering, & resistance of 70 years of Nakba, 53 years of PLO efforts, 50 years of Naksa, 1st Intifada & 2nd Inifada, 30 years of Islamic Jihad & Hamas, constructing the PA because its personally convenient to to do so
    1.2 These Palestinians pursue policide: Slicing own throats of Palestinian polity
    2 Israelis who premise that State of Israel can annex sovereignty of territory of UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries, Arab State
    3 Reiterate, Parties premise to disregard, circumvent, or breach International Law
    3.1 UN Chartered Roadmap of Trusteeship Agreement of November 29th, 1947 General Assembly Resolution 181;
    3.2 Laws of Armed Conflict: I_973 Geneva Article 49 National Rights
    3.3 Vienna Convention on Laws of Treaties, Article 53 jus cogens, vis-a-vis multilateral’s of UN Charter & LOAC
    4 Premised outcome is de facto ethnic cleansing
    IV Realists: Premise to affirm International Law
    1 UNGA 181 is in effect
    2 UNSC 242 & LOAC I_973 Geneva Compliance negotiations
    2.1 Limited to State of Israel transfer of political administration to a Government of UNGA 181 State of Palestine
    2.2 Non-Issues for negotiations
    2.2.1 Borders: Respective sovereignty is defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries
    2.2.2 City of Jerusalem is UN Sovereignty: UNGA 181 Part III
    2.2.3 UNGA 194 Right-of-Return
    3 Israel_Palestine Agreement shall be qualified by Vienna Convention on Laws of Treaties, Article 53 jus cogens, or be inviable from the get go
    4 International Law Documents

  5. Maghlawatan on March 5, 2017, 4:35 pm

    This video is fabulous

    Never again for anyone from maybe 2012

    And the music is the gladiator theme “now we are free” by Lisa Gerrard

  6. Maghlawatan on March 5, 2017, 4:42 pm

    While Zionist Jews in the military destroyed the spatial arrangements that would have made a Palestinian state possible, key Zionist Jews in the media spun the lies.

    In the New York Review the arguments don’t even reach flimsy. Johnny Freedland in the Guardian. The arguments are pathetic .
    The issue is very clear. Elites framing the debate.
    Only Zionist Jews can be relied on to stop any info getting out.
    Bourdieu “It’s critical to ‘frame’ or describe the problem in a way which leads ‘naturally’ and ‘inevitably’ to the conclusions one is seeking to implant, and thus to the real world outcome which one wants. ”

    • JLewisDickerson on March 6, 2017, 4:10 pm

      Jonathan Freedland will be the death of The (Manchester) Guardian (once one of the truly great U.K. newspapers).
      Zionists kill everything they trouch!
      It just comes naturally to them.

      • JLewisDickerson on March 6, 2017, 4:22 pm

        I. F. Stone he (i.e., Jonathan Freedland*) most certainly is not!!!

        * Can you say narcissist? Sure you can!

      • JLewisDickerson on March 6, 2017, 4:34 pm

        RE: “trouch!” ~ moi (from above)

        MY COMMENT: Where the hell did that ‘r’ come from? I didn’t type that!
        Nice work Mossad/Unit 8200, but payback’s gonna be a real bitch ! ! !

      • John O on March 6, 2017, 5:17 pm

        I think Freedland has been demoted since Katharine Viner (who co-wrote “My name is Rachel Corrie” with Alan Rickman) has been the paper’s editor. He was the editor of the op-ed pages; now he has one column and one online piece a week.

      • JLewisDickerson on March 6, 2017, 6:29 pm

        Thanks for the update. I really haven’t kept up with recent developments.
        I suppose I should ease up on Freedland. I agree with him on almost everything except Likudnik Israel.

      • oldgeezer on March 6, 2017, 7:20 pm


        These days freedland is just a contributing op ed contributor.

        That said the paper hasn’t improved since he left his position at the paper. It is still propaganda all the time. They haven’t met an arab country the don’t want to smash regardless of the millions of lives destroyed and lost.

        (Wahhabist sunni states not included. Yet.)

  7. Kay24 on March 6, 2017, 2:26 am

    So that cigar smoking, pink champagne drinking war criminal, is going to get another grilling from the Israeli police.

    “Netanyahu Faces Fourth Grilling by Police on Monday
    The prime minister will likely be asked about answers his wife, Sara, provided to police which a source says conflict with versions he has provided.
    read more:

  8. wondering jew on March 6, 2017, 10:54 am

    Shamir, whose picture is featured here, is indeed the embodiment of resistance to withdrawal from the west bank. Is yossi Beilin a zionist? Most assuredly yes. Yet he is in favor of a Palestinian state. But he has never been prime minister nor was his point of view ever nearly popular enough to move the political map or envelope in his direction. Herzog is running for office trying to convince voters that he won’t give away the store. In fact most Israeli jews, by a wide margin, would object to beilin’s plan.

