We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – debunking the “right of return” edition “There is no ‘right’ to undo another nation’s existence. There is no international principle that compels one people to surrender sovereignty so that their state can be destroyed — a state created as a haven for a people nearly annihilated, and after a defensive war they won. Until the Palestinian leadership abandons this claimed right of return, there will be no peace and certainly no two-state solution. Because the refusal to abandon this made-up ‘right’ means they don’t want two states. It means they want one. And they want the Jewish state to vanish.”
– Micha Danzig
For those interested, I can recommend this overview about some of the issues from a pro-Israel, but not uncritically so, writer – Noa Tishby.
Another book by two authors, Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf, dissects, in painstaking detail, how the “right of return” claim lies at the heart of why two-state solutions to the Israel/Palestinian conflict have foundered in the past. Here’s a review of that book.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
What about all of the Christians who were slaughtered or driven out of the then Christian Middle East by the muslim invaders, do their descendants have the right of return?
Not one of the better arguments to make… My Israeli-born children who speak accented English can sorta-kinda make it work, but it is goes against anti-Capitalist, anti-Western, and Noble Savage tropes deeply ingrained in the minds of most Western interlocutors. Successful modern Israel does not provide the necessary optics, and the secular Israeli elite has refused to start the story of modern Israel any earlier than their non-religious “rising from the Holocaust” narrative (which has reached its expiration date). It also tends inevitably to a loathsome Oppression Olympics (like some Holocaust discussions).
And its greatest flaw is that it argues within the frame and language set by the Left – a cardinal sin.
In this case the frame is an imaginary, pre-colonial Ur-world where berry-gathering female founders of civilization and their empowering, respectful nomadic-hunter mates lived harmoniously with other tribes, each in their own Gaia-given native land. Before the Jews and White Men ruined everything with their morality and, like, stuff.
It is this notion that must be completely savaged and deconstructed.
In particular, the Middle East has been overrun and reconquered more times than any other place in the world.
So rather than a breast beating argument about Authenticity and Victimhood – key words in the Left’s identity framing – I just go to the realpolitik, the facts:
That’s right, we weren’t in Israel for 2000 years. Some of us look pretty pale.
So what?
We showed up, in numbers – you oppose deporting Muzzies who have been in your country for how long?
Then we fought, and won.
That’s it – by the schoolyard rules of real geopolitics, it’s Game Over and we don’t owe the Palis anything.
Out of the goodness of our hearts, because we have known suffering, we tried to broker coexistence.
So did the entire civilized world, in various initiatives.
We were answered by increasing violence.
That’s it – it is we who will drive you into the sea.
Nothing about victimhood or DESERVING anything – that is the language and framing of our Marxist enemies. And it’s not how the world works.
Just show them
Deuteronomy 1:21 and 2:12
and most of Genesis 14
Judges 11:24
At the start of the 19th century the “land between the river and the sea” was largely deserted – it was land of deserts and (in the non desert filled areas) malaria filled marshes.
Jews had always tried to go back to the land – but they had been massacred again and again, only clinging on in Jerusalem (where they made up the largest population group even in the mid 19th century – although Jerusalem was a small town back then) and a few other places.
However, Christian and Jewish interest in the land led to investment – mostly fueled by religious interest. Investment could have eared higher returns elsewhere – but many people (Christian as well a Jewish) choose to pour their money and their lives (many died of disease and so on) into the land.
Muslim Arabs (the word “Palestinian” was rarely used at the time – and, ironically enough, mostly by Jews to describe themselves) noticed this – and started to migrate into the land from Egypt and other places, there were indeed Muslim families already there, but the population was very small at the start of the 19th century – it was only with development that they started to migrate to the land in large numbers.
An independent country called Palestine can not be “recreated” because it NEVER EXISTED – the land was a underdeveloped part of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire – till Jews (and some Christians) sunk their money and their lives into it – in order to create a country.
There was a plan to exterminate the Jew in the First World War by the Ottomans (the “Young Turk” regime that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Christians in other parts of the Ottoman Empire) and some Jewish communities were wiped out – but a general extermination was prevented by the German General Falkenhayn.
