“These are the basic lines of the national
government headed by me:
The Jewish people have an exclusive
and unquestionable right to all areas of
the Land of Israel. The government will
promote and develop settlement in all
parts of the Land of Israel – in the Galilee,
the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, December 30, 2022
Anyone with but half eye open during the last several decades should by now be aware that of the existence of an undisclosed Zionist Long Game that preceded the establishment of Israel in 1948, and remains currently very much alive. It aims at extending Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Occupied Palestine, with the probable exception of Gaza, excluded for demographic and biblical reasons. The significance of Netanyahu’s publicaffirmation of this previously secretive long game is that it may be reaching its final phase, with him presiding over the far right governing coalition that is poised to pursue closure.
Should it matter that Netanyahu’s claim of exclusive Israel’s supremacy on behalf of the Jewish people over the whole of the promised land is in direct defiance of international law? Additionally, Netanyahu’s statement is also perversely at odds with Biden’s stubborn insistence, however farfetched, on reaffirming U.S. Government support for a two-state solution. This zombie approach to resolving the Israel/Palestine struggle has dominated international diplomacy for years, usefully allowing the UN and its Western members to maintain their embrace of Israel without seeming to throw the Palestinian people under the bus while doing just that. Netanyahu’s brazen avowal of Israeli unilateral expansionism foregoes these earlier diplomatic charades to placate world public opinion to put Israel’s intentions of unilaterally finishing the Zionist Project. Such a forthright approach challenges the UN, the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian people, governments around the world, and transnational civil society to open both eyes and finally acknowledge that the two-state solution is dead. This does not mean giving up on a peaceful solution based on political compromise, but it does suggest shifting such hopes from two-state proposals to a single unified confederal, secular state with coexisting dual homelands for the two peoples based on equality of ethnic entitlements to Palestine as often conceived from ‘the river to the sea.’ Such a state would have a single governance structure upholding the fused sovereign rights of a post-Zionist, presumably renamed, state premised upon equal citizenship and human rights for Jews and Palestinians.
In fairness, it is true that this Zionist Long Game has only recently become fully apparent to all but the closest observers of the struggle. Throughout the 20th century this design of progressive expansionism was hidden from public view by a combination of Israeli control over the public narrative and U.S. complicity, which deceived especially diaspora Zionists by assuming that Israel was open to a political and territorial compromises and that it was the Palestinians who were mainly responsible for the failures to accept reasonable diplomatic proposals prefiguring Palestinian statehood. Such an interpretation of the stalemate was always deeply mistaken becuase it underestimated Israel underlying ambitions.
The Zionist Project from its very beginnings, more than a century ago, proceeded by stages to accept as final whatever was politically attainable at any given time, before moving quietly and quickly on to the next stage in fulfillment of its long-range colonization plans. Zionism never convincingly gave up its guiding commitment to establish a Jewish state that exercised sovereign control over the whole of ‘the whole of the promised land,’ itself a misleadingly precise reading of Judaic biblical tradition that could be concretized in any way that the Israeli leadership preferred.
This pattern of expansionist priorities should have become evident in the periods following the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and after World War II. The infamous colonial Declaration had pledged British support for ‘a national home for the Jewish people’ in Palestine. This pledge was made credible during the British mandatory period by accommodating ballooning Jewish immigration, which coincided with the rise of antisemitic fascism, most visibly in Nazi Germany, but extending to much of the rest of Europe.
After World War II came the UN partition resolution (UNGA Res. 181, 1947), which not only ignored Palestinian rights of self-determination by partitioning the country without a prior referendum, changing the status of the Jewish presence from ‘national home’ within the state of Palestine to a sovereign Jewish state on fully half of Palestinian territory, and then failing to take effective responsibility for implementing the portions of the UN proposals more favorable to Palestinians. This internationally devised ‘solution’ was greeted positively at each stage by the Zionist formal leadership, but rejected by representatives of the Palestinian people and by neighboring Arab governments. This regional rejectionism led directly to the 1948 War, which resulted in the catastrophic dispossession of an estimated 750,000 Palestinians, known to its victims as the nakba, ending with a ceasefire that increased Israel’s share of Palestine from 55% to 78%. The dispossession of such a large number of Palestinians was integral to the Zionist commitment to make Israel not only Jewish but democratic. It was understandably thought insecure to suppose that Israel could remain an ethnic democracy without a substantial Jewish demographic margin, and this could not be obtained except by dispossession, by coercive means to the extent necessary. From early on, Zionist zealots believed it desirable for security and nation-building to work toward a Jewish Only state, and that goal may resurface in the months ahead, not only to achieve ethnic purity, but to quell worries about Palestinian ‘demographic bomb.’
The next step in carrying forward the Zionist Project resulted from Israell’s victory in the 1967 War, which drove Jordan out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (and Egypt from Gaza). II also dispossessed another large number of indigenous Palestinians, a course of events known among Palestinian as the naksa. The 1967 War also resulted in Israel’s prolonged occupation of the territories occupied during the short war, and it was the beginning of an Israeli version of ‘triumphalism,’ which also made converts among foreign political elites in Washington previously worried that full support for Israel would alienate the Gulf oil producers.
The occupation by law and political consensus at the time was expected to be temporary (a matter of a few years at most) but the establishment of many unlawful Jewish settlements encroaching on what had been projected as a coexisting Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem strongly suggested that all along Israel’s leadership envisioned permanent arrangements with an end game in mind that did not include viable Palestinian statehood encompassing the West Bank heartland. Israel stalled over the years by complicated demands for border adjustments being agreed upon prior to any withdrawal. And somewhat later on, with a show of temerity, Israel contended that the West Bank was ‘disputed territory’ rather than ‘occupied territory.’
Another strong straw in the wind back in 1967 was Israel immediate declaration and enactment of a sovereign claim over the whole of an enlarged Jerusalem as the ‘eternal capital’ of the Jewish state, signaling its unwillingness to trust an outcome of post-1948 diplomatic negotiations (or to uphold the Jerusalem portion of the UN Partition Plan), which had originally envisioned East Jerusalem as the capital of the co-equal Palestinian state, before backpedaling and accepting the idea of the holy city being divided between the two peoples. This incorporation of Jerusalem into Israel proper was repeatedly rejected by overwhelming votes in the General Assembly, duly ignored by the Israeli government, but again Israel found that it would suffer no adverse consequences by defying international law and General Assembly majorities.
There were many lesser displays of virtuoso salami slicing by Israel of Palestinian rights and expectations in the subsequent 55 years. The Oslo diplomatic process lingered and languished for more than 20 years after the 1993 hyped handshake between Rabin and Arafat on the White House lawn, which was the most notable stunt by Israel along these lines designed to show the world that Israel remained open to achieving a negotiated sustainable peace.
With the benefit of hindsight, it seems clear that in the Israeli strategic imaginary ‘peace’ was never what Oslo was about. The real basis of Israeli support for Oslo, besides satisfying international pressure to manifest a willingness to engage in some semblance of negotiations, was to gain the needed time to make the Jewish settlement movement large and territorially diffuse enough to become irreversible. Such an obvious assault on the two-state mantra should then have sounded the death knell of two-state duplicity, although it was overdue by 40-50 years. Yet the curtain was not lifted then or since. The continuing international avowal of adherence to a two-state solution, until the present, was mutually convenient for both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership and for friendly foreign governments, and even for the UN that was far too weak to insist on Israeli compliance with international law in the face of Euro-American unwavering refusal to authorize any pushback in the UN Security Council.
