Trending Topics:

For Zionists, the ‘two state solution’ has always meant more ethnic cleansing

Israel/Palestine
on 46 Comments

A Palestinian state has always been a fiction for Zionists. Therefore, the notion of partition in any form of historical Palestine was only ever endorsed by Zionists as a political-diplomatic means towards overtaking more territory and dispossessing more Palestinians.

To demonstrate this, I shall first go back to an early partition plan – that of the British Royal Peel Commission of 1937, to gradually reach our present day.

 

The British Peel Commission partition plan

The British Royal Peel Commission was constructed in order to determine the origins of the great tensions between what they would regard as “Jews and Arabs”, following the onset of the Great Arab Revolt by Arab Palestinians of 1936 (which lasted until 1939).

The Peel Commission report assessed that the “underlying causes of the disturbances of 1936” were:

(1) The desire of the Arabs for national independence;
(2) their hatred and fear of the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
These two causes were the same as those of all the previous outbreaks and have always been inextricably linked together. Of several subsidiary factors, the more important were–
(1) the advance of Arab nationalism outside Palestine;
(2) the increased immigration of Jews since 1933;
(3) the opportunity enjoyed by the Jews for influencing public opinion in Britain;
(4) Arab distrust in the sincerity of the British Government;
(5) Arab alarm at the continued Jewish purchase of land;
(6) the general uncertainty as to the ultimate intentions of the Mandatory Power.

The Peel Commission’s suggested solution was to separate the two populations. The ‘Jewish state’ would consist of the central coastal plain and the northern Galilee areas, the ‘Arab state’ would be from the West Bank down through to the furthest south, and in between, a corridor from Jaffa to Jerusalem would be under British Mandate auspices.

This solution would involve what it called “exchange of populations”: ”

“If Partition is to be effective in promoting a final settlement it must mean more than drawing a frontier and establishing two States. Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land and, as far as possible, an exchange of population”.

What did exchange mean? The Peel Commission pointed out that there were about 225,000 Arabs alongside 400,000 Jews in the suggested Jewish state, and that minority– along with the 1250 Jews in the Arab state — created a problem.

The existence of these minorities clearly constitutes the most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of Partition.

The Zionists understood “population exchange” as a euphemism for forced “transfer” in general, and they saw it as a welcomed opening and legitimation of their designs for ethnic cleansing so as to obtain a strong Jewish majority. David Ben-Gurion:

“In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin…it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us…Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs.”

Ben-Gurion’s words confirm the utter centrality of “transfer” for the Zionist project. As Israeli historian Benny Morris put it:

“transfer was inevitable and inbuilt in Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a Jewish state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population”.

Ben-Gurion, the Zionist leader who became the first prime minister of Israel, was in support of that partition – not as an end, but as a beginning. He wrote this to his son Amos in 1937:

“My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning. When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land. This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.”

And what, may we ask, is this “entire country”? The simple answer could be Mandate Palestine. But actually, Ben-Gurion had greater ambitions. Speaking in a Labor party meeting in 1937 in support of the Peel partition, he said:

“The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today–but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.”

This particular reference to Transjordan as a part of the coveted (some would say promised) land, put Ben-Gurion on par with the expansionist aims of the Jabotinskyite Revisionists to his right (they wanted a revision of the British Mandate to include Transjordan so that the Jewish State could cover both Palestine and Jordan. The Irgun emblem shows this as one territory).

Actually, Ben-Gurion’s visions of ‘Eretz Israel’ as he would regard it, and that he would covet, were yet bigger. In 1918 he described it:

“To the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi ‘Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-‘Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan”.

A map of this vision was submitted by the World Zionist Organization in 1919 to the Paris Peace Conference in the wake of WW1.

The Peel Commission’s partition plan was naturally met with vehement disagreement by the native Palestinians. Its bias was obvious, and only strengthened what the British had already noted as “Arab distrust in the sincerity of the British Government” as well as “the general uncertainty as to the ultimate intentions of the Mandatory Power”. Eventually the plan was shelved. Yet the Zionists at the time were looking at the Peel partition plan with great interest, as mentioned. The “increase” and “reinforcement” of “strength” and the  “powerful boost” that Ben-Gurion was writing about was not just a general political legitimation matter. The Peel partition plan had also entailed a population transfer, and was openly legitimizing it. It was using the precedence of the “exchange effected between the Greek and Turkish populations on the morrow of the Greco-Turkish War of 1922”.

