Trending Topics:

Trump’s elixir could prove to be an overdose for Israel

Opinion
on 19 Comments

The news that the Trump Administration no longer views Israeli settlements in the West Bank as “illegal” was not shocking, any more than the feigned outrage expressed by the very nations who continue to empower Israel no matter what it does. This prelude to the Israeli annexation of the West Bank is certain to further Palestinian misery by emboldened settlers and Occupation soldiers.

But that annexation in reality occurred decades ago. There is a reason why Israel has never simply said so.

On November 29 of 1947, the UN voted to recommend the partitioning of Palestine (UNGA Resolution 181), defeating a minority recommendation for a democratic binational state. Negotiators for the Palestinian cause took advantage of a 24-hour reprieve to propose another binational plan, with a constitution similar to that of the United States.[1] The proposal was ignored, but the seventy-two years since have been a bumpy but unstoppable slow-motion return to the essential concept of a single democratic state.

Ironically, the Trump genie that grants Zionism its every wish, brings that liberation — and the end of Zionism — all the closer.

Israeli soldiers in Hebron. [photo: T Suárez]

If Israel is accused of having annexed the West Bank, and thus of running it as an apartheid state, it would hold up “proof” to the contrary: the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians, we are told, vote for their own “government”. But shingles on PA office doors in Ramallah not withstanding, the on-the-ground reality is that the Palestinian Authority has no true “authority” over what happens to Palestine or its people. Certain functions associated with governance are assigned to it in name, but it carries these out only at Israel’s pleasure. Its political repression of its own “citizens”, for example, simply spares Israel the chore; and international aid to Palestine is in truth further aid to Israel, because it merely subsidizes its occupation and crippling of the Palestinian economy.

The Palestinian Authority, in other words, can be seen as merely a subcontractor and fig-leaf for Israeli’s ultimate sovereignty over the entire area — irrespective of the Oslo Accords’ theoretical division of the West Bank into areas A (Palestinian), B (Palestinian-Israeli), and C (Israeli). Israel began violating the laws regulating an occupying power immediately upon its 1967 conquest, and has ruled the entire West Bank (which includes East Jerusalem) and Gaza (whether directly or by siege) ever since.[2]

Clearing away the smoke and mirrors, what’s left is this: Israel treats “Judea and Samaria” as its sovereign territory, but only its Jews (i.e., settlers) can vote, while non-Jews, by virtue of ethnicity, are denied even the most rudimentary human rights.

This mirage can not last indefinitely, but Trump’s latest gift can only hasten its day of reckoning. Its implicit invitation to the complete theft of the West Bank and ultimately all Palestine, Zionism’s goal for over a century, now looms tantalizingly close. Netanyahu needs do little more than “make it so” in a way that will assure the “international community” continues to behave as it did upon Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem four decades ago: protest, Resolutions, and total appeasement. Israel’s increased Trump-inspired repression could itself precipitate a new Palestinian backlash that would provide Israel the pretext for annexation.

But this Temptation promises a sobering morning after. Israel will suddenly “own” the West Bank. There will be no PA fig-leaf to cover it up. How will Israel explain that non-Jews cannot vote and remain subjugated in what it claims to be its sovereign land? What had always been the reality will be on full display for the world to see: Israel is an apartheid state.

The IDF chases two rock-throwers, likely from the small ‘Azza refugee camp just beyond the bend. [photo: T Suárez]

It would face three options.

• One, it could ethnically cleanse a couple of million more Palestinians. But this is not 1948, and it is not 1967. Although Israel continues to enforce the ethnic containment of Palestinians by bantustan within the Palestinian side of the Armistice Line, its ongoing ethnic cleansing out of Palestine needs to remain discreet. In today’s world, not even Israel’s ever-shocking impunity would shield it from loading two or three million people onto trucks and shipping them to new refugee camps in surrounding countries.

• Two, it could allow West Bank non-Jews the same citizenship as non-Jews already “enjoy” in Israel other than East Jerusalem — second-tier citizenship to be sure, but they nonetheless can vote in national elections, and so the system could be passed off as a nominal democracy. It happens that we’ve a test case for such a scenario — East Jerusalem — and it demonstrates that citizenship for non-Jews would not result from annexation. Although Israel considers East Jerusalem to be fully part of Israel, its non-Jews are tenuous “residents”, not citizens, and have no voice in Israel’s national elections. This is all the more remarkable in that the non-Jewish population of East Jerusalem, unlike the West Bank’s, is far too small to threaten Israel’s demographic concerns.[3]

• And so, by default, Israel would be stuck with option three: just continue as before, for as long as it lasts. The West Bank would be like East Jerusalem is now — but too big to fudge. West Bank non-Jews would be foreigners in their own land, “residents” with no voice in national affairs, and subject to ethnic cleansing through opaque laws engineered for the purpose. Inertia might bide some time for the apartheid state, but it would not be sustainable. It might last two years, or perhaps as long as ten, but once a critical mass of the world’s political and economic interests see Israel as a liability, the call for simply equality will be the Zionist state’s ultimate defeat.