Israel’s 2018 Basic Law proclaiming the supremacy of Jews in ‘the promised land of Israel,’ including the whole of the West Bank, moved a giant step closer to revealing the integral goals of the Zionist Project as openly endorsed by Netanyahu to coincide with the swearing in of his fourth go at being the Prime Minister. As argued here, the essential elements of such a project had preceded its public endorsement by more than a century, but for an Israeli head of state to dramatize the commitment as openly was new, and politically of great significance.
Yet, despite this series of monumental successes of this Zionist Long Game is from some perspectives more problematic of completion than it has ever been, strange as such assertions might be regarded from a purely materialist view of politics. The Palestinian people have held firm in their commitment to self-determination throughout, while enduring a century of being tested by large-scalle Israeli settler encroachments, as aggravated by Palestinian disunity and inadequate representation at the international level by the quasi-collaborative leadership provided by the Palestinian Authority. The spirit of resistance and struggle has been sustained by a Palestinian deep culture of steadfastness of sumud as reinforced by global solidarity initiatives and a generally supportive global public opinion, as well as by Palestinian resistance and gllobal solidarity, which although sporadic never disappeared.
Additionally, the weight of evolving historical circumstances has enabled the Palestinians to achieve important victories in The Legitimacy War being waged by the two peoples for the control of symbolic and normative spaces in the wider struggle, against all odds, is being won by the Palestinians. Over the course of the last decade the international political discourse has increasingly accepted the Palestinian narrative of Israel as ‘a settler colonial state,’ a damaging assessment in an era where colonialism elsewhere was being dismantled by the weaker side militarily, suggesting the unrecognized leverage of law, morality, global solidarity, and nationalist mobilization in out maneuvering a militarily superior adversary.
My previous comments on this latest, possibly terminal phase, of the Zionist Project, is further illuminated if interpreted through the lens of settler colonialism. As Patrick Wolfe, the leading academic expositor of the concept, and others point out, a settler colonialist undertaking eventually falters and collapses unless it manages to eliminate or at least permanently and radically marginalize and pacify the native population. Settler colonial successes in Canada, the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand confirm this hypothesis as do the most prominent instances of failure, South Africa, and less clearly, Algeria. Given this historical record, I anticipate feverish Israeli attempts in the near future to achieve a further massive dispossession of the Palestinian people. In an important sense, the nakba should be understood as a process rather than an event back in 1948, to be culminated during the 2020s by a new surge of dispossession tactical moves.
Beyond allegations of settler colonialism, and more carefully documented, the accusation of apartheid directed at the Israeli state, which had long dismissed as the irresponsible screams of those that wanted to destroy the Israeli state, became validated by an emergent civil society consensus. Over the course of the last six years exhaustive reports prepared under the auspices the UN (ESCWA), Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and even the fiercely independent Israeli NGO, B’Tselem issued reports documenting with care and professional skill the apartheid allegations. As memories of the Holocaust faded and wrongdoing toward Palestinian rights became harder to shove under the rug, world public opinion especially in the West, became somewhat more sympathetic to and convinced by the Palestinian narrative, and as significantly, by the relevance of the South African precedent that became harder to ignore.
Further symbolic Palestinian victories included widespread diplomatic recognition of Palestinian statehood by many governments in the Global South, admission of Palestine to non-voting membership in the UN, access as a state party to the International Criminal Court and its 2021 judgment authorizing the investigation of Palestinian allegations of international crimes in Occupied Palestine after 2014, and at the end of 2022, approval by a wide margin of a General Assembly Resolution requesting an Advisory Opinion from the World Court in The Hague on the prolonged unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories amounting to a deprivation of the Palestinian right of self-determination. The 2022 HRC appointment of a high-level Commission of Inquiry with a broad mandate to investigate Israel wrongdoing was also a revealing UN turn in favor of the Palestinians. Such challenges to Israeli administration of the Occupied Palestinian Territories only occurred after decades of UN frustrations arising from Israeli non-compliance with international humanitarian law in the OPT as set forth in the 4th Geneva Convention devoted to belligerent and refusal to cooperate with UNHRC Special Rapporteurs.
Israeli and its puppet NGOs, UN Watch and NGO Monitor, recognized the gravity of these largely symbolic delegitimizing developments, as did the Israeli government. Israel was intelligently responsive to the risks to its own viability as a Jewish Supremacy state by the collapse of the apartheid regime in South Africa due to pressures brought about by a blend of resistance, symbolic delegitimation, and global solidarity initiatives. Accordingly, Israel and its militants fought back, with total support of the U.S. Government, but not substantively, recognizing the costs of bringing about further scrutiny of the substance of Israel’s policies, practices, and racist ideology. Instead, the Israeli pushback focused on attacking the critics and their institutional venues, including even the UN, as antisemitic, and in the process smearing conscientious legal experts and even international civil servants and the institutions themselves. This has created a sufficient diversionary smokescreen to enable Biden and top EU bureaucrats to keep faith with both sides by championing the hollow prospect of ‘two states for two peoples’ when even they must know by this time that such a policy is moribund, and no longer is of much use as a public relations tactic. This assessment is truer than ever now that an apparently cocky Netanyahu has publicly told foreign political leaders to their faces that Israel no longer is interested enough in the two-state ploy to underpin its credibility. This leaves Israel’s most ardent supporters out in the cold with no place to hide their formerly respectable pro-Israel one-sidedness.
Given this line of interpretation, contrary to media commentary, Netanyahu, rather than being burdened, is likely pleased that his governing coalition is heavily dependent upon the rightest extremism of the Religious Zionism (RZ) and Jewish Power bloc. In the present context RZ, led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvar seems useful, if not natural allies of Likud in launching this culminating phase of the Zionist Project. This last phase involves territorial consolidation over the whole of the promised land and likely moves to inflict further dispossession of Palestinians—on the scale of a second (or intensified) Nakba—from their native lands. Seen in this way, the Netanyahu declaration above amounts to a virtual road map, hopefully from his point of view with RZ taking most of the heat for its inflammatory, openly racist, and likely violent implementation.
Given this background, the present context should be understood differently than the prevailing mode of reporting that stresses the difficulties for Netanyahu of heading the most right-wing and extremist government in the history of Israel. Mainstream journalism remains sympathetic with Netanyahu’s situation of supposedly being forced to rely on a coalition that gives dangerous influence to RZ. In opposition to such thinking, I believe having RZ entrenched in his governing structure actually strengthens the hand Netanyahu wants to play.
It is instructive to notice that most of the regrets up to now expressed in the U.S. about the extremist successes in the 2022 Israeli elections are devoted to their possibly negative impact on support for Israel in the liberal democracies, especially, among the predominantly secular dominant communities that largely shape attitudes toward Israel in the European and U.S. Jewish diaspora. The probability of intensifying suffering inflicted on the Palestinians hardly ever is mentioned, and almost never evokes Western empathy. Such slanted presemtations has always slighted the successive stages of the Palestinian collective trauma that has obscured their Orientalist erasures throughout the struggle.
Biden’s undoubtedly unconscious embrace of such Orientalist insensitivity to Palestinian rights, much less acknowledging Palestinian legitimate aspirations should have been expected. The evasive wording of Biden’s statement congratulating Netanyahu, warrants scrutiny: “I look forward to working with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has been my friend for decades, to jointly address the many challenges and opportunities facing Israel and the Middle East region, including threats from Iran.” In the same text, the American president asserts that “the United States will continue to support the two-state solution and to oppose policies that endanger its viability or contradict our mutual interests and values.” What struck me most, although by now I should have known better, was the absence of even a small gesture of recognition that these developments might have a negative relevance to Palestinian wellbeing. Often silences convey meanings better than do words of explanation with the hope of winning approval.