The Zionists were thus rather giddy at this point, because the most central, inevitable and inbuilt aspect of their colonization was now openly being suggested by a major world power.

Zionist leader and later 1st President Chaim Weizmann wrote to the British-Palestine High Commissioner in 1937:

“We shall spread in the whole country in the course of time … this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years.”

Ben-Gurion would write in his diary in 1937:

“The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty – this is national consolidation in a free homeland.”

He added:

“With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] … I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”

Ben-Gurion emphasized this position in 1938 once again:

“[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.”

The Zionists immediately acted on the Peel Commission notion of transfer, reading this as a principle green light for ethnic cleansing. They quickly established a Population Transfer Committee.

 

WW2, the White Paper and limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine

It would not be long before the world would be embroiled in another World War. Already in the 1937 Peel report, there was a recommendation to limit Jewish immigration, as a response to one of the mentioned causes of unrest:

“His Majesty’s Government should lay down a political high level of Jewish immigration. This high level should be fixed for the next five years at 12,000 per annum. The High Commissioner should be given discretion to admit immigrants up to this maximum figure, but subject always to the economic absorptive capacity of the country” (chapter 10 in the report).

Eventually the British Government decided to apply some of the recommendations of the Peel 1937 report, and it did so in 1939, on the eve of the war, with what is known as the White Paper. Concerning immigration, it limited this to 75.000 over the next five years:

“For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits.
In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children and dependents.”

Moreover, the White Paper went against the partition notion, and called for the establishment of a one independent Palestinian state within a period of ten years:

“The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.”

This put the Zionists in a very awkward position. Their endeavor was indeed to make Palestine a Jewish State, while the White Paper stated unequivocally:

“His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.”

This was a major blow for the Zionists, in both political and practical terms. The duality of alliance that Zionists would now feel concerning the British, is epitomized in Ben Gurion’s famous quote from 1939:

“We will fight the war as if there were no White Paper, and we will fight the White Paper as if there were no war.”

In 1942 Ben Gurion would gather thousands of Zionists at the Biltmore Hotel in New York, where the declaration therefrom included a complete rejection of the White Paper.

Although there were differing attitudes by various Zionist factions as to how this duality should play itself out throughout WW2, the end of the war also marked a moment of unity by all Zionist factions: in October 1945 they officially formed the Jewish Resistance Movement, wherein Ben Gurion’s maistream Haganah militias officially cooperated with the Revisionist militias (Irgun, Stern Gang), to attack British installations. The movement was officially dismantled in the wake of the King David Hotel bombing in 1946, where there was a disagreement about the timing of the attack, and the Haganah sought to distance itself from the Irgun and Lehi due to the somewhat unfortunate moral and political ramifications of the event in terms of public opinion. The main target of these militias was of course the eventual ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which would be achieved later, once it was clear that the British were disappearing as a colonial moderating force. They would later largely assist each other’s main goal in the various raids of 1948, and the newly formed Israeli army would incorporate all factions into its ranks.

 

1947 partition plan

Come 1947, and Jews were now constituting about 1/3 of Palestine’s population, owning close to 7% of the land. Nonetheless, the UN ‘partition plan’ awarded over 55% of the territory to them. This was of course internationally sanctioned colonialist expansionism by its very definition. The Palestinians naturally rejected it, and were right to do so, as Fathi Nemer excellently argues in his recent article on this site. The Zionists were of course elated once again by the partition plan, not because of the precise territory allocated (they were obviously not content with it, nor intended to stick to it), but because of the legitimacy afforded to the ‘Jewish state’.

This plan, though not anchored in international law (it was not in the UN’s mandate to create states), gave the Zionists a green light to continue the colonialist conquest of Palestine with full force. The campaign of ethnic cleansing began to take place well before Israel’s declaration of statehood on May 14, 1948, by which time close to half of the Palestinian 1948 Nakba victims were already dispossessed, and over 200 Palestinian villages already destroyed. By early 1949, Israel had expanded beyond the UN partition plan lines, to 78% of historical Palestine.

Israel was never going to let those refugees back, because it was part of the whole point of creating a Jewish State.

 

Oslo accords

The 1993 and 1995 ‘Oslo accords’ between Israel and the PLO came out of the famous ‘peace process’ which started in 1991 in Madrid, during which 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. Yet lo and behold, under Yitzhak Rabin, an agreement was reached. Many were in the erroneous impression that this was already some kind of ‘two state solution’, but it was not. Rabin assured several times that it was not, and unequivocally called it “less than a state” as far as Palestine was concerned, when he spoke to the Knesset just a couple of months before he was murdered.