  9. Ossinev on March 6, 2017, 2:22 pm

    It is apt that the article highlights the role of Shamir an openly racist murdering thug ie excellent Zioland Prime Minister material. I am eternally surprised that Sweden has not introduced a permanent bar to Israelis coming to their land in view of the Shamir orchestration of the callous murder of Count Bernadotte. Shamir was lauded as a hero , became PM of Zioland and is still hero worshipped to this day by Zios;

    The Zios have never really apologised for what they did. The nearest to an”apology” I can find is from the late ” great ” hypocrite Peres who expressed his”regret that Bernadotte was murdered in a terrorist way” FFS !! ” In a terrorist way ” – in Ziospeak and in Zio Never Neverland such a crap statement is the norm. Of course he couldn`t state the blindingly obvious that he was murdered by terrorists because Zioshits like the members of Lehi were not actually “terrorists” but “resistance fighters” (Israeli Jews are apparently genetically incapable of any form of terrorism ) and they were rewarded for their “heroic resistance” efforts when Shamir got the top job in Zioland. And even the “saintly peacemaker” Peres couldn`t spell that out to the eternally victimised Zio masses for fear of losing his various nice little earners..

  10. JLewisDickerson on March 6, 2017, 3:02 pm

    RE: “When Israel and the Palestinians embarked upon the famous ‘peace process’ in Madrid in 1991, Prime Minister Itzhak Shamir coined the ‘teaspoon policy’: endless negotiating sessions at which countless teaspoons amounting to mountains of sugar would be stirred into oceans of tea and coffee, but no agreement would ever be reached.” ~ Ofir

    MY COMMENT: Sometimes a PHOTO truly is worth a thousand words (or perhaps even a billion) ! ! !


    • JLewisDickerson on March 6, 2017, 3:25 pm

      RE: “HIS DESPICABLE PROTOGEGE” ~ moi (from above)

      SEE: “EXCLUSIVE Netanyahu offered opposition leader to push together for regional peace initiative – and then backtracked” | By Barak Ravid | | Mar 05, 2017
      Netanyahu and Herzog reached dramatic understandings six months ago; a joint declaration in Cairo, including readiness for territorial compromise and curb on settlement building, was set to be followed with announcement of unity government. But Amona crisis crashed talks.
      LINK –
      read more:

    • JLewisDickerson on March 8, 2017, 3:50 pm

      P.S. THAT PHOTO, I should have pointed out, was taken during the famous ‘peace process’ in Madrid in 1991. Shamir had pretty much put his protege Netanyau in charge of the Israeli delegation.

    • JLewisDickerson on March 9, 2017, 3:00 am

      P.P.S. You will recall that it was Netanyahu’s mentor, the terrorist Itzhak Shamir, who (as the leader of Lehi) in 1948 ordered the murder/assassination of Sweden’s Folke Bernadotte.

      Folke Bernadotte
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia –

      [EXCERPT] Folke Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg (Swedish: Greve af Wisborg; 2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish diplomat and nobleman. During World War II he negotiated the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps including 450 Danish Jews from the Theresienstadt camp. They were released on 14 April 1945.[1][2][3] In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from Heinrich Himmler, though the offer was ultimately rejected.

      After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict of 1947–1948. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the militant Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. Upon his death, Ralph Bunche took up his work at the UN, but was removed from the post around six months after Bernadotte was assassinated, at the critical period of recognition of the fledgling state. . . SOURCE –

      Lehi (group)
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia –

      [EXCERPT] Lehi (Hebrew pronunciation: [ˈleχi]; Hebrew: לח”י – לוחמי חרות ישראל‎‎ Lohamei Herut Israel – Lehi, “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel – Lehi”), often known pejoratively as the Stern Gang,[9][10][11][12] was a Zionist paramilitary organization founded by Avraham (“Yair”) Stern in Mandatory Palestine.[13][14] Its avowed aim was to evict the British authorities from Palestine by resort to force, allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state, a “new totalitarian Hebrew republic”.[15] It was initially called the National Military Organization in Israel,[1] upon being founded in August 1940, but was renamed Lehi one month later.[16] It defined itself as a terrorist group.[17][18]