Despite all, most pro-Israeli commentary analyzing the shift to the right on the part of the Israeli voting public attributes the extremist outcome in the November elections to some combination of the perceived absence of ‘a partner’ in the search for peace, the Israeli security-first response to Palestinian ‘terrorism,’ the rising influence of the religious right within Israel, the emboldening effects on Israel of the normalization agreements (so-call Abraham Accords) reached in 2020 during the last months of the Trump presidency, and even Iran’s threat to Israel. Undoubtedly, these contextual factors were influential in persuading a larger segment of Israeli voters to swallow their dislike of a governing coalition that gave strong influence to RZ, interpreted in some circles as the foretaste of a now plausible Jewish theocratically-tinged fascism. Overall, it seems enough Israelis gave priority to their hopes for a unilaterally imposed Israeli ‘victory’ scenario to the hypocritical uncertainties of the diplomatic status quo that is disinterested in negotiating a political compromise with its Palestinian counterpart. My main point here is that the shift to the right was opportunistic and pragmatic rather than reactive, resulting in most media accounts missing the relevance of the commitment of the Israeli religious right to the completion of the Zionist Project in the near future.
My own encounters with liberal Zionist opinions in America emphasized a belief that Israeli good will with respect to a political deal with the Palestinian had run into a brick wall of Palestinian hard line opposition, an indirect validation of the ‘no partner’ excuse, or at best, blaming both sides for diplomatic failure in an asymmetric situation where one side was the oppressor and the other the oppressed. This view was accentuated by the entirely unreasonable, accompanying insistence that Israeli’s closest ally and geopolitical source of security serve as intermediary in all ‘peace’ negotiations. Nothing exhibited Palestinian weakness or lack of strategic judgment more dramatically than this willingness to rely on such a flawed diplomatic process for their prospects of realizing such basic national rights as self-determination.
While these factors have been endlessly analyzed in piecing together a coherent, exoteric or public narrative, the real story—the deep roots of these developments—is in my view yet to be told. This is because the true account of the evolution of the Zionist Project before and since the establishment of Israel is bound up with an esoteric or secret Zionist narrative that links the successive stages of Israeli expansionism to an overarching vision. This esoteric narrative centered on a strategic plan for the ideologically coherent and steady unfolding story of Israeli expansionism, which involved a pragmatic suppression of disclosing the utopian character of Zionist Project of recovering all of Palestine during a period when such ultimate goals seemed hopelessly out of reach due to the prevalence of rampant nationalism and the widespread decline in the geopolitical leverage and political acceptance of colonialism.
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
So, will it be victory or defeat?
I think the USA needs Israel for geo-,strategic reasons.
If Israels fanatics endanger US ability to continue supporting Israel, i think the USA will intervene.
How?? I don’t know. Perhaps a private duscussion between the Pentagon and the IDF.
I think it will take more than a private discussion if the IDF leadership is reflective of majority Israeli public opinion. Israel is a nuclear weapons
state not likelly to be pushed very far on such basic issues as ethnic supremacy and territorial sovereignty.
I am surprised that your analysis does not contain one reference to the Saudi-based Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution published in Al-Arabiya News on 8 June 2022 – that has seemingly been accepted by Jordan, the PLO and Hamas. Can you please explain your failure to do so?
Thanks for this comment. You are quite right, and I will edit accordingly as soon as I can.
Professor Falk:
Thank you for your prompt reply.
I hope your edit contains an analysis of the Saudi solution. Are you aware there has been a later unpublished revision making substantial amendments to the published plan that I discuss in my article that can be read at https://www.jwire.com.au/jordan-plo-hamas-revise-hashemite-kingdom-of-palestine-plan/. These amendments appear to have been made to satisfy Jordan, the PLO and Hamas. The author of both versions – Ali Shihabi – was not prepared to explain to me why Version 2 was not published or why the revisions were made.
Do you know Ali Shihabi? Maybe he is prepared to discuss Version 2 with you. He spoke to me in August last year and provided responses to several questions explaining why he had published his plan. You can read my article at: Interviewing ‘Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine’ plan initiator, author Ali Shihabi https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/358157
Shihabi’s revised plan in my opinion is by far the best plan to have been presented by anyone in the last 100 years. Successfully implementing it would end the Arab-Jewish conflict.
Dear Richard,
All of this is far removed from very recent local developments, namely, the Kenneth Ross case that briefly blew open all sorts of closed doors in generally well protected elite places such as Harvard. Difficult to know if it will have any long term impact.
I am eager to send this to you so I stop here- but before doing so I want to thank you again for writing as you did and sending your important essay to me. I look forward to hearing from you soon, Irene, with much affection and respect and friendship
>
Thanks Irene. I am always strengthened by your words of support! Wishing you and Assaf the best for 2023. With love, Richard
Hi Richard
I recall discussing some of this with you and Hilal in the parking lot at the courts. Hilal made the observation: “I’d like to have God as my real estate agent,”
How are the both of you? Are you in SB? I miss seeing you at the courts.
Hope to see you sometime soon,
John Ahern
Hi John: So good to hear from you, hoping that 2023 started as you would wish and continue as you would hope, at least
personally for you and those you love. We are here, and I am ready to hit a few balls when it gets a bit warmer. Warmly, Richard
Dear Richard, greets. FYI:
Netanyahu ‘s comment should be 30 Dec 2022, not 2023 – The word ‘Poised’ is repeated in the title. – I already corrected for TMS
Hoping you remain well with your family, A.
Reblogged this on penelopap.
Balfour Dealration of 1917
Superlative! Professor/Dr. Falk is like fine wine…improving with maturity steeped in his long history of “on the ground” (er, in the bottle, er, in the ‘holy’ land bubble) observation and personal as well as professional trauma associated with settler-colonial Zionism. Endless respect and admiration….
I have replied to ‘roberthstiver’ HOURS ago, but I don’t know why it has not been posted yet. Is there any problem with the links I have included?
Professor Falk:
I am very disappointed with you when you replied to a zionit liar, David Singer, when he demands an explanation about a PLOT against Palestinian people with a ‘sweet’ comment. These zionists are responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of Muslims since 9/11 where it was designed and implemented by Israel and the Neocons, killing 3000 Americans in order to attack 7 countries in 5 years according to Oded Yinon, because they have taken over the US foreign policy for the interest of a foreign state, Israel, for a long time, at least decades, and they feel they can commit crimes against humanity with impunity.
The ‘plan’ that this zionist liar, who spreads disinformation using the zionist media such as NYT against the targeted countries for the interest of Israel, has been ‘suggested’ by MBS who is a zionist servant and a butcher. This plan is in fact the zionist expansionist’s plan where are trying to force Palestinian and Jordanian to accept in order Israel to erect the ‘greater Israel’ where should be discarded. MBS is a terrorist who has beheaded over 130 young men in Saudis Arabia few months ago where the zionist tribe has no objection because these ‘rulers’ are good to extort money from and used them like a tissue to clean and then discard. Of course the butcher has no political cloud in Washington if the Zionists do not help him. That’s why these Arab butchers are willing to PAY billions and billions of dollars stolen from the Arab population to the Mafia and its illiterate servants like, Trump, to stay in power. How Trump got rid of his DEBTS of millions of dollars? Do you think he used his brain or the office?
