Non-Condemnatory International Reaction to Trump’s Bantustan Lite Palestine Plan Shows the “Two State” Solution Was Always a Lie 151


I have read through the entire 181 pages of Trump’s “peace deal” for Israel, and it is breathtaking. It is not just that the “solution” it proposes is ludicrously one-sided, it is the entire analysis of the problem to be solved which reads as pure, unadulterated zionist propaganda.

For example, the word “violence” is used repeatedly. But it only ever refers to violence by Arabs. There is not one single mention of violence by Israel against the Palestinians, even though the ratio of killing between Israelis and Palestinians over the last ten years is approximately 80:1 . The only mention of violence against Palestinians at all relates to Kuwaiti expulsion of Palestinian refugees after the first Gulf war.

The analysis of the refugee issue is the same. Nowhere can the paper bring itself to note the key historic fact, that the Palestinian refugees were expelled from Israel. The paper treats Palestinian refugees as if they had simply materialised as an inconvenient phenomenon, like a plague of locusts. This “othering” of Palestinian refugees permeates the entire paper:

It must be stressed that many Palestinian refugees in the Middle East come from war torn countries, such as Syria and Lebanon that are extremely hostile toward the State of Israel

No. Palestinian refugees were driven by violence from the land that is now Israel. Families who lived there two generations ago have been displaced in favour of families who claim the land because their ancestors lived there eighty generations ago. That is a matter of indisputable fact.

You can claim that displacement of the Palestinians from Israel was justifiable because of the urgent need for a state for Jewish people after the Holocaust. You can claim that the displacement of Palestinians from Israel is justifiable because it is divinely ordained. You can claim the displacement of Palestinians from Israel is regrettable but irreversible. Make what argument you wish, but to refuse to acknowledge the basic fact that the Palestinian refugees were driven from Israel is a pathetic act of cowardice that underlines the sheer intellectual shoddiness of the paper.

The “deal” makes a direct equivalence between Palestinian refugees and “the Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from Arab and Muslim countries”. The language here is extremely revealing. The Jewish refugees “were forced to flee”. There is no hesitation about this claim of victimhood. Whereas there is no acknowledgement at all that the Palestinian refugees “were forced to flee” by the Israelis.

It is undoubtedly a valid point that many Jews were disgracefully and involuntarily driven out by Arab nations, and their suffering is too often overlooked. However to claim the numbers are equivalent is to ignore the fact that a significant portion of the Jewish population of Arab states moved voluntarily to the new homeland, whereas none of the Palestinians expelled from Israel left voluntarily. But the more glaring fact ignored in the paper is that the majority of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands were given the property of Palestinian refugees in Israel. The claim that both sides are in equal need of compensation is therefore a nonsense.

The failure to admit the Palestinian refugees were driven out of Israel panders disgracefully to the most extreme zionist propaganda, which claims that the land was empty before the Israelis settled it in 1948. This is a classic colonist origin myth, used repeatedly by the British Empire, by white settlers in the USA, and of course by apartheid South Africa. When the Trump deal was first published, I was genuinely astonished to find twitter awash with thousands of tweets claiming the Palestinians do not exist as a people. This is an extraordinarily prevalent racist trope among zionists and appears to be not policed on the internet at all. I have read hundreds of articles about the hateful phenomenon of anti-semitism in the mainstream media. I don’t think I have ever seen this extreme zionist racism of “there is no such thing as Palestinians” ever mentioned in the MSM as a problem. But zionist racism is a huge problem, and it underlies the fundamental analysis of the Trump paper.

If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge, even once in 181 pages, that the Palestinian inhabitants were driven out of Israel, there is no chance the proposals built on these fundamentally dishonest foundations will be solid.

The Trump paper has three fundamental “solutions” to the Palestinian refugee issue.

1) Only those originally displaced to be deemed refugees, not their families.
2) Not one single refugee to be allowed to return to Israel (yes, it does actually say that)
3) No compensation to be paid to refugees by Israel

I have often pointed out that the proposed “two state solution” for Palestine has always been no more and no less than the old apartheid policy of “Bantustans” in South Africa, where the indigenous population were herded into six self-governing and four supposedly “independent states”.