The Oslo accords were actually an ‘interim’ agreement, which indeed ‘partitioned’ what was left of Palestine (22%) into a complicated network of full Israeli control (area C) over what was effectively an archipelago of Palestinian Bantustans. Area C of the West Bank is over 60% of that territory, and surrounds these ‘islands’ from all directions. Indeed – less than a state.

And what would this ‘interim’ possibly result in? Well, that was subject to future negotiations which were to take place, with all critical issues, including territory, refugees, Jerusalem etc.

This would mean that at best, Palestinians would be given supposedly ‘generous offers’ such as that of Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000, which would still amount to Bantustans. Under this plan the Palestinian land share in the West Bank for the first 6 to 21 years would be about 77% (if all went well, and better than with Oslo). Barak would chide them for not being satisfied with that, and that there is hence “no one to talk to”.

It has been somewhat of an orthodoxy in the West, that the Palestinian refugee return issue would simply be relegated to a “return” to the remaining bit of Palestine that would one day possibly be negotiated. Hence – the ‘two state solution’ as it would be called, would represent a legitimation of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, preserving the Zionist mission of ‘Jewish state’ which could not exist without ethnic cleansing.

It is worth noting in this respect, that even in the ‘Clinton parameters’ of late 2000, which went much further than Barak’s ‘generous offer’ of summer 2000 (Camp David), the refugee issue had to be taken away from Israel: both parties had to agree that refugees would not return to Israel, but to what was left of Palestine (or resettled elsewhere), and that this would satisfy UN Resolution 194 of December 1948 calling for their return. Following the failed negotiations of these parameters in January 2001 (Taba), the parties declared that “they have never been so close to an accord”.

A private note written by Barak to his Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami on the eve of the Taba negotiations, reveals the absolutely intransigent Israeli attitude concerning refugees:

“Shlomo shalom

– Enormous readiness for a painful settlement but not a humiliating one. (the right of return).

– Vital to preserve hope …but with realism – there is no agreement because we insist on what is vital for Israel (no right of return, appropriate settlement blocs, Jerusalem and the holy places and security arrangements)”.

(This note was passed on to Avi Shlaim and is cited in his updated edition of The Iron Wall).

Notice, how the refugee right of return is considered “humiliating” by Barak.

Barak eventually suspended the talks, in order to attend to the upcoming elections, in which he was expected to lose to Sharon, and did, by a landslide.

 

“Disengagement” from Gaza

If Zionists accept ‘partition’ in historical Palestine, this is to be considered a temporary matter as we have seen, and a move that offers some future prospect of expansion. Hence, Sharon’s famous 2005 ‘disengagement’ from Gaza, was a move designed to strengthen, not weaken, Israeli expansionism. Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weissglass expressed this ahead of the ‘disengagement’:

“The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. […] That is exactly what happened. You know, the term `peace process’ is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it’s the return of refugees, it’s the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen…. what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did.”

It is internationally and widely understood that Israel never really ‘disengaged’ from Gaza. It merely took some 8,000 settlers out, threw the key away, and kept controlling Gaza, which has now become an uninhabitable concentration camp, subject to seasonal massacre campaigns.

As Weissglass noted, Israel got points for its settler-expansionism in the West Bank, and the Oslo area C has become a major arena for accelerated ethnic cleansing, with various future plans for annexation coming also from government officials.

This is what ‘partition’ means for Israel. It never meant a ‘two state solution’ as we would generally understand it. Israel has never accepted the existence of an actual Palestinian state on any part of historical Palestine, only some form of ‘autonomy’ in “less than a state” as Rabin said, or in a “state minus” as Netanyahu said.

It is natural that many people perceive ‘partition’ as a kind of compromise: both ‘sides’ get a part of the cake, as it were. But this is not a correct appraisal, when the balance of power is as it is. In this state of affairs, any ‘compromise’ that Israel accepts is only a strengthening of its power to take more. Just as Ben-Gurion had written to his son in 1937: “This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole”.

The question is, whether we want to let Palestinians be subject to the schemes of Zionists, David Ben-Gurion, Dov Weissglass, et al, because that would mean that they would not get their rights until they all turn into Finns. In other words, when hell freezes over.