This is the ZIONIST plan: ” The Saudi Solution calls for the merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) into one territorial entity to be called The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine – having its capital in Amman – not Jerusalem.”
To the people of the world:
This is not Palestinian or Arab’s plan, this is Israeli’s plan using their servants, Arab dictators such as MBS, Bahrain, UAE and other Arab stooges, to force not only the Palestinians into submission, but also the people of the region and most important the Zionist fifth columnists in Washington who have given the criminal tribe so much power to rule over Washington for THEM.
They have totally caved in to have the support of the mafia not to be toppled. It is the time for American people to pour into streets and demand the demise of the Mafia over US foreign policy to protect the US interests.
Just look at the FAKE ‘ Abraham Accord’ where is only between the Zionist masters and few Arab rulers who have not been elected, or kept in power through COUP, Egypt, are subordinate to the mafia like MBS and the criminal ruler of UAE, but has been refused by the majority of a billion Arab population.
They can fool themselves as much as they want, but they cannot change the facts on the ground where the people of the region and the majority of the population of the west are fed up with the tribe and their crimes against humanity wanting them to disappear from the region for good.
There should be ONE state for all. Why the Zionist tribe has used every single tool in the box, including terrorism, sanctions, disinformation, to carve the regional countries to create second Israel, the imaginary ‘kurdistan’, but is not willing to accept confederation to bring down the apartheid entity erected on the stolen land of Palestinians? These criminals are saying:
“The UN stands to become totally irrelevant if it continues to refuse to discuss the Saudi Solution”
This is the words of the Zionist mafia and its illiterate servant Trump, a fifth column.
I will endeavor to take your points into account. I have never studies this 2002 initiative attributed to Saudi Arabia, and
never occasioning a favorable response from Israel.
Elements of this “Darius” comment confuse naif me (I admire much of its macro content). The SPP, aka Beirut Declaration, was issued in 2002, and then re-validated in 2009, by all 22 Arab League member nations, including Palestine. I thought it a very elegant and forward-leaning/realistic document that, of course–as Dr. Falk notes, was studiously ignored by ZioIsrael and its tribute-vassal USA. MBS was nowhere in sight then…no? (Wasn’t 2002 during King Khalid’s reign as KSA monarch?)
I don’t understand what you are talking about. We are not talking about Beirut Declaration, but about ‘Hashemie Kingdom of Palestine, a fantasy where one commenter #3 demanded to bring it into this analysis. I have posted a comment few hours ago giving all the links so people understand what we are talking about and what Israel is up to. Unfortunately it has not been posted yet, exposing the nature of this ‘solution’ and warning the danger to not only Palestinians but also the entire region. The author Ali Shihabi, a journalist who is close to MBS, posted this ‘solution’ on June 8, 2022 on Al-Arabiya suggesting that Palestinian accept Jordanian ‘identity’ because it is good to have an identity. The plan wants to push Palestinians out of their land into Jordan.
https://english.alarabiya.net/in-translation/2022/06/08/The-Hashemite-Kingdom-of-Palestine
If that’s the case then, why the European poured into Palestine where most of them had identity as well as a good life? The zionost project is beyond land of Palestine and the entire region is targeted by the criminal project of zionism.
https://www.jwire.com.au/jordan-plo-hamas-revise-hashemite-kingdom-of-palestine-plan/
https://www.memri.org/reports/angry-responses-social-media-and-arab-press-article-saudi-journalist-ali-al-shihabi-calling
This is from mossad outlet memri:
Al-Shihabi’s Critics: This Proposal Is Radically Pro-Israel, Resembles The Plan Of Ariel Sharon.
(This seems the only feasible means for me to “reply” to Darius’ below comment “I don’t understand what you are talking about.”)
What’s not to understand?–search for “Saudi Peace Plan.”
[ it is true that this Zionist Long Game has only recently become fully apparent to all but the closest observers of the struggle.]
The zionist expansionist policy is known to us since 1980s, Oded Yinon, but the closet zionists diverted attention to protect the interest of Israel. The zionist expansionist Project was exposed and confirmed, especially when the late Israel Shahak translated “Oded Yinon’s: A strategy for Israel in the Ninteen Eighties” into English in 1982. It is not easy to find a copy of this document on the net anymore. The zionist in control of the information purge every document that exposes their zionist project.
https://astutenews.com/2018/08/greater-israel-and-the-balkanization-of-the-middle-east-oded-yinons-strategy-for-israel/
Furthermore, The zionist project is NOT limited to land of Palestinian, as you suggest, but they are working to bring the whole region under zionist CONTROL, that’s why Israel has done and continue to do every single crime against Iran to destroy this ancient country like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan to ‘redraw the map’ to become the Hegemon of the region. I assure the world that they will take this wish into their graves.
It is important for the world to wake up and take responsibility and expose the mafia and its zionist project.
I am grateful for your comment. My article did not attempt to address the regional dimensions of the Zionist Project. I will try to do
this either through revision or by way of a subsequent piece.
Israel is trying to topple the Iranian government using terrorism, assassination, illegal Sanctions and its influence in the Western capitals including the US, has close relations with the Saudi Arabia, a terrorist state.
The recent protests in Iran fomented by the axis of evil US-Israel-UK funded by the butcher MBS of Saudi Arabia, where all were working together preaching there is no ‘human rights’ in Iran. However, there is MORE freedom in Iran than any of these terrorist countries.They use the zionist media to spread disinformation to FOOL the public. If you are one of those who believes these propaganda, then you have been FOOLED.
The ally of the ‘democratic’ countries and the apartheid entity, MBS, has arrested a 65 law professor in 2017 for the social media use. All the ‘democratic western countries’ are silent not to make the butcher angry to harm their economic interest with the ‘kingdom’, but the zionist PM of Britain is angry with Iran that has executed their Iranian spy, Alireza Akbari, giving information to MI6, Mossad where was used to assassinate an Iranian scientist, professor Fakhrizadeh. Fakhrizadeh was assassinated by a zionist mass murderer, Netanyahu.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/15/saudi-arabian-academic-on-death-row-for-using-twitter-and-whatsapp?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Saudi prosecutors seek death penalty for academic over social media use
Court documents reveal reasons for Awad Al-Qarni’s arrest – even though rulers are major investors in social media platforms.
Seyed Mohammad Marandi
@s_m_marandi
Iran is evil because it executed western backed rioters who murdered law enforcement officers with guns, knives, and stones.
Saudi Arabia is a western ally, because…
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fm7ihnoWABQ56sy?format=jpg&name=small
Professor Falk,
Thank you for your contribution exposing the project of the zionists which is necessary for survival of humanity, otherwise no one wants to live among the evil.
As Dr. Alan Sabrosky said: The majority of the Jews are SILENT aware of the zionist’s crimes, therefore, they are COMPLICIT in the Zionists’ crimes against humanity.
Ilan Pappé in an essay “the socio-political formations behind Israel’s Neo-Zionist goernnent” has the following to say:
[End of ‘Fantasy Israel’
Will the Arab and Muslim governments, which only recently joined the immunization of this travesty, realize that it is not too late to change course?
Will new governments of the Left, such as the one elected in Brazil, be able to lead the way for a change of attitude from above that would reflect democratically the one that is demanded from below?
And will Jewish communities be shocked enough to wake up from the “fantasy Israel” dream and realize the danger of present-day Israel, not only to Palestinians but to Jews and Judaism as well?]