It is worth pointing out that the apotheosis of the apartheid system, the Bantu Self-Governing Act of 1959, was given Royal Assent by Queen Elizabeth II, a point now rather skated over by a false narrative that apartheid was a solely Afrikaaner project post-Independence.

The major similarity that I had been pointing out with Bantustans was revealed by the map: fractured lands, not forming any kind of economically viable unit. Trump proposes Israeli annexation of the whole of the Jordan Valley, of North Jerusalem and large areas of the West Bank, the remnant of which is to be shattered by 15 Israeli sovereign settlements connected by Israeli only roads. Trump’s “Palestine” is very plainly not viable.

But the Trump proposals for how “Palestine” will run, make the Bantustan comparison still more stark. Indeed, the restrictions on the so-called “state” of Palestine under the Trump plan from having its own military or security forces are even greater than those imposed on the Bantustans by apartheid South Africa. Trump also proposes that Israel should have the right to stop Palestinian refugees from the wider diaspora entering the new “state” of Palestine.

A “state” not permitted to define its own citizens is not a state.

It does not stop there. The “state” is to have no right to a territorial sea or exclusive economic zone, with its sea to be given to Israel in contravention of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is not to be allowed to conclude treaties without Israeli consent. It is not even to be allowed to open a port but to be forced to import and export goods through Israeli ports – in other words, the Israeli economic blockade is to continue on the new “state”. Plainly, even apart from the unviable fracturing and the shrunk territory, the administrative arrangements proposed make no attempt to reach the level of statehood.

Surely, then, the proponents of the “two state solution” must have reacted strongly to this betrayal of their proposal?

Well, no.

In many ways the most incredible thing about the Trump proposals is how welcoming the western powers were. The general reaction from all European governments was that these are serious proposals with which the Palestinians must engage. While the ridiculous assessment from Dominic Raab that “this is clearly a serious proposal” is perhaps what you would expect from a state looking to the US for economic crumbs, the Palestinians might legitimately have expected better from the EU than the official response, which welcomed Trump’s “commitment to a two state solution”, of France which “welcomes Donald Trump’s efforts”, and of Germany which “appreciates that the president is sticking to the two state solution”.

The Palestinians were probably less disappointed by the support of the traitorous dictatorships of the Saudi and other Gulf States for their close Israeli ally, which is par for the course. But the fact that the international community recognises as a proposed “two state solution” a paper which in no sense whatsoever establishes a Palestinian state within any normal definition of the word, should tell us something important.

As I have repeatedly stated, those who trumpeted the “two state solution” have always been con-artists who do not believe in a viable Palestinian state at all. The fact that Blair and Bush, two dedicated ultra-zionists, stood in the Rose Garden and promised a “two state solution” as part of their propaganda for the Iraq War and other Middle East invasions, really should have shown people of goodwill this was a blind alley. The Trump proposals are a betrayal of the Palestinians, of course. But they are not unique to Trump and they are exactly what Blair, Bush and all the zionist apologists intended all along.

The “two state solution” was always a con.

There is no viable two state solution. To create a viable Palestinian state alongside a viable Israeli state would now involve highly undesirable further forced movements of population. The only long term solution for Palestine/Israel is, as with South Africa, a single state in which everybody has a vote and everybody is treated equally, irrespective of ethnicity, creed or gender.

Trump may, peculiarly, have done one good thing with these ludicrously unfair proposals. He has exposed the hollowness of the “two state solution”, and the pretence that it offers any justice to the Palestinians of way forward towards peace.

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

Alternatively:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


151 thoughts on “Non-Condemnatory International Reaction to Trump’s Bantustan Lite Palestine Plan Shows the “Two State” Solution Was Always a Lie

1 2
  • Jimmeh

    My understanding is that no thinking Palestinian considers any kind of two-state solution to be viable. Only the corrupt officials of the West Bank are willing to contemplate it.

    There is no chance, however, of the Israeli people agreeing to stop the process of settlement, let alone withdrawing from the existing settlements. From what I have understood, even liberal Israelis oppose a single-state solution. Broadly speaking, they dislike and distrust Palestinians. They just don’t want to see themselves backing a neo-fascist colonial enterprise. Jonathan Cook is very good on this topic.