The single-state democracy that should have been the obvious answer in 1947, will finally be realized, untold suffering later.

 

***********

Notes.

1. Regarding the new proposal following the vote on Res 181, see TNA, WO_261-571, Fortnightly Intelligence Newsletter No. 55, Part II, Partition of Palestine, p9, bottom (illustrated here). It is worth pointing out that, according to British documents, the reason the UN opted for partition over the democratic binational state was that it feared increased Zionist terrorism (see TNA, CAB 129/21, page stamped “52”, illustrated here, or the author’s How Terrorism Created Modern Israel, p236). Jewish anti-racists in the settlements, among them Hebrew University president Judah Magnes, also supported a single state.

2. Israel and US militarily negated the results of Palestine’s 2006 election, so the Palestinians did not actually vote in the present government (Fatah), but this is incidental to the present point. That election’s candidates were already limited by Israel through exclusion, imprisonment, and assassination.

3. Non-Jewish East Jerusalemite “residents” can vote in municipal elections. Non-Jews can apply for citizenship, but by doing so they implicitly forfeit East Jerusalem’s status under international law as Palestinian, and yet their citizenship is not equal to that of the city’s Jewish settlers. Non-Jews actually risk expulsion simply by making any application to the Israeli authorities, who may then demand documented proof of family residency back to the nineteenth century, whereas Jews from abroad need no such precedent — hence, for example, Palestinian reluctance to apply for building permits.

Tom Suarez

Tom Suarez is the author, most recently, of "Writings on the Wall", an annotated collection of Palestinian Oral Histories collected by the Arab Educational Institute in Bethlehem (2019)

Other posts by .


Posted In:

19 Responses

  1. Mooser on November 25, 2019, 11:51 am

    “It might last two years, or perhaps as long as ten”

    Assuming, of course, that Israel can form a government.

  2. seancbreathnach on November 25, 2019, 6:04 pm

    Israel’s goal was always to have the whole of Palestine, with as few Palestinians in it. The US support and the EUs silence including my own government, in the Republic of Ireland, is unforgivable.

    Thanks to Tom Suarez for a brilliant article and thanks also to all the other writers in Mondoweiss and the many other publications who bravely write about Israel’s brutal occupation of the Palestinians.

    • JWalters on November 25, 2019, 8:47 pm

      Well stated. And that blanket of silence is SO pervasive, so counter-intuitive, so unreasonable by any measure of common sense, that it deserves a VERY SERIOUS investigation.

  3. Nathan on November 25, 2019, 9:57 pm

    “On November 29 of 1947, the UN voted to recommend the partitioning of Palestine (UNGA Resolution 181), defeating a minority recommendation for a democratic binational state”. Well, to be accurate, there was a vote in the UN regarding the majority recommendation (the Partition Plan); however there was no vote on the minority recommendation. However, it should be noted that the Arab side of the conflict rejected BOTH recommendations of UNSCOP. Tom Suarez believes that the single-state should have been “the obvious answer in 1947”, but he should have been fair to the readers by revealing the sad truth that “the obvious answer in 1947” was absolutely unacceptable from the Palestinian perspective.

    I think that it’s reasonable to assume that still today the Palestinians do not accept the idea of a single state as the formula for ending the conflict. This is not a conflict about one-state or two-states. This is a conflict about the legitimacy of the Hebrew-speaking community (the new yishuv) in the country. The one-state minority proposal in 1947 legitimized the yishuv, and that was the reason that it too was a non-starter from the Arab point of view. Had it been accepted, it would be reasonable to assume that there still would have been war.

    The idea of a single state is obviously meant to bring about the end of the Jewish state. There’s no reason to imagine that the Jewish side is going to accept the idea. More importantly, the Palestinian side will not accept the one-state concept as an end-of-conflict proposal. The conflict will continue within the framework of the one-state, and it’s obvious. The rise of the Hebrew-speaking community is still the issue at hand.