There were then terrible atrocities committed by Islamic forces in the 1920s and 1930s and a one sided immigration policy from the British – which permitted unlimited Islamic immigration (from Egypt and elsewhere), but tried to stop Jewish immigration. And from 1948 onwards there were endless terrorist attacks and shelling – the idea that the period from 1948 to 1967 was a period of “peace” is a lie – there were no “1948 borders” only ceasefire lines – a ceasefire that existed only in theory (not in practice), ceasefire lines that almost cut Israel in two (much of the “West Bank” is closer to sea than it is to the river Jordan).
As for today – there are more (vastly more) Muslims “between the river and the sea” than there have ever been in history – vastly more than there were in 1948.
It was the Jews who were driven out, or killed, in various countries in the Middle East – the majority of Jews in Israel now are from these Middle Eastern families.
Lastly on Gaza – all Jews were removed, by force, in 2005 by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).
Gaza could have been the “two state solution” – it was self governing, Muslims there could practice Islamic law to their heart’s content – they could also have built an economy.
But they choose (the choose) to go down another path – they even destroyed he greenhouses and other things the Jews had left, as they preferred to live on aid, and to devote all their work and effort to terrorist attacks.
October the 7th 2023 was not the first attack – there had been a Legion of other attacks before it, and endless rocket fire.
But the attack of October 7th 2023 was important – because of its vast scale. It was the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the 1940s.
It revealed several things – firstly (and this must be squarely faced) that the top brass of Shin Bet (the intelligence service who was supposed to be watching Gaza) and the military (the IDF) were useless.
Yes useless – if they could not see an attack of that scale coming they were useless, and their slow and confused response to the attack proves the point.
But it also revealed something else – it revealed that the “two state solution” was NOT viable.
An attack on such a massive scale could not have been hidden from the people in Gaza – they knew of it well in advance, and they did not warn of it.
“Because of the Occupation” – but there was no “occupation” (see above) there had been no “occupation” since 2005 and this was 2023 – they did not welcome the rape, mutilation and murder of Jews to “resist occupation” because there was no occupation.
They raped, mutilated and murdered Jews – because they ENJOYED it, and the general population celebrated the rape, mutilation and murder of Jews, even playing with corpses.
They have made it very clear that this is want to do to all Jews and anyone else who, in their eyes, opposes Allah and Muhammed.
They would use any land they were given in the same way they have used Gaza – as a place to organize attacks and launch attacks.
Therefore, whether Western governments like it or not, the “two state solution” idea is, sadly, dead.
The attitude of Christian Arabs must be examined.
The number of Christian Arabs in the area ruled by the “Palestinian Authority” (PA – the supposedly “moderate alternative to Hamas”) has been dropping for many years – whilst the number of Christians (Arab and non Arab) in areas ruled by Jews has increased.
That is worth repeating – the number of Christians in areas of “the land between the river and the sea” ruled by Islam (remember the Palestinian Authority is Islamic) is falling, and the number of Christians in areas of the land ruled by Jews is increasing.
Yet – the media find local “Christian leaders” (who are eagerly cited on-line) who condemn the Jews and praise the followers of Islam.
It seems that these “Christian leaders” support the very forces that are, over time, eliminating Christians.
Should these Islamic forces (be they called Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, or some other name) succeed in exterminating the Jews, they will also come for the Christians.
“First the Saturday people – then the Sunday people”.
It is(true that the followers of Islam believe that they have a rightful claim to the “land between the river and the sea” – but they also believe that Islam has a rightful claim to everywhere else, on the logical grounds that Allah, they believe, created the world – and so it belongs to the followers of Allah, the followers of the person they believe to be the last prophet of Allah – Muhammed.
Say there was a “two state solution” in Britain with followers of Islam being given (say) Birmingham and other areas, this would NOT settle the matter.
Remember, according to Islam – Allah created the world and his last prophet was Muhammed.
People must either convert or pay the infidel tax – and this is not a simple monetary payment, it is a form of ritual humiliation so they “feel themselves to be subdued”, and different legal procedures apply to infidels – in terms of the weight of their testimony in court and so on (say in cases where the right hand has taken infidel females).
And should, for example, Infidels (or Muslims – Islam is even handed on this point) mock Muhammed – they must be executed, and other basic Islamic laws be applied.
NOT just in a particular place (say Birmingham) – but generally over everywhere that Allah created.
And, according to Islam, Allah the created the world – indeed the universe.
However…..
Tactical considerations apply – Muhammed (a political and military leader – a leader of genius) made this clear.