    The support that rapture-loving US evangelicals hardly helps. These people are not like evangelical Christians in the UK; they seriously believe that the Second Coming of Christ is contingent on all Jews returning to Israel (conceived as all the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean). These so-called Christian Zionists do not love Jews, or Israel; rather, they believe in a prophetic form of Christianity that has no roots in the Bible, and that involves expelling all Jews from the USA. It’s basically the old Manifest Destiny: the whole of the USA is for white Christians. Trump is not an evangelical; hell, he’s not even a Christian. But his core constituency appears to be Zionist Christian evangelicals. The hypocrisy of it all stinks.

    I’m for a single-state solution; nothing else can work. But I’m afraid I can’t see it happening, short of a military defeat of the present state of Israel. And I hasten to note that I’m not in favour of a military attack on Israel.

    • lysias

      Pence actually believes in that Christian Zionist nonsense, or at least says he does. We’re lucky Trump won’t be removed by impeachment.

    • N_

      Certainly a single state solution with no ethnic discrimination would mean the end of the state of Israel. It would mean one Palestine, from the river to the sea, and the criminalisation of Zionism. There should be no doubt about that. Successful global boycott, divestment and sanctions against all Israeli companies, universities, etc., and all companies that do business in Israel (if someone doesn’t know where to start, try Marks and Spencer – controlled by the current British prime minister’s stepmother’s family) would hurt them. Some propaganda strikes could be imagined, but of course they are already on a war footing around the world and are attacking, attacking, attacking. British citizens who sign up for the IDF should be treated as terrorists.

      • N_

        British citizens who engage in hasbara should also be treated as assisting terrorism.
        That’s what a proper left wing effort would say. Poor ol’ Jeremy Corbyn 🙁 But the boot is very much on the rightwing foot. See for example how the BBC have reported posters in a block of flats in Norwich announcing that speaking other languages than English is not allowed. “Obey the rule of the majority or leave”, the poster says. “You won’t have long till our government will implement rules.”

        The BBC and its masters in Number 10 are deliberately encouraging this kind of racial hatred. There must be millions of Brexit scum who read that story and think “Well they’ve got a good point, haven’t they?” Soon there could well be violence. The media could “help” by saying “Oh look, someone’s been sticking up posters saying “It’s All Right to be White” (or more likely, “Its alright to be white”). This is a very good time for the far right. Farage looked like a fascist leader in the true sense of that term, singing “God Save the Queen” in a most emphatic way in Parliament Square.

        • N_

          I should have added: the poster is entitled “Happy Brexit Day”. (Literally. I’m not joking here.)

        • Piotr Berman

          British citizens who engage in hasbara should also be treated as assisting terrorism. <— Terrorism definition seems to be truncated to "use violence for political ends", that can be heavily misused. Say, "abstractly", that a country A invades country B and installs a government. Inhabitant IB of B has a political aim to have a government that does not follow dictates of A and causes an explosion under a military vehicle of A. Is he/she a terrorist?

          So my beef with your proposal is that "terrorism" lost its original meaning from years when founding fathers of Israel were fighting for their close by bombing Arab marketplaces.

          BTW, are there "SNP friends of Israel"? Wikipedia lists
          Labour Friends of Israel
          Conservative Friends of Israel
          Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel
          Northern Ireland Friends of Israel

          "Friends of violence, dispossession and oppression, the most aggressive country in the world except USA, with hundreds of bombing attacks and hundreds of murdered protesters in the last year alone. " One can tack terrorism somewhere….

  • Rhys Jaggar

    What do you expect? It was doubtless written by the Zionist Jared Kushner, never elected into any position ever and given his role courtesy of shagging the Donald’s daughter for a few years……

    What in God’s name makes you think that Jared Kushner could ever be even-handed?

    This is akin to getting a Nazi to oversee the Nuremberg trials….

    There will be no solution because the USA will block any solution that is not totally in favour of Israel. Why? Because the USA is controlled by AIPAC and the Mossad…

    No truly independent mediator would ever be allowed to operate by the USA/Israel axis.

    But it is worth formulating such a process and continuing to a conclusion with or without the Israeli input.

    It would put out a counter proposal entirely ignoring the needs and wishes of Israel.

    That would show up the current proposal for what it is rather well.

    And then you could start asking Israelis embarrassing questions about their value system……

    Because that is what it comes down to: their VALUES.

    The value that says they are intrinsically superior to Palestinians.

    Racism by any other name.