    It really would be a breath of fresh air to read an analysis in Mondoweiss in which the author makes a proposal and then adds the magic formula: “And this would be the end of conflict once and for all”. It would really be a breath of fresh air to see an article that takes into account that the Jewish side will have to agree to whatever is being proposed. I understand that no one at Mondoweiss could possibly accept the idea that the Jewish public has legitimate concerns; however, I believe that intelligent people who have a high school diploma should be able to understand that the Jewish side is not going to be convinced to give up the Jewish state in order to continue being in the very same conflict of the last one hundred years.

    • eljay on November 26, 2019, 7:36 am

      || Nathan: … This is not a conflict about one-state or two-states. This is a conflict about the legitimacy of the Hebrew-speaking community (the new yishuv) in the country. … ||

      Jewish and non-Jewish geographic Palestinians (Israelis, Palestinians and FCoJerusalemites) – many of whom are Hebrew-speaking – should be allowed legitimately to speak Hebrew.

      The speaking of Hebrew does not comprise a right to any sort of supremacist (or colonialist or (war) criminal) state.

      || … The idea of a single state is obviously meant to bring about the end of the Jewish state. … ||

      Which makes one wonder why hard-core Zionists seem so intent on destroying any possibility of a viable two-state solution.

      Regardless, any solution to I-P should be based on justice, accountability and equality and should therefore:
      – bring about the end of the colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State”; and
      – prevent the creation of any other type of supremacist state.

    • Tom Suarez on November 26, 2019, 8:39 am

      Hello Nathan,

      First, to address your “It really would be a breath of fresh air to read an analysis in Mondoweiss in which the author makes a proposal and then adds the magic formula: “And this would be the end of conflict once and for all”.

      I have done that here, and in previous articles. Here it is again: A secular democracy, everyone equal under the law. Simple. This would be “the end of conflict once and for all”.

      Now, about your history… You say that I “should have been fair to the readers by revealing the sad truth that ‘the obvious answer in 1947’ was absolutely unacceptable from the Palestinian perspective.” No. First, the Palestinians were due what they were legally and morally entitled to: self-determination. Resolution 181 was a violation of the UN’s own charter.

      But even disregarding that, you are taking liberties with history. You say that “there was no vote on the [1947] minority recommendation”. Yes, agree! But why? Why wasn’t there such a vote? Aside from US pressure, it was because of the fear of Zionist terror. I quote from British Cabinet papers: Palestinians would have accepted the federated state despite concerns that it did not “altogether close the door to eventual partition.” The Zionists, “on the other hand,” would have begun “an intensification of Jewish terrorism” at such a decision — that is, heightened terror over that which had already brought Palestine to its knees — making the single state “not capable of being enforced.” You also ignore Arab negotiators’ post-vote proposal based on the US model.

      By the way, the disproportionately large chunk of Palestine “given” to the Zionists by the UN was also driven by the fear of Zionist violence. The UN (correctly) assumed that the new Israeli state would disregard the Partition, and so they (incorrectly) thought by that by giving it more land up front, Israel’s “desire for expansion” (as the British put it) might be delayed.

      Finally, if I return to you the question about “the end of conflict once and for all”, what would your answer be? Here you have all these people under Israeli control who happen not to be Jewish. What are you going to do with them?

      • Nathan on November 26, 2019, 1:58 pm

        Tom Suarez – The UN Special Committee on Palestine was sent to Palestine to investigate the conflict between Jews and Arabs and to make its recommendation. The eleven members of the committee did not agree on a single recommendation. Eight of them suggested partition, and three of them suggested a single federation. The UN General Assembly voted on the majority recommendation, obviously. You make it sound as if there was some kind of plot to avoid voting on the minority recommendation. How can you vote on two recommendations that contradict each other? The Partition Plan passed by a two-thirds majority, so that is the suggestion of the UN. Is it your expectation that there should have been a vote on another recommendation as well? Was the UN supposed to suggest partition and then to suggest also the single state? How silly. If the Partition Plan had been rejected, maybe in such a case you could suggest that they vote on another plan. But the Partition Plan passed, and that’s it. There’s no point in voting on another plan.

        Both recommendations were published, and the Arab side of the conflict rejected BOTH of them. In other words, the Palestinian side did not agree to the one-state idea either. You think that the one-state arrangement would mean that the conflict is over. However, it’s not your conflict. For you, as an outsider, the one-state arrangement satisfies you, and you don’t have any more grievances. The Palestinians have plenty of grievances, and the one-state arrangement is not satisfactory at all. The conflict would continue even after the establishment of the single state.