About Jonathan Ofir

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

46 Responses

  1. amigo
    amigo
    October 7, 2018, 1:36 pm

    The question , now is who will be first up with the usual screed claiming BG was a peaceful man who was from day one , full bore behind sharing , “The Land” with the Palestinians.

    Will it be Jon S, Jon 66 or the Wondering Jew.

    One might be forgiven for assuming, the defend BG crew would be worn out by now , posting hasbara defending BG who was a terrorist in his own right . who never had any plan other than creating the so called “greater Israel”.

    Zionist tenacity is legendary.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      October 8, 2018, 10:08 am

      @amigo

      “Zionist tenacity is legendary.”

      In the long run, “Zionist tenacity” will prove to be less than blip in the history of Palestine.

      Zionism is already rotting within and increasingly viewed as a fascistic, racist, expansionist pariah by peoples around the world, including Jews, especially youth.

      Henry Morgenthau Sr., former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, nailed it in 1919: “Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history…. The very fervour of my feeling for the oppressed of every race and every land, especially for the Jews, those of my own blood and faith, to whom I am bound by every tender tie, impels me to fight with all the greater force against this scheme, which my intelligence tells me can only lead them deeper into the mire of the past, while it professes to be leading them to the heights. Zionism is… a retrogression into the blackest error, and not progress toward the light.” (Quoted by Frank Epp, Whose Land is Palestine? p. 261)

  2. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    October 7, 2018, 4:59 pm

    “With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] … I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”
    =BG
    “The National Socialist Movement, on the contrary, will always let its foreign policy be determined by the necessity to secure the space necessary to the life of our Folk. It knows no Germanising or Teutonising, as in the case of the national bourgeoisie, but only the spread of its own Folk. It will never see in the subjugated, so called Germanised, Czechs or Poles a national, let alone Folkish, strengthening, but only the racial weakening of our Folk.[39]”
    =AH (Mein Kampf)

    • Marnie
      Marnie
      October 8, 2018, 8:37 am

      Looking at the photo of ben gurion and reading the article made me think of the nazis (how can it not) and the united states.

      Conspiracy – Official Trailer – YouTube

      Manifest Destiny (2011) – IMDb
      https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4468892

      Apocalypto – Official® Trailer [HD] – YouTube

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        October 8, 2018, 9:55 am

        hokey smokes – wrong ‘conspiracy’.

        Conspiracy Kenneth Branagh – YouTube

        YouTube‎ · ‎alcina69

  3. Kay24
    Kay24
    October 8, 2018, 7:25 am

    Maps of the Palestine territories missing, or maps redrawn, the vicious Hasbara brigade continuously saying there is no such thing as Palestine, or that the Palestinians are from Jordan, the shameless land theft, the refusal to allow the right of return, the demolishing of homes, the killing of civilians, the refusal to end this brutal occupation, and the terrible undemocratic crimes by Israel, all show that the zionists do not believe in the 2 state solution, and their main goal is to rid the territories of Palestinians, and take over ALL. The US obviously approves of this, or else why should we keep enabling them by sending billions of dollars, the weapons to ruthlessly bomb helpless civilians, and killing them with snipers, shooting them while they walk or pray, and taking the lives of innocent civilians, and then protecting them at the UN?
    All for that technology and logistical support?

    The US and the UK should be held responsible for the grave injustice done to the Palestinians.
    It seems when it comes to those they keep enabling, aiding and arming, “human rights” for the Palestinians are not an issue.

  4. JohnSmith
    JohnSmith
    October 8, 2018, 7:39 am

    A Palestinian doctor, Ghada Karmi, wrote this essay I came across last night, ” Why the two-state illusion refuses to die”:

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/why-two-state-solution-refuses-die-914971920

    The article provides a nice overview, and it may not provide new information to regular readers of Mondoweiss, but I find it enjoyable to find words and thoughts that are sane and reasonable.

    I also found these pages about demographics:

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/palestine-population/

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/israel-population/

    I like the fact that actual demographic truth undermines the dreams of racists….