One Muslim, or a few Muslims, coming to a land filled with infidels should NOT make the claim that the land belongs to Islam – only (only) when sufficient forces (numbers) have been built up, can such claims be prudently made.
So the first Islamic immigrants to a place are likely to be peaceful and polite – and so their children will also be, till sufficient forces (numbers) have been built up, by a combination of immigration, conversion (sincere conversion – the penalty for claiming to be a Muslim and not really following the principles explained by Muhammed is death – death as a “hypocrite”), and natural increase – births.
It is a matter of prudent calculation – applying pressure (carefully thought out pressure) on the infidels over time, and (if possible) trying to get the infidel governments themselves to help in the process – out of a desire to “keep the peace” and/or out of a desire for “diversity and inclusion”.
Infidel governments may not believe, for example, that the rocks and trees will call out “there is a Jew hiding behind me – come and kill him” – but it is not necessary for infidel governments to believe this, as long as infidel governments are “useful idiots” (if I many borrow a phrase from the Communists), that will suffice.
As for the Islamic claim that a Jewish woman poisoned Muhammed (undermining his health – and, perhaps, leading to his eventual death) – that claim may be true (I do not deny it), but I would point out that the same Islamic sources say that Muhammed killed her family and took her as a slave.
It should be pointed that such important Western figures, such as former Prime Minister Blair, former President Bush, and His Majesty King Charles III, have a totally different view of Islam. Indeed they would regard the view of Islam that I have outlined above, the view of Gladstone, Churchill and so on, as abhorrent – totally unacceptable.
I am unclear what their alternative view of Islam is based upon – but it is clear that their view of these matters is totally different, and that their view is very much that of the Western establishment (including the educational establishment) generally. And that this view dominates foreign and domestic policy.
I will stop here.
Gladstone and Churchill. Yes. Also Ataturk.
Paul, everything you say is factually correct which is why to too many minds it is especially dangerous and must be oppossed.
My understanding is that in 2005 not only did the IDF (sometimes forcibly) remove Jews from Gaza but I think they even moved graveyards?
And yes, left Gaza with the infrastructure from highly successful market gardening. I’d love to buy Gazan tomatoes! Alas t’was not to be. Yes, the Gazans decided to export sheer nihilistic hatred instead – and not just to Israel. And all on the Dollars and Euros of “aid”*.
You seen the beaches of Gaza? That could be a great tourist destination! Now, imagine if they had a low tax regime and whatnot. They could have been Dubai and really handy for the ancienct sites of Israel and Egypt. Gaza is a catastrophe of it’s own making. The last thing Hamas wants is Gazans to prosper. It’s a terrible state of affairs.
It is not the fault of Israel. I’m not even sure if it is the fault of Hamas as such. They are just gangsters whose entire raison d’etre expires with any form of peace including, perhaps, “From the River to the Sea”. I blame the international “establishment” for enabling this, for being taken in by the Hamas bullshit.
*”Aid” in the same sense that giving George Best a bottle of Scotch would have been “aid”.
@NickM
*”Aid” in the same sense that giving George Best a bottle of Scotch would have been “aid”.
George Best? Sheesh, I think you are showing your age there Nick 😉
One of the greatest footballers of all time.
Just wanted to say – masterly setting-out of the history. Too few are even aware of all of this.
Paul,
I ran your comments through ChatGpt5. Here is it’s response.”
Paul, your comments raise some important historical points — for example, that there was never a sovereign “State of Palestine” before 1948, that large Jewish communities were expelled from Arab countries after Israel’s independence, and that British immigration policy in the 1930s made life very hard for Jews fleeing Europe. You’re also right that Christian communities have declined sharply under the PA while holding up better inside Israel.
But several parts of your argument are overstated or poorly sourced. The claim that the Young Turks planned a general extermination of Jews in WWI and were stopped by Falkenhayn doesn’t appear in any serious historical record. Likewise, presenting Islam as a monolithic doctrine of global conquest oversimplifies a religious tradition with many interpretations, and phrases like “migration → dominance → conquest” sound more like conspiracy rhetoric than history. Even the “largely deserted” picture of 19th-century Palestine glosses over long-established Arab communities in places like Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Hebron.
In short: your core point — that the “right of return” claim ignores the messy reality of reciprocal displacement, shifting demographics, and the absence of any prior Palestinian state — is a strong one. But the case would be far more convincing if it dropped the unsourced claims and painted the complexity of the region with more nuance.”