        If the conflict had been born because there was a disagreement regarding the one state or partition, then you could imagine that a one-state agreement would end the conflict. However, an entirely different grievance gave birth to this conflict, so your one-state idea is not going to rectify that grievance and end the conflict.

        Once the one state is established, you will hear that “the Jews are foreigners”, and that “they are not legitimate citizens of the state”. The birth of the Hebrew yishuv (the new Jewish community of the last 100 years) is the Palestinian grievance. This is a conflict about legitimacy, and for the Palestinians the yishuv is illegitimate. If you want to solve the conflict, you should suggest how it could be possible to reach an agreement on the issue of legitimacy.

      • eljay on November 26, 2019, 2:52 pm

        || Nathan: … The birth of the Hebrew yishuv (the new Jewish community of the last 100 years) … ||

        That’s a nice, sanitized way of saying colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

        It gives the impression that you’d be fine with a supremacist “Islamic State” in as much as possible of geographic Palestine as long as its advocates and defenders refer to it pleasantly as an “Arabic ummah” (the new Muslim community, etc.).

        || … is the Palestinian grievance. … ||

        And no wonder! It came into being at the expense of the majority of geographic Palestine’s indigenous population.

        || … This is a conflict about legitimacy, and for the Palestinians the yishuv is illegitimate. … ||

        Of course it is, since it has nothing to do with justice, accountability and equality for all of the inhabitants in and of geographic Palestine.

    • RoHa on November 26, 2019, 7:09 pm

      “Following this failure, the Arab states accepted an invitation from the British Government to send delegations for yet one more conference in London in the winter of 1946-7. But no result was achieved. The Arab delegates reiterated the now unshakable Arab demand for an independent, democratic state in Palestine, offering equal rights to all citizens, freedom of education to the Jews, and the use of Hebrew as an official language. But they insisted on the immediate stoppage of all immigration, and the enforcement of existing regulations against the sale of land to the Jews in certain parts of Palestine.”
      pp 176 – 177

      Atiyah, Edward, (1958 rev. ed.) The Arabs, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

      The proposal might have come from the other Arab states, and not from the Palestinians themselves, but it is difficult to imagine that it would have been reiterated without at least grudging agreement from the Palestinian representatives.

      Atiyah was organizer and secretary of the Arab League Office in London between 1945 and 1949, so it is hard to believe that he is mistaken about this demand being made.

    • RoHa on November 26, 2019, 9:01 pm

      “This is a conflict about the legitimacy of the Hebrew-speaking community (the new yishuv) in the country.  “

      Notable features of the the Hebrew-speaking community.

      1. They were a bunch of immigrants and immediate descendants of immigrants.

      2. Those immigrants had no moral right to be there. They hadn’t been invited, or even merely permitted, by the people of Palestine. They were foisted onto the country by a foreign power (Britain). The people of Palestine were not consulted, and their agreement was not sought.

      3. Those immigrants and their descendants failed in the duty of immigrants. They did not try to become part of and contributors to Palestinian society. They held themselves as a separate community, keeping their social and economic relations with the host society to a minimum, and marking themselves off by using a different language.

      4. The immigrants and their descendants proclaimed by word and deed that they intended to take over the country from the people of Palestine.

      Items 1 – 3 are sufficient reason for the people of Palestine to have no moral obligation to regard the Hebrew-speaking community as legitimate residents.

      Item 4 is sufficient reason for the people of Palestine to regard the Hebrew-speaking community as hostile invaders.

      So what sort of legitimacy could that Hebrew-speaking community have?

  4. Ossinev on November 26, 2019, 9:53 am

    ” not even Israel’s ever-shocking impunity would shield it from loading two or three million people onto trucks and shipping them to new refugee camps in surrounding countries”

    Apart from the reaction of the International community the in house logistics of getting this up and running which would involve presumably the equivalent of the Nazi style Star of David insignia to be compulsorily worn , notices again along Nazi lines of evictions and gathering up of possessions for the journey to the new “work camps” , the actual numbers and types of trucks to be imported stored maintained fueled and driven, the unspoken question is where exactly are the”refugees” to be shipped to even if they willingly and without resistance agreed. The Sinai? The Egyptians of course would never agree and if force was used poof goes the “Peace Treaty” – and Egypt 2020 is not Egypt 1967 – 73 ref qualitative edge and relative army strengths. Jordan ? – the same ref the peace treaty and as for the use of force obviously much much weaker than Egypt but with a lot more sympathy from the West because of historical interactions and of course a huge Palestinian population which would resist. Lebanon ? – whoops Hezbollah and the most moral would be wetting their pants at the thought of actually having to fight with real fighters as opposed to terrorising defenceless old men women and children in the middle of the night.
    Syria ? – Assad and the Russians will soon put the dampeners on that option.