  5. Teddy
    Teddy
    October 8, 2018, 9:18 am

    As long as this criminal zionist Apartheid regime continues to receive the unconditional support of The West as an integral component of Hegemony then the ongoing brutal Colonization of Palestine and Genocide of Palestinians will continue

  6. DaBakr
    DaBakr
    October 8, 2018, 2:17 pm

    Arab national independence. Jordan. 70% of palestine mandate. Fiction. Destroying Jewish national sovereignty in any part of the land continues to be the ongoing Palestinian Muslim long term goal

    • Marnie
      Marnie
      October 8, 2018, 11:58 pm

      Destroying jewish nationalism and colonialism all over the land. One state, one secular and democratic government for all its people. Zionism has been a horror for palestinians, and a stone around the neck of the rest of the world, including jews themselves, but they’re so full of fear and trauma they feel they can only be safe at the expense of palestinian sovereignty and equality. israel isn’t strong, it’s fucking petrified by it’s own creation.

    • johneill
      johneill
      October 9, 2018, 8:01 am

      what’s the palestinian christian goal?

    • eljay
      eljay
      October 9, 2018, 8:42 am

      || @Daak: … Destroying Jewish national sovereignty in any part of the land … ||

      The religion-based identity of Jewish does not grant to those who choose to hold it the right to be supremacists or colonialists or (war) criminals in “any part of the land” (geographic Palestine) or anywhere else in the world.

      • catalan
        catalan
        October 9, 2018, 9:05 am

        “The religion-based identity of Jewish” Eljay
        Well that’s not how the Ustashi saw it as your dad can tell you. They killed all Jews whether they were Christian or atheist.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 9, 2018, 10:03 am

        || catalan: “The religion-based identity of Jewish” Eljay
        Well that’s not how the Ustashi saw it as your dad can tell you. … ||

        My father can’t tell me anything because he’s dead.

        || … They killed all Jews whether they were Christian or atheist. ||

        That’s terrible and tragic and doesn’t change the fact that Jewish is a religion-based identity acquired by:
        – undergoing a religious conversion to Judaism; or
        – being descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

      • catalan
        catalan
        October 9, 2018, 10:15 am

        “My father can’t tell me anything because he’s dead.” Eljay
        Perhaps. But he imparted on you an unhealthy obsession with Jews. It is hateful to tell others what their identity is. Do I tepeat every day what kind of identity is African American? Of course not – because I am not a racist. Also, I have the common sense to understand that there are many identities among African Americans. In short, I am not Croatian.

      • Keith
        Keith
        October 9, 2018, 10:59 am

        CATALAN- “Well that’s not how the Ustashi saw it as your dad can tell you. They killed all Jews whether they were Christian or atheist.”

        Curious then that American Jewish Zionists supported the Croatian fascists while demonizing the Yugoslavian Serbs in support of Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia. Why do Zionists, past and present, find fascists so appealing? Witness the Ukraine.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 9, 2018, 10:59 am

        || catalan: “My father can’t tell me anything because he’s dead.” Eljay
        Perhaps. … ||

        There’s no “perhaps” about it.

        || … But he imparted on you an unhealthy obsession with Jews. … ||

        I believe in the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality. Zionists like you consider this to be “unhealthy” because it clashes with your selective belief that Jews are entitled:
        – to be supremacists; and
        – to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

        || … It is hateful to tell others what their identity is. Do I tepeat every day what kind of identity is African American? Of course not – because I am not a racist. … ||

        I have never told anyone that he is or is not (or must or must not be) Jewish.

        And unlike you I don’t believe that the choice also to be Christian or atheist should strip from a person his Jewish identity.

        || Also, I have the common sense to understand that there are many identities among African Americans. … ||

        Sure, just as there are many identities among Jews. But apparently you lack the common sense to understand that:
        – like Jewish, African-American is but one type of identity; and
        – unlike Jewish, the African-American identity is not religion-based.

        || … In short, I am not Croatian. ||

        Neither am I.

      • catalan
        catalan
        October 9, 2018, 12:42 pm

        “I have never told anyone that he is or is not (or must or must not be) Jewish.” Eljay
        Yet you do tell people what it means to be Jewish (“religion-based”). It’s wrong but you can’t see that because you have no moral compass. I can’t help you see that. It goes to show that ant-Zionists can be amazing human beings like George Smith but also lunatics. No surprise as this can be said about socialists or communists or anything really.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 9, 2018, 12:55 pm

        || catalan: “I have never told anyone that he is or is not (or must or must not be) Jewish.” Eljay
        Yet you do tell people what it means to be Jewish … ||

        Nope, I have never told anyone “what it means to be Jewish” because that is a very personal and subjective thing.

        || … It’s wrong but you can’t see that because you have no moral compass. … ||

        …says the Jewish supremacist (Zionist) hypocrite to the guy who advocates the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality.