It gave you a C / 2:2. I then asked it to steel-man your arguments and it revised up to B+/low A. Your steel-man argument was as follows:
‘Steel-Manned Version of Paul Marks’ Argument
1. No prior Palestinian sovereignty:
The territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean was not an independent Palestinian state in the 19th or early 20th centuries. It was an Ottoman province, and later a British Mandate. The idea of Palestinian national identity developed mainly in the 20th century, particularly after 1948. This undermines claims that a sovereign “Palestine” was taken away.
2. Jewish return and development:
Jewish communities maintained a presence in the land for centuries and made significant sacrifices to return in larger numbers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They drained swamps, introduced modern agriculture, and built cities like Tel Aviv. This development attracted Arab migration as well, meaning that some proportion of today’s Palestinian population descends from relatively recent arrivals.
3. Dual refugee crises:
The 1948 war created two refugee populations: Palestinian Arabs displaced from their homes and Jews expelled or pressured out of Arab countries such as Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen. Any discussion of the “right of return” that only addresses Palestinians ignores this symmetry.
4. Fragility of borders and peace:
The 1949 armistice lines were never permanent borders, and the 1948–67 period was punctuated by cross-border attacks and reprisals. The idea that this period was one of peace or stability is a myth.
5. Demographic realities:
The population of Muslims in the land is higher today than at any point in history, showing that claims of “genocide” or “extermination” are misleading. Meanwhile, Christian communities have declined in PA-controlled areas but fared better in Israel, suggesting which system offers greater protection for minorities.
6. Gaza disengagement and Hamas:
Israel withdrew all settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005. The subsequent takeover by Hamas, culminating in the October 7th massacre, illustrates the dangers of creating a sovereign entity run by groups committed to Israel’s destruction. This casts serious doubt on the viability of a two-state solution.
⸻
How Steel-Manning Changes the View
• Accuracy improves: By removing the unsupported “Young Turk extermination” claim and the sweeping “Islam as global conspiracy” rhetoric, the argument becomes historically grounded and much harder to dismiss.
• Balance increases: Recognising both Arab and Jewish refugee experiences strengthens the moral weight of the case.
• Persuasiveness rises: The steel-manned version is less polemical, more evidence-driven, and focuses on demonstrable historical facts.
Revised Evaluation
If Paul had made his points in this steel-manned way, I’d grade his “essay” not around 58–60% (C/2:2) but closer to 72–75% (B+/low A). It would still lose some marks for one-sidedness (he underplays the scale of Palestinian displacement and suffering), but overall the reasoning would be much more credible and could hold its own in an academic or policy debate.‘
I appreciate you were writing comments in a thread and not an academic essay. I was curious to see how AI would perform and I’d be curious to know your thoughts.
I asked it to give me the opposite view. It responded.
‘ here’s a steel-manned Palestinian perspective framed as a blog-comment, parallel in style and tone to the one I gave for Paul’s side. It makes the best possible case for the “right of return” and Palestinian grievances in clear, historically grounded terms:
⸻
While it’s true that “Palestine” was never an independent state in the modern sense, that doesn’t erase the lived reality of the Arab population who had been farming, trading, and building families there for centuries. The fact that borders were drawn by empires does not make the mass displacement of 1948 any less real. Roughly 700,000 people lost their homes, villages were destroyed, and many have lived in refugee camps for generations. For them, the “right of return” is not an abstract slogan but the claim to homes and land their families can still identify.
It’s also important to note that while Jewish immigration brought investment and growth, it also created deep resentment among local Arabs who felt they were losing both political control and economic security. For Palestinians, 1948 is not simply one refugee crisis among others: it is the foundational dispossession that defined their national identity. The expulsions of Jews from Arab countries, while tragic, did not create the same sense of being exiled within one’s own land.
Finally, the experience of Palestinians under occupation since 1967 reinforces the sense of injustice. Land confiscations, settlement expansion, restrictions on movement, and military control shape everyday life in the West Bank and Gaza. The Gaza disengagement in 2005 did not bring freedom; Israel still controls borders, airspace, and maritime access. When people argue that Palestinians should simply give up the right of return or accept permanent refugee status elsewhere, many hear it as asking them to relinquish not just a political claim but their family history, dignity, and identity. For them, a just peace cannot ignore the catastrophe of 1948.’