      Lehi split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the British during World War II. Lehi initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine.[2] Believing that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis.[2] During World War II, it declared that it would establish a Jewish state based upon “nationalist and totalitarian principles”.[2][19] After Stern’s death in 1942, the new leadership of Lehi began to move it towards support for Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union.[1] In 1944, Lehi officially declared its support for National Bolshevism.[6] It said that its National Bolshevism involved an amalgamation of left-wing and right-wing political elements – Stern said Lehi incorporated elements of both the left and the right[2] – however this change was unpopular and Lehi began to lose support as a result.[20]

      Lehi and the Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin. Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine.[21] On 29 May 1948, the government of Israel, having inducted its activist members into the Israel Defense Forces, formally disbanded Lehi, though some of its members carried out one more terrorist act, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte some months later,[22] an act condemned by Bernadotte’s replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche.[23] After the assassination, the new Israeli government declared Lehi a terrorist organization, arresting and convicting some 200 members.[24] Just before the first Israeli elections,[24] a general amnesty to Lehi members was granted by the government, on 14 February 1949. In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration, an “award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel”, the Lehi ribbon.[25] Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983. . .

      • Maghlawatan on March 9, 2017, 12:41 pm

        They have assassinated so many people in their landlust . But it doesn’t matter. BDS scares the shit out of Zionists.

  11. just on March 6, 2017, 4:35 pm

    Another fabulous (if terribly sad and gut- wrenching) article, Jonathan. Thank you for laying it out so well and for including Gideon Levy’s eleventh point. His was, as usual, a good opinion piece. This is another article of y ours that I will send to the willfully and seemingly blissfully blinkered people that I know~ the ones that sip/smoke/absorb Ziocaine and still believe the propaganda of and for Israel.

    Some of them can even read. Whether they will is another question, of course.

  12. JLewisDickerson on March 6, 2017, 5:52 pm

    RE: “[I]n mid-1970’s, the PLO was making steps which very seriously approximated the international consensus on Israeli withdrawal to June 4, 1967 lines, proposing a Palestinian state within the remaining 22% of historical Palestine. Israel thus stepped up its belligerence to avert this Palestinian ‘peace offensive’ as Israeli strategic analyst Avner Yaniv called it (see 1981-2 Fez plan). The averting of this ‘peace offensive’ meant of course Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 . . .” ~ Ofir

    YOU’RE ‘ON’, URI: “The War of Lies”, by Uri Avnery, 09/06/12

    [EXCERPTS] Thirty Years ago this week, the Israeli army crossed into Lebanon and started the most stupid war in Israel’s history. It lasted for 18 years. About 1500 Israeli soldiers and untold numbers of Lebanese and Palestinians were killed.

    Almost all wars are based on lies. Lies are considered legitimate instruments of war. Lebanon War I (as it was later called) was a glorious example.

    From beginning to end (if it has ended yet) it was a war of deceit and deception, falsehoods and fabrications.

    THE LIES started with the official name: “Operation Peace in Galilee”.

    If one asks Israelis now, 99.99% of them will say with all sincerity: “We had no choice. They launched katyushas at the Galilee from Lebanon every day. We had to stop them.” TV anchormen and anchorwomen, as well as former cabinet ministers have been repeating this throughout the week. Quite sincerely. Even people who were already adults at the time.

    The simple fact is that for 11 months before the war, not a single shot was fired across the Israeli-Lebanese border. A cease-fire was in force and the Palestinians on the other side of the border kept it scrupulously. To everybody’s surprise, Yasser Arafat succeeded in imposing it on all the radical Palestinian factions, too.

    At the end of May, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon met with Secretary of State Alexander Haig in Washington DC. He asked for American agreement to invade Lebanon. Haig said that the US could not allow it, unless there were a clear and internationally recognized provocation.

    And lo and behold, the provocation was provided at once. Abu Nidal, the anti-Arafat and anti-PLO master terrorist, sent his own cousin to assassinate the Israeli ambassador in London, who was grievously wounded.

    In retaliation, Israel bombed Beirut and the Palestinians fired back, as expected. The Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, allowed Sharon to invade Lebanese territory up to 40 km, “to put the Galilee settlements out of reach of the katyushas.”

    When one of the intelligence chiefs told Begin at the cabinet meeting that Abu Nidal’s organization was not a member of the PLO, Begin famously answered: “They are all PLO”.

    General Matti Peled, my political associate at the time, firmly believed that Abu Nidal had acted as an agent of Sharon. So do all the Palestinians I know.

    The lie “they shot at us every day” has taken such a hold on the public mind that it is nowadays useless to dispute it. It is an illuminating example of how a myth can take possession of the public mind, including even of people who had seen with their own eyes that the opposite was true.

    NINE MONTHS before the war, Sharon told me about his plan for a New Middle East. .

