Not every nation has a state. The Kurds, for example, do not have a state of their own and their numbers are distributed across several states. So, what makes Zionists uniquely entitled to a state? Even if we do concede a right to exist for a Zionist state, why should the Zionist entity be situated in Palestine, a state with a defined territory in which Jews, Christians, Muslims and others have been coexisting peacefully for centuries? What gives the Zionist entity the right to ethnically cleanse and commit genocide against the Palestinians to make space for a Zionist supremacist state? These are some foundational questions for a credible Palestine policy and peace plan.
The original sin is the Balfour Declaration 1917, whereby Imperial Britain dished out a promise for a “homeland” for the European Jewry on territory that was not it’s to give. “Britain had no moral or political or legal right to promise their land that belonged to the Arabs to another people” insists the Israeli-British historian, Avi Shlaim. Ironically, Britain’s seeming generosity is laden with anti-Semitism, to ship the Jewish “problem” elsewhere. It was an act of Imperial larceny with full British military support.
The Holocaust of course intensified the rush of white European Jewry settling in the colonial-Zionist outpost and the continued violent displacing of more Palestinians from their ancestral lands. It begs the question, why should the Palestinians pay for the sins of Western anti-Semitism? Why not the US? Or Germany that has declared Israel’s security as “Germany’s reason of State” (Volkerrechtsblog)?
From its very inception, the Zionist “state” is a product of violence, lies and illegality. It exists by fear and force and a mythical “narrative of justification” in the words of the award-winning journalist Chris Hedges that dehumanizes the Palestinians and de-legitimizes their resistance. Western elites and media meticulously shield Israel from accountability for its atrocities. Criticism has been massively censured about the real nature of Zionism by the West’s insistence that criticism of Zionism, which is a political philosophy of the white European Jewry, and the Zionist “state” is prejudice against a religious community. It is a disingenuous conflation of a political ideology and religion.
Why should the Palestinians pay for the sins of Western anti-Semitism? Why not the US? Or Germany that has declared Israel’s security as “Germany’s reason of State” (Volkerrechtsblog)?
Firstly, as explained by Avi Shlaim, Eastern Jews do not have the same experience of persecution as the Jews in the West. Secondly, as evidenced by recent demonstrations, not all Western Jews are Zionists. Thirdly, Jews are not the only Semites, the charge of anti-Semitism is equally applicable to the brutal treatment of the Palestinians who are also Semites.
The so-called peace processes are a series of capitulations and appeasements that compound gross injustices against the Palestinians. The 1947 UN Partition Plan conceded a “state” to the Zionists, providing 56% of British Protected Palestine to the Zionists although they legally owned only 6-7% of the land and the Palestinian constituted two-thirds of the population. It is essentially legitimized brute force and lies.
Subsequent “peace” initiatives are structured around this two-state formula and proceeds with this inherent injustice. Even under the Oslo Accords (1993, 1995) that sought to advance the two-state solution, the Palestinian Authority only controls 18% of the West Bank (“Area A”) as the Zionists fast consolidate their hold over the West Bank through illegal settlements financed by Zionist communities residing in the US, EU and UK.
The late Edward Said rightly denounced the Oslo Accords as an “instrument of Palestinian surrender” (Al Jazeera). The American Jewish political scientist, Norman Finkelstein, is even more candid: “There is no peace process, there has never been a peace process. There has been an annexation process by Israel that uses the peace process as a façade or fig leaf to cover the annexation process.”
Criticism has been massively censured about the real nature of Zionism by the West’s insistence that criticism of Zionism, which is a political philosophy of the white European Jewry, and the Zionist “state” is prejudice against a religious community. It is a disingenuous conflation of a political ideology and religion.
The “peace” processes conveniently ignore the Nakba and 18 major massacres since 1948 that resulted in over 24,200 killed and many more children, women and elders maimed, raped and tortured, over 810,000 Palestinians displaced, over 530 towns destroyed and water sources poisoned. Many women and children have been sexually assaulted, starved and killed in administrative detention. It is this ongoing century-long Nakba that caused Hamas to violently resist a brutal occupation on 7 October.
The latest massacre surpasses all with over 35,000 killed, over 100,000 maimed, the majority women and children, and over 2 million displaced and subject to deliberate starvation.
In fact, as Norman Finkelstein notes, there is no two-state solution left when the Zionists are brazenly executing a “greater” Israel and their patrons’ continue terror financing new illegal settlements with military, diplomatic, media and political cover that extends to threatening the International Criminal Court: “Target Israel and we will target you” (24 April 2024). As they talk peace, it is bullying, there is not even the pretense of respecting international law.
If countries insist on the “right” to militarily support Zionist occupation in breach of international law, then the global community must provide the necessary means to the Palestinians to defend themselves against annihilation till a fair peace is enforced.
Palestinians have been trapped at the mercy of a ruthless Zionist movement by the Muslim leaderships’ failure to challenge these false narratives and the occupation. When some Arab League members proposed sanctioning Israel, a demand recently reiterated by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Ms. Francesca Albanese, the Abraham Accords collaborators blocked the 57-state Muslim bloc from taking necessary “concrete actions." It’s a vital reprieve that gives credence to their fake narratives and a vital trade lifeline that provides oxygen to the Zionist violence.
For a peace policy to be credible, it must be just, firmly rooted in international law. It must address the foundational questions upfront, the historic and structural injustices, and the apartheid dismantled. It must reject the propaganda -that it all began on 7 October- by setting the clock to when it all began in the late nineteenth century. It must punish such grotesque crimes as occupation, ethnic cleansing and genocide to uphold international rule of law equally for all.
There must be zero tolerance for the Zionist narrative that dehumanizes the Palestinians as “animals” and “Amalek” and delegitimizes Hamas, which is a democratically elected authority in Gaza engaged in legitimate armed resistance against a brutal occupation. The Palestinians must be able to elect their representatives to negotiate peace on terms that they consider appropriate.
The global community must re-examine the justice and viability of the two-state solution. There is only one option left for peace, a single democratic state, “from the River to the Sea” that includes all indigenous communities – Jews, Christians, Muslims and others with equal rights. The “longest unresolved refugee crisis” must be resolved by recognizing a right of return for the 5.9 million Palestinians refugees (registered with UNRWA) to their ancestral lands and homes. To do otherwise, would be to reward Zionist violence.
If countries insist on the “right” to militarily support Zionist occupation in breach of international law, then the global community must provide the necessary means to the Palestinians to defend themselves against annihilation till a fair peace is enforced. For those who insist on a Zionists’ “right” to a state, let the original Western sinners atone by providing space for the Zionists’ aspiration on their lands, from which they migrated to Palestine as refugees to escape persecution - why would that not be a legal and fair policy?