        That is truly amusing!  :-)

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        October 9, 2018, 1:47 pm

        “. It is hateful to tell others what their identity is.“

        Not if the identity is fucked up and unsustainable .
        Calling out homophobes, 4 channers, white racists and Jewish supremacists is important work

      • catalan
        catalan
        October 9, 2018, 4:26 pm

        “Calling out homophobes, 4 channers, white racists and Jewish supremacists is important work” Mag
        Right. But the Ustashi defines ALL Jews, even the good ones. Even Bernie Sanders has a “religious-based” identity according to our own Croatian.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 9, 2018, 6:42 pm

        || catalan: … Even Bernie Sanders has a “religious-based” [sic] identity … ||

        Of course he does, and he will continue to have it for as long as he chooses to be Jewish. And I won’t presume to tell him that he isn’t Jewish.

        Should he ever choose not to be Jewish, he will no longer have that religion-based identity. And I won’t presume to tell him that he is Jewish.

        || … according to our own Croatian. ||

        Presumably this refers to me. It’s interesting how you continue to assign to me an identity that was my father’s – not mine – and that I have publicly rejected. That’s mighty Ustashi of you.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 9, 2018, 7:38 pm

        “ It is hateful to tell others what their identity is.“

        I can’t see why, but I don’t really get this fashionable obsession with hate. Or identity. Perhaps you can explain.

        I’m sure you are not telling Eljay what his identity is when you call him a “Croatian”.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 9, 2018, 7:39 pm

        “My father can’t tell me anything because he’s dead.”

        Mine too, Eljay, but he doesn’t let that stop him.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 9, 2018, 7:41 pm

        And can we have a clear description of what constitutes a healthy obsession with Jews, contrasted with an unhealthy obsession?

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 9, 2018, 7:50 pm

        || RoHa: “My father can’t tell me anything because he’s dead.”

        Mine too, Eljay, but he doesn’t let that stop him. ||

        Is he to blame credit for your discipline regarding punctuation?  ;-)

      • catalan
        catalan
        October 9, 2018, 8:18 pm

        “I can’t see why, but I don’t really get this fashionable obsession with hate. Or identity. Perhaps you can explain.” Roha
        Same here. I find the discussion of identity, especially that of others, to be a classless enterprise. It’s is Eljay who repeats daily that Jewish is “religion based”. If you care, some Jews (including this one) find that offensive. It is your right of course to not care what I find civil vs uncivil. I know I won’t convince you anyway. And “unhealthy obsession” is just an expression. No need to dissect it vs healthy obsession. It is perhaps redundant but is redundancy a crime?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 10, 2018, 12:29 am

        My father saw no reason to tolerate or encourage ignorance, laziness, or carelessness in grammar or engineering.

        But these days it is when I am doing some household repairs or improvements that he gives me useful tips.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 10, 2018, 7:33 am

        || RoHa: … these days it is when I am doing some household repairs or improvements that he gives me useful tips. ||

        That sounds nice.  :-)

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 10, 2018, 11:41 am

        ” It’s is Eljay who repeats daily that Jewish is “religion based”. If you care, some Jews (including this one) find that offensive. “

        ROTFLMSJAO!!! Okay “catalan” would you prefer people thought of Jews as a “race”, if “religion” isn’t strong enough to define us?

        Do you think we are losing out on all the benefits and honors of being a Jewish race by being considered only a religion?

      • catalan
        catalan
        October 10, 2018, 1:39 pm

        “Okay “catalan” would you prefer people thought of Jews as a “race”, if “religion” isn’t strong enough to define us?” Mooser
        I think of it as a culture. It has its languages, like Ladino and Yidish(both mostly dead), its cuisine, music, and yes some religious rituals. I also don’t think it is my business to define how all Jews see themselves. I know for sure that there are people who are not religious and are Jewish – myself for example. So no matter how many times I am told that my culture is “religion based” I know my existence disproves that. Is it really part of civil discourse to determine what the identity of Muslim, Arab, African American or Asian is?
        The other thing, you really need to read up on the Ustashi. That’s a group of people whose treatment of Jews and Serbs literally horrified the SS. Think about it.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 10, 2018, 2:30 pm

        “I think of it as a culture”

        Good for you. And what are the rights and residuals owed to a “culture”?