    But no-one is allowed to call the Jews racist, because that is anti-Semitic. Perish the thought that Palestinians are also Semites and Israeli behaviour toward them is certainly ‘anti-semitic’..

    You can see why I would have been eliminated without interview from any FCO application I might have made (which is why I never made one). Too busy pointing out the truth instead of ‘lying abroad for my country’…..

    You will never get a proper solution without facing reality though……..

    • michael norton

      I am fairly convinced that Israel formulated “The Syrian Civil War”
      perhaps with the assistance of others to begin A Greater Israel.
      Recently The Donald has proclaimed that The Golan is Israeli land.

      • michael norton

        Many Palestinian people moved into Syria, they felt move loved more comfortable than in Israel.
        One wonders what Israel had in store for Syrian Palestinians,
        after they imagined it part of Greater Israel?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ michael norton February 1, 2020 at 19:09
        It certainly fitted with Israeli plans. However, they let, or encouraged, others to do the heavy lifting.
        ‘Roland Dumas: The British prepared for war in Syria 2 years before the eruption of the crisis’:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeyRwFHR8WY
        Despite the tremendous import of that information, only ONE Labour MP expressed an interest, and he is now out on his ear.
        There is lots more info about it on the web, easy to find. The Yanks also set up a secret base in Jordan in 2009 to train Syrians and world-wide Jihadis to fight the Assad government forces (as they did in Turkey). France, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf regimes were also heavily involved.
        Talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, the West and it’s cronies could teach them a thing or three.
        They/we barely even worry about a fig-leaf, or even ‘plausible denial’. We just blatantly lie, with the implication of ‘what you gonna do about it’?

    • Dungroanin

      Rhys, on point as usual.

      The daughter impregnation is the ancient method of conquest – it is the bastardisation of the genuine judaic tradition of DNA confirming tribal ancestry.

      Ask-a-Nazi – Does he/she claim to be a genuine Semite?
      They’ll sneer and say they have nothing to do with these aayraabs!

      The Clintons whored their only begotten child to their ancient banker masters who insist on all wealth to remain forever within their ‘blood tied’ empire.

      Murdoch the same. I expect Blair is already of the blood, if not, one of theirs will have been encouraged to mate…
      Hell even Pakistans Imran Khan was forced to create a bloodline that will be exploited into power over the next generation.

      That is how long term dynastic power is planned and maintained- generations ahead.

      • Deb O'Nair

        “Ask-a-Nazi – Does he/she claim to be a genuine Semite?
        They’ll sneer and say they have nothing to do with these aayraabs! ”

        This comment is mind-boggling.

        Firstly, the term “genuine Semite” is meaningless – Semitic is a linguistic definition.

        Secondly, using puns of Ashkenazi to conflate Ashkenazi Jews with Nazis is abhorrent when one consider that many Ashkenazi Jews who lost family in WW2 oppose Zionist ideology today.

        Thirdly, while using the very techniques of the Third Reich, you then attribute crude and coarse Jewish contempt aimed at “aayraabs”.

        If you replace “aayraabs” with “Germans”, and “Nazi” with “Jew” and “Semite” with “Aryan” then you have something straight out of ‘Mein Kampf’; hate speech.

        • Dungroanin

          No Deb It IS a matter of semantics – words have been weaponised into a fake judaeophobism.

          Semetic is a definition of peoples of many religions who spoje the same root language.

          Most judaic ancients spoke the same language as other tribal peoples of the region – which is now mostly Arabic.

          Separating these ancient peoples into askanazi converts and the old Shepardic ones and scrubbing that history by laying claim to ‘semites’ is a ‘nationalist’ project of superiority.

          Words MATTER.

          i only pointed it out and you bridled! That is how much they matter. Many establishment jewish English statesmen were against the concept of Zionism and objected to the wording of the ‘contract’ of the very FAST published Balfour declaration.
          Look up the history of it yourself. If you want i’ll post it here for you.

    • Tony

      “This is akin to getting a Nazi to oversee the Nuremberg trials….”

      Or, perhaps, allowing someone who obviously benefitted from the assassination of President Kennedy to set up his own inquiry into that assassination.