    No the whole population transfer to another ME country idea is yet another pie in the sky Zionist illusion fostered by arrogance and as Tom has indicated the impunity which Zioland has grown used to over seventy plus years of Ziolobby Benjamin control in the US and European unwillingness to act.

    As the whoile grotesque Zionist project crumbles the only possible outcome is a single initially Bantustanised Apartheid State which will dissolve as the International Community has no choice but to apply South African style boycotts.

    The only “transfers” on the horizon a will be the voluntary reverse aliyah transfers of Israeli Jews scrambling on to buses and trucks taking them to the boats and planes which will get them out of the hellhole they have created.

  5. Tom Suarez on November 26, 2019, 3:35 pm

    Hello Nathan,
    You argue that the Palestinians’ negotiators rejected both proposals. Yes, they did. Therefore… what? 1948?
    In truth, both the Palestinians and the Zionists turned down both UNSCOP proposals. The Palestinian negotiators told the truth. The Jewish Agency lied. They “accepted” 181 to get its implicit statehood recognition in order to do what they then did (i.e., ignore 181). The Palestinians knew — and were 100% correct — that the Jewish Agency, no matter what was decided, would create a race state and that non-Jews would be expelled or made 4th-class residents of their own land. The only surprise was how quickly it happened.
    According to the British, the Palestinians would indeed have accepted a federated state to avoid the calamity of 1948 — and they did propose it immediately after the vote. But the point remains: let’s say they hadn’t … then, what? What would that justify? You invoke Palestinian negotiating failures as though the events of 1948, therefore, are justified.
    You argue that in a democratic everyone-equal state, the Palestinians would say “the Jews are foreigners”. Does this not strike you as an odd statement? After seven decades of anti-Palestinian ethnic cleansing, subjugation, and massacres, which Zionism claims to have carried out in the name Jews (that’s antisemitism), you now accuse the Palestinians in advance of being anti-Jewish by virtue of being Palestinian. Does the irony not hit you?

    • Nathan on November 26, 2019, 10:07 pm

      Tom Suarez – You have claimed that there should be a single state, and you have claimed that the founding of the single state would end the conflict. My response to you was that the Palestinians rejected the idea of a single state when it was the minority recommendation of UNSCOP in 1947, and I claimed that even today they do not accept the idea of a single state with the Jews. Your answer to me was quite surprising. You felt the need to explain that the Zionist acceptance of UNGA 181 wasn’t sincere. What a strange line of argument. The issue at hand is your claim that the proposed one-state would end the conflict (i.e. it would satisfy the Palestinians). Instead of trying to prove that the founding of the single state would end all Palestinian grievances, you raise the question if the Palestinian rejection of the UNSCOP justifies the events of 1948. Asking such a question is just your way of avoiding the obvious truth that there is no connection between founding the single state and ending the conflict.

      I claimed that the conflict is not about one-state or two states. I claimed that the Palestinians have other grievances, and these grievances mean that the conflict will not be resolved by establishing a single state. The one grievance that I brought to your attention is the Palestinian point of view that the Jews are foreigners (and there are many, many more grievances which will keep the conflict going after the establishment of the single state). Your answer (in question form) was that this is an odd statement. I would have expected you to answer that you disagree and that in your understanding of the Palestinian position they do not regard the Jews to be foreigners, and so they will be willing to share a state with the Jews. It really is true that the Palestinians regard the Jews to be foreigners, and it is a grievance that will not be rectified by the one-state solution (and therefore the conflict will continue within the framework of the one state). Your answer in question form was meant to leave the impression that you reject my insight that the Palestinians regard the Jews to be foreigners without your actually rejecting it. In other words, you understand that this is, indeed, the Palestinian position. Actually, it’s not really possible that an anti-Israel activist is not acquainted with the Palestinian ideology.

      The single state is meant to replace the existing State of Israel. Those who raise the idea present it as “justice” or whatever, but the idea is obviously a ploy to bring about the end of Israel, and the Israeli Jews understand it. They’re not going to agree, and no one can force them to give up their state. And since no one really intends to make any promises that the one-state formula will bring them peace and quiet, you can assume that the Israeli Jews will most probably prefer the present framework of conflict over your proposed new framework of conflict.