    . . . Sharon had a dangerous mental mixture: a primitive mind unsullied by any knowledge of (non-Jewish) history, and a fatal craving for “grand designs”. . .

    . . . His design for the region, as told me then (and which I published nine months before the war), was:

    1. To attack Lebanon and install a Christian dictator who would serve Israel,
    2. Drive the Syrians out of Lebanon,
    3. Drive the Palestinians out of Lebanon into Syria, from where they would then be pushed by the Syrians into Jordan.
    4. Get the Palestinians to carry out a revolution in Jordan, kick out King Hussein and turn Jordan into a Palestinian state,
    5. Set up a functional arrangement under which the Palestinian state (in Jordan) would share power in the West Bank with Israel.

    Being a single-minded operator, Sharon convinced Begin to start the war, telling him that the sole aim was to push the PLO 40 km back. . .


  13. JLewisDickerson on March 6, 2017, 7:35 pm

    RE: “The 1st Intifada was already on its way, a predominantly unarmed civil uprising– met with bone-breaking policy by Defense minister Yitzhak Rabin.” ~ Ofir

    Fact Sheet: 25th anniversary of the First Intifada
    By +972 Resources | Published December 10, 2012
    Twenty-five years ago this past weekend, a large-scale popular uprising by Palestinians began against Israel’s then 20-year-old military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Sparked by an incident in which four Palestinians were hit and killed by an Israeli driving in Gaza on December 8, 1987, Palestinian frustration at living under repressive Israeli military rule and Israel’s growing colonial settlement enterprise erupted, grabbing international headlines and drawing attention to the plight of Palestinians living in the occupied territories. On this 25th anniversary, the IMEU offers the following fact sheet on the First Intifada.

    By The Institute for Middle East Understanding

    [EXCERPT] During the First Intifada, Palestinians employ tactics such as unarmed demonstrations, including rock throwing against soldiers, commercial strikes, a refusal to pay taxes to Israeli authorities, and other acts of civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. They are coordinated largely by grassroots ad hoc committees of Palestinians in the occupied territories rather than the PLO leadership abroad.

    In response, Israeli soldiers use brutal force to repress the mostly unarmed popular rebellion. Then Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin implements the infamous “broken bones” policy, ordering security forces to break the limbs [WARNING: Graphic video] of rock-throwing Palestinians and other demonstrators.

    More than 1000 Palestinians are killed by Israeli forces during the First Intifada, including 237 children under the age of 17. Many tens of thousands more are injured.

    According to an estimate by the Swedish branch of Save the Children, as many as 29,900 children require medical treatment for injuries caused by beatings from Israeli soldiers during the first two years of the Intifada alone. Nearly a third of them are aged ten or under. Save the Children also estimates that between 6500-8500 Palestinian minors are wounded by Israeli gunfire in the first two years of the Intifada.

    In 2000 it is revealed that between 1988 and 1992 Israel’s internal security force, the Shin Bet, systematically tortures Palestinians using methods that go beyond what is allowable under government guidelines for “moderate physical pressure,” Israel’s official euphemism for torture. These methods include violent shaking, tying prisoners into painful positions for long periods, subjecting them to extreme heat and cold, and severe beatings, including kicking. At least 10 Palestinians die and hundreds of others are maimed as a result.

    Approximately 120,000 Palestinians are imprisoned by Israel during the First Intifada. . .

    SOURCE –

  14. JLewisDickerson on March 6, 2017, 7:55 pm

    RE: “Journalist Gideon Levy suggests an 11th point, to perfect the plan . . .” ~ Ofir

    MY ADMONITION: Now you behave, Gideon! Enough of your insolence!

    Two-State Solution Debate | Gideon Levy | Proposition

    • just on March 7, 2017, 2:21 am

      Thanks so much for posting those precious minutes of Gideon Levy’s argument, John.

      I have always respected honesty and sincerity. Gideon Levy has both.

      • just on March 7, 2017, 2:29 am

        “Traveling to Oxford to Debate the Two-state Solution

        Gideon Levy May 29, 2016 5:06 AM

        The debate over Israel’s future is not taking place in Israel. It is taking place everywhere but Israel. Israel is not dealing with its future – it is dealing with its present and, mainly, its past. People don’t talk about the future here. Nobody knows where we are going and, even more amazingly, where we want to go. What will we be in another 10 or 20 years? What about after that? And what do want there to be here besides “peace and security,” blah, blah, blah? The world is more preoccupied with this than we are.