      This really did happen.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Tony February 2, 2020 at 14:39
        Even whilst the Nuremberg Trials were being held, real Nazi War Criminals were being spirited off to the US (Operation Paperclip), Russia and Latin America (with Vatican Passports!). And Eisenhower was engaged in a truly Nazi policy of starving to death German Prisoners of War, ‘Disarmed Enemy Personnel’ (a made-up category to exclude them from the Geneva Convention – like their more recent ‘Enemy Combatant’ category, once again with the Geneva Convention in mind) and civilians alike (total around 9 millions deaths (around 1 million POW’s/DEP’s), not all from starvation but from deliberate exposure to the elements (despite ample tents, building or erection of tents in Prison Camps was forbidden – though a few brave Camp Commanders over-rode orders, only to be replaced). In some French POW Camps, rations were half those of Belsen under the Nazis.
        Check out ‘Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II’ by James Bacque’.
        Didn’t first read it in the Telegraph or the Sun? Surprised?
        I’m sure you are aware of the concept of ‘Victors Justice’, at work in Nuremberg as it was in Versailles some 25 years previously.
        Time for Rose Tinted Glasses to bite the dust, methinks.
        The Fourth Reich is alive and, regrettably thriving. The center is North America, although it’s command center often appears to be in the Middle East (with a thriving German section in South America – yes, they do cooperate – think Martin Bormann and his Organisation, he supposedly died 1945).

  • Goose

    The EU should definitely step up with a fairer counter proposal in consultation with Palestinian negotiators. The UK will then have to decide who they want to annoy.

    It’s been reported the Israeli Knesset is set to vote to annex the West Bank Sunday – both Gantz’s Blue and White party and Netanyahu’s Likud are said to be in favour, so it’ll pass.

    If opponents of Trump’s terrible deal don’t produce a viable alternative, Israel will press ahead with annexation. Pompeo is currently touring EU capitals presumably gauging how they’ll react to an annexation – sanctions? Because look at Crimea , can our govt here in the UK really say Israel(West Bank) – OK, Crimea (via referendum) – Not OK? Hypocrisy , much?

    • Goose

      To add.

      You can tell how powerful Jared Kushner is by the fact it was , he, and not the President, that issued a warning to Israel , telling them not to hold the vote on annexation until after the Israeli election on 2 March.

  • Loony

    Is it not the case that Prussia disappeared from maps around the same time as Israel superimposed itself on Palestine?

    Why today are there no Prussian refugees but lots of Palestinian refugees?

    • Paul Barbara

      @ SA February 1, 2020 at 20:59
      ‘…Thank you Craig Murray for a very well articulated summary of the problem and Thank you Craig Murray for a very well articulated summary of the problem and how the west has been blind to the hypocrisy of ignoring the plight of the Palestinians…’
      ‘..how the west has been blind to the hypocrisy of ignoring the plight of the Palestinians..’
      Back to the MSM. WHO controls the MSM? Is it an accident we almost invariably get an extremely one-sided view? There can be no Democracy without a free, unfettered media. The vast majority of the public get their info from the TV and ‘newspapers’ (when I was a kid after the war, at least newspapers were useful for fish and chips, or more often for toilet paper).
      If ‘The Truth Shall Set You Free’, those who feed the public lies face a very heavy Karma.

  • MJ

    The best that can be said about this plan is that it is so patently absurd it is bound to fail.

    • Goose

      Not even in Israel’s interests to force a solution, for what peace would that bring, what comfort for the settlers?

      And on that , Most people in the world find it absolutely reprehensible that the Israeli state urges people of the Jewish faith to come from wherever they are in the world, to occupy contested land, basically like pawns to further Israel’s claim to that land.

      The Israeli state has used collective guilt and accusations of anti-Semitism, to silence justified criticism of this, criticism that would be deafening were any other state in the world doing such a thing.

  • Cubby

    Who was in charge of Palestine – the Brutish Empire. Who left this mess – Westminster.

    Why would anyone choose to be governed by Westminster. Most of the world has got rid off them.

    The Britnat Brexiteers along with the English Nationalist Brexiteers sing Rule Britannia in the middle of London. Do they think the Empire is on its way back? Do they think or is it all done by basic instincts?

    • N_

      You are right that English nationalism was on display in Parliament Square – no doubt about that.
      In answer to your 2 questions, answer is kinda “yes”. We are talking about people whose knuckles drag along the ground as they express their hatred of foreigners and non-whites, so I am not sure that “think” is the right word. Did you see the photo of the guy in the T-shirt saying “2 world wars and 1 referendum”?