The new government in Brazil has already taken some steps to support the liberation of Palestine and the Palestinians against the zionist apartheid regime.
https://newcoldwar.org/the-socio-political-formations-behind-israels-neo-zionist-government/
Perhaps Prof. Falk will briefly suspend my lifetime banishment from his blog to permit a reasoned dissent from his post. Certainly, he must trust his followers to consider an opposing view politely stated.
Prof. Falk alleges that from the beginning of the “Zionist Project”, long before the birth of Israeli statehood, Zionists harbored a “secret plan“ to proceed by stages , accepting as final whatever was politically attainable at any given time, before moving quietly and quickly on to the next stage in fulfillment of its long-range colonization plans. Zionism never convincingly gave up its guiding commitment to establish a Jewish state that exercised sovereign control over the whole of ‘the whole of the promised land,’ itself a misleadingly precise reading of Judaic biblical tradition that could be concretized in any way that the Israeli leadership preferred.”
The notion of a secret plan is unfortunate. From time immemorial, Jews have been accused of hatching secret plans to achieve nefarious ends. During the Middle Ages, when their dietary laws protected most Jews from the Plague, Jews were accused of poisoning the wells. (n.b. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas made the same accusation against Israelis in 2016.). And the image of Jews secretly plotting against Palestinians evokes memories of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a 19th century forgery accusing a Jewish cabal of secretly plotting to take over the world.
Allegations involving a “secret plan” preclude an effective response due to the difficulty, in fact impossibility, of proving a negative. Demonstrating that a narrative, such as Prof. Falk’s, is not supported by a reasonable reading of the historical record is then said to prove the existence of a secret plan which deceives the reader who doesn’t know the whole truth. Those who think this is doubletalk are invited to read the last paragraph of Prof. Falk’s post. Americans have become distressingly familiar with this tactic due to the activities of conspiratorialists like Alex Jones and QAnon. While I’m not equating Prof. Falk with these actors, the fact is that their methodology is similar.
There are many questionable claims in Prof. Falk’s lengthy post; too many to accommodate a systematic refutation. So let’s look at one or two of them. The historical record: On November 29, 1947, the United Nations adopted a resolution partitioning the region known as Palestine into Jewish and Arab sectors with the expectation that these would eventually become separate Arab and Jewish states. The Jews accepted the proposal while the armies of five Arab nations invaded the nascent Jewish state with the objective of driving the Jews into the sea. When the guns fell silent more than a year later, an armistice was negotiated with temporary borders drawn largely on the basis of where the competing armies stood in place. By decision of the Arab League, the land held by the Arabs was not given to the Palestinians but to Jordan. More than 10,000 Arabs and 6000 Israelis had died, thousands more were wounded. Israel came away with slightly more territory than had been allocated in the UN Partition Plan while approximately 700,000 Palestinians became refugees in a war the Arabs started. And the decision to deny the Palestinians sovereignty over the land on which they were living was made not by Zionists but by their fellow Arabs.
Applying Prof. Falk’s thesis, Israel should have moved “quietly and swiftly” to begin implementing Its Secret Plan. There assuredly was provocation in the form of terrorist attacks from the West Bank, Jordan and Gaza. Israel did respond to these, sometimes disproportionately. But its primary focus during the nearly two decades between the 1948 War and the 1967 Six Day War was on development within the area it received in the UN’s Partition Plan, with special attention given to the sparsely populated Negev, where few Palestinians had ever lived.
Proponents of the Secret Plan approach will argue that the time wasn’t ripe for advancing the Plan, and that eventually, Israel would proceed with it. Theoretically, that’s possible, which is the Catch 22 of an allegation without a stated deadline. The prediction is open-ended. Time can never run out. Prof. Falk has been warning of an impending Palestinian holocaust for decades.
What did happen is that nearly two decades after the armistice was signed, on the third day of the Six Day War, Jordan, ignoring Israel’s appeals to remain uninvolved so as not to risk materiel and human losses, joined Egypt and Syria in a war that was already lost. Israel emerged in control of all of historic Palestine. Certainly, this was a moment to begin large-scale annexation and ethnic cleansing.
What did Israel do with its newly captured territory? The familiar Zionist narrative of Israel offering to return all of the newly captured land in exchange for peace and normalized relations with the Arab has been discredited by Israeli historians with access to newly de-classified documents. But the Arab League response to a more limited offer extended by Israel a few weeks after the War ended was startingly unequivocal. Meeting in Khartoum on September 1, 1967, the Arab League proclaimed its infamous “Three No’s”: No negotiations with Israel. No recognition with Israel. No peace with Israel.”
Israel’s response to this rejection was to propose an alternative plan, bearing the name of its architect, Yigal Alon, which sought to address Israel’s legitimate security concerns while recognizing the Palestinians’ legitimate aspiration to exercise control over their own lives. He noted that the overwhelming majority of West Bank Palestinians live on hills in the central part of the area. These people should be free from Israeli interference. But at the same time, Israelis, who had just been the target of military attack from the West Bank, had legitimate security concerns. Alon’s compromise was for Israel to build settlements on the outskirts of the West Bank where few Palestinians lived. These would serve as a buffer zone to thwart terrorism and military actions. And there would be an open area near Jerusalem connecting the West Bank with Israel.
Regrettably, the Alon plan failed when extremists in both camps rejected a compromise that would undermine their appetite for total victory, Yes, a segment of Israel’s Jewish population advocates conquering the entirety of biblical Israel. Due to a quirk in Israel’s electoral system, these extremists have grabbed a disproportionate measure of power. Tragically, the extremists on both sides set the tone and substance of the conflict. The dominant Palestinian position, as currently affirmed and re-affirmed by Hamas in both word and deed, has not moderated over the years. Netanyahu’s statement quoted by Prof. Falk is the mirror image of statements made by their Palestinian leaders.
Prof. Falk’s condemnation of Israeli expansionism on the West Bank is justified. And yes, a determined researcher can find evidence of this aspiration in documents dating back to the early days of Zionism. But Zionism evolved over many years in many places. Cherry-picking an occasional document that supports a flimsy thesis proves nothing. Besides, it was Arab rejection of post-1967 peace with Israel that created a political vacuum on the West Bank became fertile ground for building settlements, , as well as crippling a sizable Israeli peace camp by fostering among Israeli moderates a sense of despair over ever being able to achieve a negotiated peace the Palestinians.
Apropos, Prof. Falk invariably overstates the importance of an extremist interpretation of the Bible in shaping Israeli policy. The ultra-Orthodox Jews who justify efforts to establish Jewish sovereignty over the totality of biblical writ played a minimal role in early Zionism. Their claim does not appear in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. Their prominence at this moment stems from a quirk in Israel’s electoral system.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict may have roots firmly planted in ideology. But the conflict, itself, is transactional. Alleging that Israel is following a pre-conceived Secret Plan spares the Palestinians from being accountable for their contributions to the hostilities.
Establishing peace between two actors with legitimate claims to sovereignty in a place central to their history is possible only if extremists are defeated by moderates in their own communities, so that dialogue and mutual trust can emerge. Alleging secret plans rooted in evil intentions is precisely the wrong way to go in this pursuit.
Prof. Falk begins his post by citing a statement by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
“These are the basic lines of the national government headed by me: The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel – in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.”
Compare this to an affirmation in the Revised Hamas Charter:
“Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
“Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land that has a special place in the heart of every Arab and every Muslim.