        Last week – just an ordinary week – there were more discussions taking place in Britain over potential solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than in an entire year in Israel. In London and Oxford, in universities and in Parliament, various forums debated the one-state solution versus the two-state one, a discussion the likes of which is hardly ever held here. We live in denial and repression, our heads in the sand, distracted, evading the question, engaging in nonsense and hoping for the best. No good can come of this.

        The Oxford Union’s Thursday Debate discusses the Middle East a great deal, certainly more than any Israeli student union does. Just over a week ago, a proposal was raised at this venerable and prestigious student organization that the two-state solution is no longer viable. It wasn’t only the strict dress code (black tie), ceremonial trappings and traditional photograph that were foreign to Israelis – so too was the very fact of debating such a fateful question about Israel’s future.

        The question before this closed debating club, founded in 1823 – and where four U.S. presidents and 12 British prime ministers have appeared, including Winston Churchill – was: “This House Believes A Two-State Solution in the Middle East is Unattainable.”

        Unfortunately, a majority of “this House” rejected the proposition, perhaps because most of the members of the union are wealthy, white conservatives and its president is Jewish. The vote is taken at the doors: Those leaving by the right-hand door are for the proposal, those leaving by the left-hand one are against it. (The Ayes were 37 percent, the Nos 63 percent.)
        I spoke for the proposition and exited using the right-hand door. Unusually for me, I was in favor of something. But it did not help.

        In this weighty session, there was some comic relief. Yiftah Curiel, head spokesman of the Israeli Embassy in London, said the two-state solution was still attainable and that Israel supported it. Do you get it? Israel claims it supports two states – perhaps because it has realized that a two-state solution is no longer viable. What has prevented Israel from implementing this solution over the past 50 or so years of occupation? And how does the official representative of the state – which has never ceased building more and more settlements, the entire purpose of which is to thwart the two-state solution – dare say that Israel is in favor of dividing the land?

        But Israeli chutzpah knows no bounds, and neither does the temerity of its propagandists. The fact is, they won once again at the Oxford debate. The fact is, they continue to spread fear about anti-Semitism within the British Labour Party, even though it does not really exist – certainly not as it is portrayed here in Israel. But propaganda is propaganda.

        Almost all Israelis are against the one-state solution, which the Zionist movement fears above all, and that is their right. Many of them continue to mumble “two states,” as if talking in their sleep, and that, too, is their right. Only a few ask themselves if this solution is still attainable; whether Israel ever intended to implement it and what prevented its implementation. And they never discuss the alternatives. Such is inconceivable Israeli escapism.

        This Thursday … , members of the Oxford Union will once again don their bow ties and meet to debate the proposal, “This House Believes Technology Companies Should Prevent Government Access to Consumers’ Data.” Once again they will debate here, and once again they will go out via the door they have selected. The fate of the Israeli occupation touches their lives far less than the debate on privacy. And yet they dealt with it seriously and passionately. Only in Israel is it treated otherwise.”

        read more:

      • JLewisDickerson on March 7, 2017, 9:39 am

        RE: “I have always respected honesty and sincerity. Gideon Levy has both.” – just

        REPLY: Not to mention his delightfully keen sense of humor!

        Rapier wit – a sharp intellect, making points so deadly they are like a french rapier sword in fencing duels
        ● IMAGE

  15. aloeste on March 6, 2017, 11:16 pm

    they voted out Shamir. Barak pushed all in – Arafat rejected his offer. right it wasnt good enough . you’re holding out for better. that was 20 yrs ago. i know why settle for something when you can hold out for everything and be left with nothing…

    • talknic on March 7, 2017, 8:46 pm

      @ aloeste

      The Palestinians have no obligation to accept anything less than their full legal rights to territory and freedoms

      They are also under no legal obligation to forgo any of their legal rights in negotiations.

      Meanwhile, Israel has no right what so ever to any non-Israeli territories acquired by war or any other illegal means and; Israel has a legal obligation to withdraw from all non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war since its borders were proclaimed effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 ME time.

      Israel is also legally obliged pay 70 years of reparations, which it has never been able to afford and it is legally obliged to allow non-Jewish Israeli refugees return to territories the Israeli Government proclaimed May 15th 1948

    • Talkback on March 8, 2017, 8:28 am

      aloeste: “Barak pushed all in – Arafat rejected his offer. right it wasnt good enough .”

      How could Arafat reject the offer of more than 78% of former Palestine? What an arrogant, greedy and self-righteous bastard. He obviously doesn’t want peace as much as you do.

  16. Talkback on March 11, 2017, 3:19 am

    “A Palestinian state has always been a fiction for Zionists”

    Or to put it the other way around. A Jewish state in all of Palestine and even beyond has always been the goal of Zionism. Dunum by dunum, settlement by settlement.

Leave a Reply