      • Cubby

        N

        Why would anyone choose to be governed by Westminster. You conveniently ignored this point.

        The recent yougov poll shows a majority in Scotland now choose to reject Westminster but Britnats like you still insist we should remain chained to an England that is going deep into the black hole of racism and fascism. No one knows how deep England will go into the this black hole but we want nothing to do with it.

        The recent yougov poll which traditionally shows lower figs for Scottish independence than other polling companies contained the key figure of under 49 years old 65% want Scottish independence.

        • N_

          Why would anyone choose to be governed by Westminster. You conveniently ignored this point.

          Well it’s not hypothetical – a large part of the population in Scotland DID choose to be governed from Westminster and say they will again if they get the chance. I can’t speak for all those people.

          I was unaware of the recent YouGov poll: 43%-42% for independence, with 10% undecided and presumably 5% WV/WS. Interesting.

          FYI if there is a consistent large majority for independence in the polls, I will SUPPORT there being another independence referendum. I also believe that in that scenario the British government would be forced to call one. And if that wasn’t the case, there would be a clear path to a referendum anyway, going through an early Scottish general election. Wouldn’t “Westminster” look bad if they’d denied a referendum in the face of all the polls, and then the SNP brought about a Holyrood election and made it absolutely clear that there was a large majority for independence? Which side would that be good for?

          So don’t worry. Just keep on arguing for independence. Persuade the middle ground. Watch independence start winning poll after poll. But stop blaming the English or “Westminster”.

          Contrary to what you seem to think, neither I nor all the other voters in Scotland who support the union do so because we want Scottish people to be trodden on by Westminster or by anybody else.

          • Cubby

            N

            There is the Britnat mindset – 52% is ok to leave the EU but Scots have to get a large consistent majority for you to even consider supporting an independence referendum. We already voted for a mandate in multiple elections. You British Nationalists are just democracy deniers – Marxist – like the fascist variety.

            51% yes in latest yougov poll which consistently under plays the yes vote and excludes 16/17 year olds.

            Yougov poll – Under 49 years of age – 65%. It’s just a matter of when. How far down the black hole of fascism and racism will England have dragged Scotland before independence arrives – that is the question.

            You were probably unaware of last years 52% yes poll as well because you only read Britnat propaganda.

            You were probably unaware Unison (the Union) has stated it supports another independence referendum as well.

            100 years ago in 1920 Scotland was only allowed to spend 26% of its revenues in Scotland. So who do you think kept the rest then N. I think in my book that is being trodden on by England and Westminster. A dirty great big WestminsterJackboot has been trodding all over Scotland since the Union was forced on Scotland.

            Your last couple of sentences make no sense. If you want to keep Scotland in the union that is a Westminster/England dictatorship then you are voting for Scotland to be abused.

  • Mary

    Craig Murray | Stop the Gaza massacre Demonstration London 10 January 2009
    https://youtu.be/zt4S8AGPGfk

    I was one of 200,000 who heard him give that inspiring speech. I also heard Craig speak in Kensington High Street at the entrance to the road that contains the Israeli Embassy, Palace Green and again in Hyde Park.

    Craig here speaking to a massive crowd who marched in London against Israel atrocities committed against the Palestinians in Gaza. They named that atrocity Cast Lead after the spinning toy given to children for the Jewish holiday. Thousands of Palestinians were killed and injured.

    Jeremy Corbyn and Seumas Milne also spoke. Good on all of them.
    https://youtu.be/wReTz98Kcgk

    Wikipedia refer to the atrocity as a ‘conflict’. It was not. It was a war waged on a captive people trapped and imprisoned in a strip of land with sandy and infertile soil. There is not even a water supply.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War_(2008%E2%80%9309)

  • Ananana

    Its a Zionist myth that that today’s Jewish population are the descendants of people driven out of Israel 80 generations ago. Firstly the expulsion never occurred… Jews were barred from Jerusalem by the Romans, not driven out of the region. Secondly conversion to Judaism was common 2000 years ago… as has been conversion from Judaism to other religions. The Ashkenazi Jews from Europe are *obviously* white and of European descent. The idea that followers of the Jewish religion are the descendants of the Israelites is nonsense.