Hamas National Charter (revised) 2017
This articulates in the clearest possible language a constant in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: the absence of a Palestinian consensus to recognize Israel and accept Israel’s legitimate permanence in the Middle East. There are no secrets here. The Hamas Charter, even in its “revised” iteration, calls upon Muslims to annihilate Israel and murder Zionists. (The old Charter called upon Muslims to murder Jews.)
Prof. Falk’s stated solution is “a single unified confederal, secular state with coexisting dual homelands for the two peoples based on equality of ethnic entitlements to Palestine as often conceived from ‘the river to the sea.’ Such a state would have a single governance structure upholding the fused sovereign rights of a post-Zionist, presumably renamed, state premised upon equal citizenship and human rights for Jews and Palestinians. “
Is there anyone in the Palestinian camp with the vision and power to lead his/her people on this path? Thus far, the answer is NO.
Establishing peace between two actors with legitimate claims to sovereignty in a place central to their history is possible only if extremists are defeated by moderates in their own communities, so that dialogue and mutual trust can emerge. Alleging secret plans rooted in evil intentions nurtures distrust and fans the flames of extremist intransigence.
Rsbbi Ira Youdovin
Dear Rabbi Youdovin:
You neglect to mention that I only restricted your access to this blog because of your repeated personalized attacks on me, which I didn’t want to set the overall tone, which I regard as my prerogative. Over the months I have allowed some nasty personalized comments through the filter, mostly on other issues, and have only kept out those who repeatedly resorted to such a style of personalized character attacks, direct or indirect..
I accept that your long response is careful and well-informed, but to my reading one-sided and insensitive to the significance of treating the side in hierarchical control as not having a special and greater responsibility to search in good faith for a political solution than the subjugated side, especially in a struggle for contested territory.. The Israeli 2018 Basic Law of Israel spells this Israel’s hegemonic claims in the form of an exclusive right of self-determination in what had been exclusively regarded as Palestine for some centuries. To dispossess large numbers of the native population while denying them any right of return exhibits not only a readiness to violate international law and elementary morality, but also an intention to Judaize the territory set aside for Israel in the UN partition resolution, which was itself a usurpation of the resident majority population’s right of self-determination.
You dismiss the Bible as important for legitimating the Zionist Project, although Israeli leaders going starting with Ben Gurion have invoked as a policy tool despite his not being an a religiously observant Jew. But if international law and biblical entitlement do not provide legitimation, what does? Only raw power, and sustained presence that would make any kind of expulsion of Jews a humanitarian catastrophe. In view of the settlement encroachments since 1967, the failure to implement favorably SC 242, and the absence of any kind of public endorsement of the Arab Initiative of 2002, even as later revised, I think a secular binational confederation is the best, and perhaps the only hope for a sustainable peace between the two peoples.
You allege that my reading of the historical record has affinities with traditional allegations against Jews by antisemites as well as employing a methodology similar to that of such notorious conspiracy theorists as Alex Jones. In the past I recall you made similar unwelcome connections of my views with antisemitic tropes when I suggested that AIPAC exerts an unhealthy degree of influence in Washington, especially Congress, and Jews in Hollywood over public perceptions of the conflict.. In my view the test of one is of the truth or falsity not a matter of brushing aside criticisms by calling them ‘familiar antiseptic tropes’ and the like. I find this to be unhelpful, amounting to r4course to ‘a politics of deflection,’ shifting attention from the message to the messenger, accounting for my receiving many defamatory comments especially when I held a UN position for six years.
I agree that my reading of the historical record can be refuted in part or whole by alternative readings. And my sense of a hidden or secret long-range Zionist plan is less an accusation of a conspiracy than an interpretation of a pragmatic strategy that has worked for Zionism in a prudent pursuit of ultimate goals. As for Hamas, it is well-documented by Sandy Tolan, author and professor USC, that Hamas tried to get the US to broker a ceasefire arrangement with Gaza after the 2006 elections in Gaza, an approach confirmed in my experience of meetings with the top Hamas leaders in the 2009-12 period. The Hamas posture may not have been genuine, but it was Israel that refused all efforts to explore such a direction. And it was Israeli influential public figures that made racist remarks about Gaza, such as saying it was time ‘to mow the lawn’ by which was meant launch a massive military against an essentially vulnerable people.
I am respectful of your lifetime commitment to a humane realization of what I call the Zionist Project, but I believe, despite the post-Holocaust context in which Israel was established as a state, in proceeded on the false premise that it would be possible under the emergent post-colonial historical circumstances to sustain an exclusivist Jewish state without recourse to apartheid-like oppression. I hope the outcome of the recent Israeli election and the extremity of Netanyahu’s governing coalition would lead you to rethink somewhat your way of engaging on these issues, and that you will resist the temptation to explain away such results, mount some sort of counter-attack, or remain silent and hope that geopolitics will underpin continuity at the level of governments, especially the U.S. and Israel..
With my greetings for the New Year,
Richard
I posted my response too hastily. I have since edited it to smooth the prose somewhat. No change in content.
Would be open to publishing our exchange on my blog of some other platform that is in both our comfort zones?
I think it raises some important issues rarely discussed this openly in the mainstream media.
Richard
“Establishing peace between two actors with legitimate claims to sovereignty in a place central to their history is possible only if extremists are defeated by moderates in their own communities….”
You are not interested in any actor except yourself, that’s why you KILL on a daily basis to steal all of Palestine.
Warning to zionist mass murders:
You killed 9 more Palestinians in their own land today to steal Palestinian’s land where the Palestinian people have lived for over 19th centuries CONTINUALLY.
The Zionist project must be defeated and the colonists must go back to where they came from. The region do not want terrorists and Assassins on their land.
Death to zionist project.
The 9 Palestinians killed today by the lsraeli occupation forces in Jenin are seen here:
[Allegations involving a “secret plan” preclude an effective response due to the difficulty, in fact impossibility, of proving a negative.]
The Balfour Declaration says: they want to have ‘a Jewish HOMELAND’ – NOT a JEW STATE – in Palestine not to deny Palestinian’s rights to their land, to have a peaceful coexistence. But the zionist mafia with the full support of the western colonial powers including Russia, not only abandoned the UN decisions, but also they forced the indigenous Palestinians out of their land using terrorism, genocide, demolition of their houses, killing men, women and children to force them out of their land to take over Palestine. The zionists always acted AGAINST the spirit of ‘Balfour declaration’, which was written by the Zionists themselves for the interest of the Tribe, in a soft language to overcome difficulties, not to be rejected like the way Herzl did by Abdulhamit although Herzl tried to bribe Abdulhamid into submission.
The refusal by Sultan Abdul Hamid II of Theodor Herzl’s offer of £150 million (sterling) as a down payment towards the Ottoman national debt in exchange for a charter enabling Zionist settlement in Palestine meant that the early leaders of Zionism would in due course redirect their efforts in seeking a means of creating a Jewish homeland in the Middle East.
A necessary precondition of this would be the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, and a step towards favorably positioning Zionist plan in the event of the liquidation of that empire came with the agreement struck during the First World War between the Zionists and the British evil empire. The Balfour Declaration and the implementation of the Sykes-Picot accord created the basis through which the goal of a future Jewish foot on the land of Palestinians be secured.
Abdulhamid rightfully refused Herzl’s plan to allow Jews to set a foot in Palestine, therefore, Plan B came into action against him and his empire.