      • Mooser on November 26, 2019, 11:04 pm

        Hey, “Nathan”, why don’t you call back when Israel can form a government.

  6. Tom Suarez on November 27, 2019, 2:13 am

    Nathan, my final comment on this thread:
    Yes, of course, the secular democratic state is intended to bring about the end of the apartheid state of Israel (you use the word “ploy” as though this were underhanded). It is intended to let the “ethnicity” (in quotes because it is as defined by Israel) now ruling Israel-Palestine become equal citizens. Isn’t that good?
    Make parallels to the end of ethnic- or race-based rule in the USA or South Africa. Or colonial-based rule in … many places. But you cast the end of apartheid in Israel-Palestine as something sinister.
    To be clear: the “state” you say they “won’t give up” is a political-governance construct like all states. It is not the people under it. The nature of that political-governance, yes, must change, just like it had to change in other apartheid states. You present it as though Israelis will then be deprived of something they have a right to. It is only the race-based rule that is at issue. Maintaining that is not a “right”. If you apply the “they won’t give it up” edict to other situations of ethnic-nationalism, well, you should see how scary that gets.
    Untangling the rest of your analysis of the alleged true meaning of what I wrote is immaterial, but I’m still waiting for your proposed solution. I assume (hope) that your “Israeli Jews will most probably prefer the present framework of conflict over your proposed new framework of conflict [sic]” is not your proposal. What is? What is your idea for an end to this?

    • Nathan on November 27, 2019, 7:59 am

      Yes, Tom Suarez, it’s true that the single state is intended to end the existence of the State of Israel. It is not intended to end the conflict, since it does not address the real grievances thereof. The conflict will end only with a negotiated settlement which will take into account the interests and concerns of both sides. It’s called compromise. It’s not easy to find an Arabic equivalent for “compromise”, and equally amazing is the fact that anti-Israel activists in the west also find it difficult to accept the abc’s of ending a conflict. Your proposal for a single state doesn’t offer the Jewish side anything. Your idea of striking a deal is “let’s do things my way”.

      Since you have decided to end this string, I’ll end it as well with a little reading suggestion. Try to find an interview with the late Edward Sa’id in which he was asked about the fate of the Jews in the future one state arrangement. I believe it might be found in the Washington Post under the title “…the brutal truth of Edward Said…” and it is to be found in other sites as well. Anyway, Sa’id was very honest and admitted that he is very worried about the fate of the Israeli Jews in the “single democratic state”. I would imagine that Prof. Sa’id had a better understanding of reality in the Middle East than you have. He understood that the one state is not the end of the conflict at all.

      • eljay on November 27, 2019, 10:56 am

        || Nathan: … Your proposal for a single state doesn’t offer the Jewish side anything. … ||

        We know that “the Jewish side” – by which you mean the Zionist Israeli side – has no interest in justice, accountability and equality. So what exactly does “the Jewish side” want to see in a single-state proposal?

      • echinococcus on November 27, 2019, 12:30 pm

        “Your proposal for a single state doesn’t offer the Jewish side anything…”

        I believe no other message these days was so representative of the old Ashkenazi stereotype of the guy tried for murdering both his parents, who asks for the mercy of the court on the grounds that he is an orphan.

  7. Tom Suarez on November 27, 2019, 2:45 pm

    Following is a comment about this article in a piece by former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi — “Pompeo Gives Away the Palestinian West Bank”

    He is less optimistic than I am.

    Tom Suarez posits similarly at Mondoweiss, observing that any form of annexation of the West Bank without giving Palestinians equal rights would basically make Israeli apartheid so visible and unacceptable to world opinion that the Jewish state would become a complete pariah internationally and would be forced to adopt some kind of one state formula.

    Nevertheless, even if a one state solution with equal citizenship status for everyone would appear to be both desirable and compliant with modern notions of human rights, it is not necessarily inevitable. The chosen-by-God Israeli state is quite capable of ethnic cleansing or even genocide on a massive scale, as it did originally in 1947-8 when it was founded and also later after it occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. The Jewish state’s leaders have repeatedly asserted that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, that Jordan is actually Palestine. They have become skilled at making the lives of Palestinians so miserable by destroying their farms, other livelihood and even their homes while also controlling their infrastructure, killing them if they resist, that they emigrate.

Leave a Reply