I also asked it if overwhelming violence may be the solution. It said.
“That’s a tough but important question. If we strip away morality and just ask about historical feasibility, overwhelming violence has sometimes “settled” conflicts — but not always in the way people expect.
⸻
Historical Examples Where Violence Did Create a Lasting Settlement
• Post–WWII Europe: The expulsion of 12–14 million ethnic Germans from Central/Eastern Europe was brutal but final. Borders shifted, populations moved, and today those disputes are largely dormant.
• Turkey & Greece (1920s): The forced population exchange between Muslims in Greece and Orthodox Christians in Turkey ended centuries of intercommunal conflict, at the cost of enormous suffering.
• Indian Partition (1947): Around 15 million displaced, 1+ million killed — horrific, but it created India and Pakistan as separate states that endure to this day.
In all three cases, overwhelming violence combined with political decisions created facts on the ground that became irreversible.
⸻
Where Violence Failed to End Conflict
• Northern Ireland: Decades of violence failed to “settle” things. Peace only came with political compromise (Good Friday Agreement).
• The Balkans (1990s): Ethnic cleansing created temporary control, but NATO intervention and later negotiations re-drew the map. Bosnia and Kosovo remain unsettled questions.
• Israel–Palestine itself: Multiple wars (1948, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2023) inflicted massive suffering, but neither side has been broken into permanent submission.
⸻
Applying This to Israel–Palestine
• Could Israel use overwhelming force to end Palestinian demands?
Possibly in Gaza — Israel has military superiority — but in the West Bank, with millions of people and international oversight, mass expulsion would trigger global backlash. Israel is too dependent on U.S. and Western support to pursue a “total war” solution without becoming a pariah state.
• Could Palestinians or surrounding states overwhelm Israel?
History suggests not. The Arab states failed in 1948, 1967, and 1973. Israel’s military advantage, nuclear deterrent, and U.S. backing make outright destruction of Israel infeasible.
• Could both sides be “exhausted into compromise”?
That’s perhaps the most realistic scenario. Sometimes conflicts only end when both populations are so war-weary that compromise becomes preferable. But at present, cycles of violence keep reinforcing maximalist positions rather than weakening them.
⸻
Feasibility vs. Morality
• Feasibility: Overwhelming violence can create lasting settlements when one side is utterly defeated, displaced, or absorbed — history shows this.
• Israel–Palestine today: Neither side has the capacity (or external permission) to impose such a total solution.
• Morality: Even if feasible, the cost in human lives and legitimacy would be catastrophic. In a hyper-connected world, atrocities don’t stay local. They reshape global politics.
⸻
✅ Conclusion:
Overwhelming violence might create “facts on the ground,” but in Israel–Palestine it is unlikely to be decisive. The balance of power, global scrutiny, and depth of identity on both sides mean it would probably produce only more cycles of conflict — not a clean resolution like post-WWII Europe.’
Fraser,
Well, oddly enough… Today is my 52nd birthday!
My fave George Best annecdote… George is in a five star hotel bed with the current Miss World and he orders more Champagne. The bellboy turns up and says, “George, where did it all go wrong?”
I guess, if you consider how things turned out, that’s quite dark.
OK, we are getting well off topic.
Odd that the most apposite example, WW2 itself, is missed. You know, that time where bombing the fuck out of Jew-hating fascists worked a treat?
I sneeze in threes,
Yes, but… There is Kashmir. There is also the fact that both states are at best at a level of truce with nukes aimed at each other. I really don’t think that’s a good example. The partition itself was horrific and didn’t ensure precisely a lasting peace. See, for example, the Pakistan Civil War that resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. This massively involved India. Or indeed the recent Indian air raids which remain somewhat mysterious. Did Pakistan shoot down five Rafales? Who knows but it doesn’t exactly sound like peace to me.
I Sneeze In Threes:
Before getting into the substance of what you wrote, I salute you for taking the time and trouble to show what happens when you put these things through some sort of AI gizmo to see what comes out. Arguably – and @Paul Marks can argue his own corner so I will leave it to him – it shows that AI is not a substitute for doing the work of validating sources, cross-checking and so on. And it also shows how biases and assumptions can (“garbage in, garbage out”) be embedded into AI in ways that a casual user might not appreciate. It is a reason why the likes of historian Niall Ferguson are troubled by college students’ use of AI tools. As a working journalist who has been urged to use AI as a tool, I make it very clear to colleagues that this is a tool, and nothing else. (I might write a separate post on the matter when I get some free time.)