Today, the Zionists have similar plan for Iran, viewing the county like the Ottoman Empire, stands against their expansionist plan in the region, thus, they believe that Iran should be destroyed using the Western military power and its treasure. So, the Zionist’s expansionist project be applied to capture the whole region using terrorism, assassinations, propaganda and disinformation to control the Western public opinion to achieve their goal, like they did in WWI. It may be ‘secret’ to some people, but not all.
The Late professor Israel Shahak exposed the zionist project where may have been ‘secret’ to some, but NOT all. Now, the zionist apologists come here shedding crocodile tears using the same Zionist tools, deception and distortion, to challenge the message of the concerned people like Professor Falk, to buy legitimacy for an illegitimate apartheid entity using deception like:
“Three No’s”: No negotiations with Israel. No recognition with Israel. No peace with Israel.” to deceive the public.
Israel must be held accountable for her crimes against humanity. The apartheid entity must destroy its nuclear bombs, becomes a member of NPT to open up its nuclear facilities, and signs UN resolution, “Free Nuclear middle east zone”, where the whole world voted yes, including US.
The only country that REFUSES to sign is ISRAEL, a terrorist state. Iran has signed it. Israel is the violator of the international laws, yet this apartheid entity is protected by the Western colonial powers giving her $billions of dollars to support her crimes against humanity. The foreign policy of the western capitals are manipulated by Israel lobby for the interest of the mafia.
I enjoyed my reading of your comment! Thank you.
POLL: US and Israel ‘biggest threats to security’ across Arab world. Overwhelming majority of Arab citizens oppose normalization with Israel.
https://thecradle.co/article-view/20594/us-and-israel-biggest-threats-to-security-across-arab-world-arab-opinion-index
Q: Would you support or oppose diplomatic recognition of Israel by
your country?
Majority of the Arab population are opposed.
The terrorist rulers of Israel and Suadi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Morocco may be engaged in FAKE ‘Abraham Accords’ as much as they want to fool the public, but a majority of Arab population do not want ‘normalization’ with an apartheid entity. End of the story.
{{US Democrat: Congress would back selling Riyadh weapons for Israel normalization.
}}
The Congress% is a zionist occupied entity filled with fifth columnists who BRIBE a butcher, MBS, to ‘normalize relations with Netanyahu’, despite the fact that 90% of Arab Population are OPPOSED to FAKE normalization between the zionist mass murderers who just killed 9 more Palestinian people with the Arab dictators who are nothing but petty zionist servants.
{{Congress member says any concerns over such sales, due to Saudis’ rights record, would be drowned out by Abraham Accords supporters}}
These traitors are only concerned about Iran’s human rights which is FAR better than the zionist occupied US. The US congress is exposed all over the world as TERRORISTS pro Israel.
Dear Professor Falk,
Too bad that we see here, as you point out, the parallels between Oslo and Minsk – perhaps not surprising to students of history – probably the umpteenth time that Accords & ‘peace treaties’ were signed just to buy time – does Molotov/Ribbentrop hold the record for short-term dishonesty?
The Palestinians are shot dead by Israeli soldiers, where the zionist media refuse to cover. They are complicit in the crimes of the US -Israel- UK, the recent coup in Iran.
https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/83754/the-persian-spring–libya-and-syria-script-now-playing-out-in.html
How hypocrites, terrorists and liars these invaders and assassins are. So much propaganda and disinformation spread around to keep the gullible people on board, but so much cover up for the axis of evil US – Israel – UK
When I submitted a critique of Prof.. Falk’s post alleging the existence of a secret Zionist plan, it was not my intention to initiate another round of controversy over the past. Obviously, I disagree with much his post, but am willing to leave these things as matters on which we agree to disagree. However, I do wish to comment on an issue which focuses not on the past, but on the future.
I agree with Prof. Falk’s conclusion that the Two State solution is likely dead—although I doubt that he would concur in my assessment that both sides bear responsibility for killing it. But that’s the past. Let’s look toward the future. As I understand it, Prof. Falk’s preference for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a secular, confederated bi-national state embracing Jewish and Palestinian homelands and absorbing an unspecified number of Palestinian refugees that could reach as many as five million men women and children. The plan has elements I endorse,. Certainly, Palestinians have the right to determine their own destiny, which entails living according to their own traditions unencumbered by Jewish interference. And the refugees’ plight, whatever its origins, needs to be resolved in a humane manner.
But the plan is unworkable in that it calls for two peoples who share little save for conflicting claims to the same piece of land and more than a century of mutual, sometimes violent hostility, to cobble a functioning a government from radically different religious, cultural and political traditions. This scenario would have little chance of succeeding were it set on a remote island far distant from meddling external actors. But in today’s Middle East, where ambitious meddlers lurking from inside and outside the region are legion, it’s a recipe for catastrophe. Consequently, the challenge for those seeking a negotiated future of peaceful co-existence is building these laudable aspirations into another framework, one that’s at least conceivably achievable in the world as it exists today, and is likely to exist for the foreseeable future.
No alternative is without problems. So here’s mine (in segments stated in random, not chronological order).
1. Israel endorses Gazan independence without reciprocal recognition of Israel’s legitimacy and permanence, which may be too much to ask of Hamas. Gazans would be free to call their new entity whatever they want (Gaza, Palestine, Gaza-Palestine, etc.), and choose their leaders by whatever method they wish. If the new entity seeks UN recognition and membership, Israel would endorse the application. Israel would lift its blockade allowing the free transfer of goods in and out of Gaza. But if the Gazan government stages or condones violence directed at Israel, Israel would respond as she would to an attack from any foreign country.
2. Israel annexes the entire West Bank giving its Palestinian residents full Israeli citizenship and franchise in national and local elections as is currently enjoyed by the approximately two million Palestinians living in the State of Israel (i.e. inside the Green Line). This is not to suggest that Palestinian Israelis enjoy the same social and economic status as their Jewish counterparts. They don’t. But despite claims to the contrary embedded in hyperbolic allegations of apartheid, Palestinian Israelis are slowly making their way into Israeli society. For example, they’re prominent in medical fields—including doctors, nurses and pharmacists. Increasing numbers of Palestinians attend and graduate from Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, the Technion and other leading Israeli academic institutions.
A self-imposed obstacle to their progress has been Palestinian resistance to voting in Israeli elections lest it be seen as tacit recognition of Israel. Palestinians comprise approximately 20 percent of Israel’s population. If they exercised their right to franchise at the same rate as Jewish citizens, Palestinian parties in the current Knesset (parliament) would have 24 of the 120 seats, which is a powerful force in a parliamentary system. Despite this, in 2021, a Palestinian won enough seats to gain membership in Israel’s ruling government coalition.
Making the West Bank an official part of Israel would entail eliminating things like checkpoints and roads open only to Jews, that may be (temporarily acceptable) under an occupation but are antithetical to the principles of a democratic state. Police, firefighting and military personnel would extend equal treatment to Palestinian and Jewish citizens. This won’t happen all at once. And there will be violations as happen even in the best of systems. But increasing numbers of Palestinian citizens of Israel tell opinion (Palestinian) pollsters that they would rather live in Israel than in a Palestinian state.
3. Local institutions would be strengthened, giving areas of intense Palestinian population a measure of autonomy. This already exists. For example, Nazareth and numerous cities and towns in the Galilee and “Triangle” are unmistakably Palestinian. Arabic is the lingua franca. Friday (or Sunday), not Saturday, is the local day of rest. Buses and other forms of transportation run on Saturday. Shops are open, etc. Networking these venues would create de facto autonomy which, in time, could adopt the Palestinian flag, develop cultural institutions and build a distinctly Palestinian way of life. Although I don’t denigrate the importance to Palestinians of not having a state of their own, in fact, many characteristics and benefits of statehood can be achieved in an autonomy, especially through interaction with the new independent Palestinian state in Gaza.