      • catalan
        catalan
        October 10, 2018, 3:09 pm

        “And what are the rights and residuals owed to a “culture”?” Mooser
        I guess just common decency would suffice. I don’t really think anyone owes anyone anything. Basically the movement for Palestinian rights has nice people and sociopaths.you probably are nice whereas others are not.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 10, 2018, 6:44 pm

        “I guess just common decency would suffice.” “catalan”

        You know, “catalan” you are right. And if it’s any comfort to you, all decent antisemites are unanimous in considering Judaism, Jewishness, “more than a religion”.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 10, 2018, 9:53 pm

        “I also don’t think it is my business to define how all Jews see themselves….Is it really part of civil discourse to determine what the identity of Muslim, Arab, African American or Asian is?”

        If we are to use these terms, we need to have some fairly good definition of them. We need some idea of what it is that makes a person a Jew, or an African American. (Or both, as Sammy Davis Jr. allegedly was.)

        And Eljay is offering his version of what constitutes Jewishness. You might think his version is wrong, but I don’t see anything “hateful” about either attempting to supply a definition or about his particular definition.

        You might want to say “It is up to the Jews to provide the definition”, but without the definition we don’t know who is and who isn’t a Jew, and thus we don’t know who is to provide the definition.

    • pjdude
      pjdude
      October 9, 2018, 4:48 pm

      it wasn’t 70% of the palestinian mandate. repeating that using 2 years of conection by foriegn occupiers to rewrite 3000 years of history is dishonest. jordan and palestine were always historically seperate. typical zionist you claim you just wanted your homeland back but than complain you got land that was never part of a jewish state. your just a whiny entitled brat who is ok with murder to get what you want.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        October 9, 2018, 11:32 pm

        @p

        You might want to check with Syria about your ideas. Before the so-called colonial Europe wrested the middle east from the colonial ottomans and going all the way back to when the colonial conquering Arabs came out of Arabia and so on. as usual, you made no point. Palestinian was considered a label for Jews in the Palestinian mandate. Jewish papers, police, soccer teams, etc.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 10, 2018, 11:47 am

        “Europe wrested the middle east from the colonial ottomans”

        Until the Hassocks drove them from Davenport (under a SOFA agreement, no doubt) and ratified the anti-macassar treaties.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        October 10, 2018, 3:57 pm

        @ dabkr
        no as usual you ignored it. id ask you to be honest but your a zionist lying is second nature for you. and no your reference to the muslin expansion is false. when muslims came to paletine they were conquering other arabs. yes palestinian did used to be a label for jews when they were ok with not wanting to consider them selves better than everyone. they rejected that label to wage wars of ethnic conquest and ethnic cleansing. the point is your posts are just filled with lies. again the muslim conquest of palestins was arabs conquering arabs. that you dont understand middleastern history is telling maybe quit listening to zionists and talk to a real historian to get truth instead of fairy tales.

  7. amigo
    amigo
    October 8, 2018, 2:22 pm

    MW should run a competition whereby posters can post their best 5 reasons why Israel is a positive v negative influence on our planet. Specifying more than 5 comments would be unfair to the Pro Israel side and would invite howls of antisemitism and Jew hatred.

    BTW , (for the Israeli apologists ) ,no cheating by refusing to take part and thereby leaving only negative comments and then claiming that MW is a hate site.

    The team with the highest total number of comments supporting their case wins the debate.

    • DaBakr
      DaBakr
      October 9, 2018, 11:37 pm

      @a

      I never realized there was a pro israel side here on MW. I thought it was more like batting practice. A few pitches by a few served up pto be batted out of the park by th the experts here

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 10, 2018, 11:36 am

        “A few pitches by a few served up pto be batted out of the park by th the experts here”

        You finally figured it out. Thanks for playing.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        October 10, 2018, 3:00 pm

        @mssr

        I understand the concept. The results depend on those readers non affiliated with teams

  8. Bennorius
    Bennorius
    October 8, 2018, 4:46 pm

    Thanks, Jonathan, for a brilliant analysis.

  9. JWalters
    JWalters
    October 8, 2018, 9:02 pm

    Thanks for this clear and detailed demolition of a core cluster of Zionist lies.

  10. Boomer
    Boomer
    October 10, 2018, 7:15 pm

    re: “For Zionists, the ‘two state solution’ has always meant more ethnic cleansing”

    the “one state solution” also, I suppose.

    At least for most. No doubt there have been exceptions.

Leave a Reply