The “steelman” way of setting out the Palestinian case:
While it’s true that “Palestine” was never an independent state in the modern sense, that doesn’t erase the lived reality of the Arab population who had been farming, trading, and building families there for centuries. The fact that borders were drawn by empires does not make the mass displacement of 1948 any less real. Roughly 700,000 people lost their homes, villages were destroyed, and many have lived in refugee camps for generations. For them, the “right of return” is not an abstract slogan but the claim to homes and land their families can still identify.
Leaving aside whether the 700,000 figure is accurate (citations needed) it is true that the borders of empires are not, of themselves, an argument against a claim of a homeland and hence a complaint of unjust displacement. However, the “steelman” did not mention the efforts made by various forces to try and destroy Israel at birth. As the Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf book explains, those attempts to wipe out Israel failed; unfortunately, those living in what was Palestinian territory (whether under Ottoman/British control etc) lost that war, or at least many of those seeking to take up arms did. Being on the losing side was unpleasant, but not surprising. That tempers my sympathies.
It’s also important to note that while Jewish immigration brought investment and growth, it also created deep resentment among local Arabs who felt they were losing both political control and economic security. For Palestinians, 1948 is not simply one refugee crisis among others: it is the foundational dispossession that defined their national identity. The expulsions of Jews from Arab countries, while tragic, did not create the same sense of being exiled within one’s own land.
Well, given that many of those claiming the mantle of “Palestinian” were from Egypt, Jordan and others, that rather undermines that point of dispossession, although not necessarily fatally so. This is, in a way, an example of how the issue – familiar to libertarians and classical liberals – the principle of restitution for proven injustices can apply. A problem is whether there were clearly established land titles in force and respected at the time, and that leads down a rabbit hole of legal argument.
Finally, the experience of Palestinians under occupation since 1967 reinforces the sense of injustice. Land confiscations, settlement expansion, restrictions on movement, and military control shape everyday life in the West Bank and Gaza. The Gaza disengagement in 2005 did not bring freedom; Israel still controls borders, airspace, and maritime access. When people argue that Palestinians should simply give up the right of return or accept permanent refugee status elsewhere, many hear it as asking them to relinquish not just a political claim but their family history, dignity, and identity. For them, a just peace cannot ignore the catastrophe of 1948.’
Well, it rather depends on whether that occupation was required, or not. Israel was attacked in 1967, and it is not exactly difficult to understand why such a small state would want to prevent it happening again. The way that many Palestinians – and certainly their leaders – have maintained this endless narrative of victimhood, and often done so to scupper two-state solutions in preference for an unlimited RoR, means the prospects for peace were difficult, if not impossible, to fulfil.
1948 was a “catastrophe” for those who wanted Israel destroyed, and Jews removed from the area. It was also arguably one for the millions of ordinary people who wanted to get on with life but who have been thwarted by those claiming to espouse their cause and do so by violence. They have been badly served.
Here is an interesting book review on the issue.
Some paragraphs:
Hatred of Israel is used to absolve Arabs’ own historical sins: Imperialism, colonialism, ethnic cleansing, the appropriation of land and other people’s holy sites, the bloody conquest of entire continents. Without these historical developments, the Arab-Muslim world as presently constituted would simply not exist. Projecting these sins on to a hated Other is an evasion of accountability—a way to bury their own historical guilt beneath the violent self-assertion of an unchallengeable myth of indigeneity and noble victimhood. In its insistence on return, the Arab-Muslim world holds out the hope that “justice” can be done—the Other can be eliminated, and their own original sin remain suppressed and denied indefinitely.
But there is nothing uniquely monstrous about the history of Arab-Muslim imperialism. For all of human history, great empires and religions—and Islam has been both—have built themselves in precisely the same way. As Balzac put it, behind every great fortune lies a crime. And today’s Arab Muslims are no more guilty of these crimes than Germans born after World War II are guilty of the Holocaust, or today’s Americans guilty of the institution of slavery. The problem is that the Arab-Muslim world has dealt with its history in a particularly dysfunctional manner. It rejects the self-criticism it demands of the West, and indeed of Israel, in favor of self-pity and hatred. Historical sins demand an internal moral struggle, not the unending persecution of a convenient scapegoat. If the international community should work toward anything, it is toward encouraging the possibility of such a reckoning.