4. The logistical impossibility of resettling all the refugees in a single place could be resolved by re-settling them in three locations: Israel, Gaza, and elsewhere in the Middle East with each refugee receiving his/her first or second choice.
5. Needless to say, successfully implementing this plan is impossible without a massive infusion of funding from a variety of sources, as well as a radical revision of aspirations among substantial segments of the Jewish and Palestinian populations on the ground, and their supporters throughout the world. It’s the not-so-simple business of revising the paradigm. Heretofore, the conflict has been driven by hardliners in both camps who see their undertaking as a zero-sum game. A gain for one side is automatically chalked up as a loss for the other. But resolving conflicts requires precisely the opposite dynamic. Success entails satisfying each side’s minimum requirements, which obliges both sides to abandon some of its goals in order to reach a solution that both can embrace because it brings benefits that would otherwise be beyond their reach. Instead of remaining deadlocked and moving backwards, the process can begin moving forward.
Critics would be justified in noting that the newly elected Israeli government is an unlikely candidate for moderating its extremism, as would critics on the other side who say the same things about Hamas and its extremist allies. I’ll leave it to readers of this blog to comment on the Palestinians. As for Israel, I’ll admit to my own strong opposition to many of the new government’s policies, especially the apparent disdain of Palestinians being exhibited by members of the coalition. But its important to remember that a majority of Jewish Israelis do not support the government’s extremists, and that masses of Israelis have taken to the streets to demonstrate their opposition, as have an impressive number of Jews in Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. Apropos, the “earthquake” that happened at the polls last November seems to have panicked centrist and left-wingers into a sense of urgency about mobilizing themselves into becoming a more effective political force.
Obviously, there are thousands of critical details that need to be discussed and resolved. But this comment is already too lengthy. And frankly, I can’t say I know many of the answers. But one final word, while I respect the sincerity of Prof. Falk’s positions, I must point out the disconnectedness of the solution he proposes and the approach he employs in pursuing it. Peaceful coexistence—whether in a secular bi-national state, a single state with autonomous zones, or one of the confederations currently being proposed— is impossible without an increasing measure of mutual trust on both sides inspiring a compassionate understanding of what people on the “other” side have endured and are enduring in their lives, what they are and what they’re seeking as fellow human beings. Prof. Falk’s relentless attacks on Israel—which mirror Israeli extremist attacks on Palestinians and their supporters—militate against this ever happening.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Dear Rabbi Ira Youdovin:
I delayed responding as I wanted some time to consider your proposals and response to my earlier message. By way of clarification, I did not intend to attribute sinister implications to the ‘secret’ (or better, the ‘hidden’ or ‘undisclosed’) nature of what I called ‘the long game of Zionism,’ which I believe is currently entering its final phase, and seeks above all else, unified control over the whole of mandate Palestine as well as the Golan Heights. it is common for a political movement to take what it can get at any given time, and wait for a more opportune time to advance toward its final goals, and I believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports this trajectory over more than a century of evolution.
I do take exception to the idea of finding a way forward by overlooking, and essentially erasing the past, and reaching for the most promising accommodation on the basis of the present status quo. Such an approach would be reasonable and even appropriate if present circumstances didn’t embody the fundamental one-sided injustices of the past, especially the forcible dispossession under the cover of war of over 700,000 Palestinians from their homes and homeland, an injustice reinforced by denying any right of return associated with the 1948 War, the definitive moves associated with claiming in Israel’s 2018 Basic Law not only Jewish supremacy but an exclusive prerogative of the Jewish people to the right of self-determination in a territorial space that had long possessed a majority Arab population that deemed themselves Palestinian, and findings by widely respected human rights NGOs (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem) (a consensus supported strongly by anti-racists in South Africa who experienced apartheid and identify closely with the Palestinian struggle, including such iconic figures as Mandela, Tutu). In this sense to dismiss ‘allegations of apartheid’ as ‘hyperbolic’ is itself to throw a blanket of silence over a set of policies and practices that do constitute apartheid, a criminal violation of international law (see 1973 International Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Article 2, and in the Rome Statute governing the operations of the International Criminal Court.
We do agree that diplomacy is difficult between the strong and the weak when trust is absent. We also agree that the Palestinians have contributed to their own tragic experiences by failures of leadership, including corruption and factionalism, and by sometimes substituting violence for meaningful politics of resistance, but such failures are inconsequential when compared to Israeli behavior over the years, including a defiant refusal to respect international humanitarian law as governing Israeli behavior as an Occupying Power.
Where we agree is your evident effort to configuring one-sided proposals in ways that minimize persisting Palestinian suffering and subjugation on a series of issues, including the plight of Palestinian refugees and the hardships of prolonged military administration of the occupation.
If I am not mistaken, your proposals for a peaceful Israel/Paallestine future resemble in their essential features the Trump purported ‘deal of the century,’ which evoked very little interest. And on the other side, the non-violent First Intifada produced no response on the Israeli side.
Responding briefly to your five points:
ON GAZA: it seems a way of defusing the so-called ‘demographic bomb’ and by most accounts is not part of ‘the promised land’ in the Zionist imaginary; its implementation might allow the long confined and oppressed two million plus Palestinians crowded into the Gaza Strip to live a better life, although there is no reason to suppose that the leadership and people of Gaza are ready to separate their political destiny from the rest of Palestine.
ON ANNEXATION OF WEST BANK: again, it might have some appeal to the extent that Arab citizenship in Israel is preferable and advantageous with the prospect of indefinitely living under Israeli military administration, but it amounts to a total surrender of the Palestinian right of self-determination in their own homeland, and accepting a permanent framework of subjugation with respect to equal rights. Israel’s claims are based on power, prolonged control, and a religious or traditional set of entitlement beliefs that have no standing in contemporary international law or morality.
ON LOCAL AUTONOMY: okay, but only so long as Palestinians are quiescent. It is hard to contemplate a future in which younger Paelstinians do not feel that their elders betrayed their national and collective identity by acceding to such a wider arrangement.
REFUGEES: there may be room for mitigating the suffering long experienced by generations of refugees, but the fundamental denial of the right of return is not likely to be swallowed easily.
FUNDING: probably the most feasible part of your proposed arrangement; I would expect ample funding even without imposing obligations on Israel to renounce nuclear weapons and to demilitarize substantially.
Of course, this is no more than a sketch of why I think a way forward must take account of past injustices, and seek a level playing field when negotiating a shared future for these two people whose destinies have been so long entangled. There is no evidence that such leveling will occur without continuing Palestinian resistance combined a rising global solidarity movement that exerts pressure on Israel to change course as proposed by the BDS Campaign, a political formula that unexpectedly brought about a relatively bloodless transition to an inclusive political order in South Africa, which is far from perfect, but seems better than alternatives of status quo or civil strife that were deemed the most probable futures for the country.
With respect, but without hopes for our convergence on core issues in the foreseeable future if a sustainable and just peace is the objective, and not merely ending the conflict by imposing conditions favorable to one side with respect to the underlying question of self-derermination.
Richard
Wonderfully presented, Prof./Dr. Falk! With respect, admiration, and solidarity, always…Bob