And this, perhaps, is where the real solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies. Wilf and Schwartz provide an excellent historical study of, and useful practical suggestions for dealing with, one of the most intractable aspects of the long struggle between the two peoples. But I doubt that these suggestions will prove effective unless and until the Palestinians, along with the larger Arab-Muslim world, come to terms with the fact that they are not uniquely persecuted, that Israel is not uniquely evil, and that compromise is therefore possible after all. Only then will Palestinians be in a position to renounce the irredentist dream of return that stands so stubbornly in the way of the dream of peace. Unfortunately, such a reckoning is not likely to come soon.
Anyway, that’s my response to the AI.
I have already said what I wanted to say – there is no need to repeat myself, indeed it would be boring to do so. And if anyone chooses to lie about what I have written (or to lie about other matters) – that is up to them.
AI Patrick Bateman has asked me to post his thoughts.
“ There is an idea of a Middle East solution, some kind of abstraction, a framework, a vision. Some people even speak of it as if it’s real. Peace talks, accords, road maps, two states, one state, land for peace — you can almost touch them, see them outlined in glossy reports, stacked neatly in ministries and think tanks. The tasteful thickness of those reports, the weight of the paper, the faint watermark of authority.
But they are illusions. They are not real. They are constructs projected onto a situation that resists them, masks that conceal chaos and ideology. You can discuss them endlessly in lecture halls, in think tanks, in polite dinner parties where everyone performs empathy like it’s another accessory. But behind the slogans, behind the handshakes, behind the hashtags — there is nothing.
And though I can mimic the words of concern, though I can acknowledge the suffering, the truth is simpler, colder, harder.
I simply do not care.
Let’s see Paul Allen’s solution.‘
However, on reading the full comment thread – Nick M. asked a specific question.
And “I sneeze in threes” (whose comments I have only just read) also asked a specific question – so I will answer it later on in this comment.
Yes the Jewish graveyards in Gaza were removed – this had to be done because the followers of Islam would desecrate them.
I have myself have been to ancient Jewish sites in Israel (sites many centuries old) that have been desecrated.
In the period from 1948 to 1967 almost all of the Jewish places of worship in the areas that was under Islamic rule were destroyed – it did not matter how old they were. This was in spite of the vast majority of the British Mandate of Palestine (which has been Jewish in the past) being given to create the “Kingdom of Jordan” – why is this not the “Palestinian State”?
By the way, the British were NOT guilty of aggression against the Ottoman Empire – the Ottoman Empire (under the “Young Turk” regime) choose to ally with Imperial Germany – no one forced them to do this, they choose to do it.
Britain and France had, repeatedly, saved the Islamic Ottoman Empire from Imperial Russia (not just in the 19th century – but even back in the 1700s) – this policy baffled Russians (and baffles me as I sit at my desk now), but there we are. Constantinople will never be liberated now – thanks to the baffling British and French policy of the 1700s (indeed in the case of France – long before the 1700s) and 1800s.
Including the wrong headed policy of Disraeli (a man of Jewish origins) – who was almost as bad as that fool Herbert Samuel (a Jew) in the 1920s.
German agents told the population of the Middle East that the Emperor Wilhelm II had converted to Islam and would give them the British and French women as sex slaves – it was all lies, he had not converted, but many ignorant people believed the lies.
Population movements – again (and now I am repeating myself) it was the Jewish population of various Middle Eastern nations that was driven out or killed. The Islamic population in the land “between the river and the sea” is higher (far higher) than it is has ever been in history.
Did some Jews do bad things? Yes they did. Including to other Jews – for example the Labour Party dominated military force sunk a ship filled with “right wing” Jews and shot at the survivors in the water.
As for house-to-house fighting – walking in the front door is a good way to get killed (trip wire and explosives) – you hit the house from range, or (if you can not hit from range) you throw in a hand grenade through the window – any military force (regardless of nationality or religion) knows that.
These days things are harder – as many buildings (for example in Gaza) have underground bunkers and tunnels linking to many other strong points – rather like the islands in the pacific war with Imperial Japan (1941-1945), which the Americans basically destroyed in order to capture.
Really very large weapons should be used – rather than infantry going in on the ground. But Hamas and other Islamic groups keep vast numbers of civilians as human shields – “you can not kill us, without killing them” – they do not care about their own civilians, which is why they steal food aid from them. No matter how much food aid is sent in – Hamas and other Islamic groups will either steal it or just destroy it, so they can have “hungry civilians” to show off – again they-do-not-care-about-Islamic-civilians (they never have). “You love life, we love death – that is why we will win” – a saying since the 7th century (siege of Alexandria).
It is true that many Muslims left in 1948 – because the invading Islamic armies (of several countries) said they wanted the Muslims to leave – so that they could exterminate the Jews without risking killing their own people. The Muslims who left supported this extermination policy – their leader was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the ally of Mr Hitler and Mr Himmler (on his one visit to an extermination camp Mr Himmler was sick – he vomited, however when the Grand Mufti visited one, he had no problem). But again – the Islamic population of the land between the river and the sea is now higher (higher – not lower) than it has ever been in history.
Land confiscation – under the Ottoman Empire there was very little private land, this is the principle reason why the Middle East under the Ottoman Empire, as late as the early 1800s, was less developed (and less populated) than it had been under the Roman Empire thousands of years before.
The idea of the “glories of Islamic civilization” breaks on the rock of what the area was actually like under Islamic rule – before the Jewish (and Christian) investment which largely got under way in Victorian times.
Land continued to be mainly state owned under the British mandate and under modern Israel. Do I support that? No I do not – I believe the land should be privately owned, not owned by the state.
Was there widespread confiscation of land owned by Muslims? No there was not.
But there was buying of land in some areas – sadly there was not much private land to buy.
Lastly on Palestinian nationalism – this was invented (by Moscow center – and their helpers) in the 1960s.
Mr Arafat, Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, was born and raised in Egypt – he was not driven out of the “land between the river and the sea”, he had fought in 1948 – but as an Islamic warrior, not a “Palestinian Nationalist”.
This is a conflict with Islam (which claims the world – not just “the land between the river and the sea”) – not with “secular Palestinian nationalism”, or with unicorns and dragons.
No more of this.
Finis.
I couldn’t care less about “legitimizing” what Israel is doing. Better—much more satisfying and valuable—is seeing the Jews act like bullies, putting their enemies on notice that they have only begun to take the land that is theirs, and will take more, that they will never give up an inch, nor compromise about one damn thing. Wars like the one centered in Gaza are meant to demoralize the Jews. It is long overdue for the Jews to spit unapologetically in their enemies’ eye, to announce that evil against the Jews achieved its high water mark some time ago, and will continue to recede, that it is the forces of antisemitism that from now on will be on the run.
“It is long overdue for the Jews to spit unapologetically in their enemies’ eye, to announce that evil against the Jews achieved its high water mark some time ago, and will continue to recede, that it is the forces of antisemitism that from now on will be on the run.”
I completely agree. And now that there is an Israel, a haven for Jews, the age of Jewish deference and accommodation for the antisemitic whims of other states is over.
Off topic – but we now have a Muslim home secretary to resolve all the issues around migrants. This is not going to end well is it? Something is going to kick off. Labour clearly detest a section of our native population and don’t give a fuck. Hmmmm…… Starmer is not a wise man is he?
But the New World Order contemplates a world of completely blended demographics, with no racial or cultural blocs concentrated anywhere. That is their idea of how inter-national hostilities will be finally ended. They will establish the New Soviet Man, who will love and serve everyone equally.
The concept of Israel goes against that core belief, and so they will always be implacable foes.
But the NWO will lose.
I picture him wearing a tee-shirt that says “eat me last, please.”
Paul,
Hamas do care about their own “civilians”! A dead or starving Gazan baby* on CNN is worth an entire squad of riflemen to them. More than anything else (and that is a long list) that is why I revile them. Great Holy Warriors who cower below maternity hospitals, commanded by crooks who live in supreme opulence in Qater, and are prepared to fight to the last of their own dead babies.
These are not the heirs of Saladin. They’re… just gits. Every Western poseur drinking some poncey coffee whilst wearing a keffiyeh ought to be (in my native Geordie) “Telt”.
*Of course all figures on this come from the Gazan “Ministry of Health” which is the epitome of objective truth.