    • Piotr Berman

      Restoring status quo that was 2000 years ago is weird, to put it mildly. Saxons back to Saxony, Angles to Angeln, Scots to Hibernia, so the islands can be populated again be the Welch/Britons (restoring Arturian kingdom?) and Picts.

      But there is a book that a burning bush promised the land to 12 tribes for perpetuity, thus it should all be given (with addition of a generous “safety margin”) to folks who have legends of descent from 2 of those tribes.

  • fedup

    Zionism despite its attribution to Jewish Nationalism, is a mostly a British thought and implemented code of beliefs that was built on the work of Luther who sought to distance his movement from Vatican by returning to the roots of Christianity in the mid east. Thus, promoting the notion that Jews were close relatives of Jesus, than the Europeans who were in laws and distant cousins, going so far as separating 14 books from the Old Testament (Apocrypha). Needless to point out the subsequent bout of poisoning changed Luther’s mind drastically.

    Fact that European racism has formed the basis of the Zionism has been further accentuated by the said European settlers who are claiming their “god given right” and throwing out the Palestinians from their homes and lands. The extent of the racist beliefs in the same “deal of the century” promotes static deportation of the “Israeli Arabs” (Palestinians living within Israel). By handing over the areas housing these people into the bantustan proposed in the said deal.

    Fact that this move clearly aims to rid Israel from any and all Palestinians living there, is further reinforced by Israeli Supreme Court upholding the Jewish DNA laws. This probably shall come to be used in births/marriages/property rights/jobs/loans/etc. Hence, making South African Apartheid to appear an amateurish exercise in racism.

    The tacit acquiescence of the echo chamber media, who have not challenged the non-Semitic origins of the European settler Jews an established and well studied fact, is yet further evidence of the collusion of the Europeans aiding and abetting the racists settlers in their unholy and immoral enterprise.

    PS the rapture evangelists, are only following the tradition of the early Lutheran movement that foresaw the end times for Jesus to make a come back and convert the Jews into Christianity, and killing the others who did not wish to convert. This is the same treatment as the with Kurds, to use them as and when needed and then turn on them when thy have outlived their usefulness. Fact that Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal assent to the Bantu act speaks volumes about the nature of the murky enterprise that is eating away at the very soul of humanity and corrupting its values.

    • Giyane

      Fedup

      Imho quasi religious dogma springs up to justify crimes that have already been committed, rather than a precursor to crimes. Trump is consolidating an existing reality, created by zionist violence and persecution. Darwin was consolidating an existing reality created by European violence and Luther was justifying European violence against the Muslim world by saying the Jews were christ killers.

      Maybe I’m wrong but I thought it was a new political phenomenon to use psy-ops , pre-violence propaganda against your rivals. But maybe that is just my ignorance of political malevolence in history.. I thought dogma was always a justification for previously committed crimes.
      Born out of guilt , not ambition. I don’t know.

        • Kerch'ee Kerch'ee Coup

          @Johny Conspiranoid
          Is it a reference to the”Terra Nullis”concept of no -man’s land used to justify seizure and slaughter of aborigines stuck 50000 years in their stand-stil/steady-state dream-time or Churchill’s advocacy of Palestine being handed to rule ‘those more advanced and better fitted to do so’?

        • Giyane

          Johnny Conspiranoid

          Did not Trump say that giving all Jerusalem to Israel reflected the existing reality.
          Has he not just repeated this lie?
          I was referring to the colonisation of Africa and India which was a fait accompli by the time Darwin proposed a false theory, now totally disproved, that Africans were evolutionarily closer to apes by their appearance. The opposite has now been proved because Africsns are pure homo sapiens unlike the rest of us that are cross bred with Neanderthals.

          My point was that these justifies invent a theory to justify their completed crimes. To say the Luther was the seed for european racism is doubtful.
          He was the justifier of racism. And his justification was because they were Christ killers.

          Trump thinks the same as Sajid javid that Israel is a democracy in the Middle East, while in fact the Middle Eastern Muslims have been and still are beset with dictators both secular and Islamist.

          I declare war on this totally corrupt Tory government , for its absolute racism and absolute lies. The commentariat oil the BBC think Johnson can reconcile differences after Brexit. Then, as soon as they spread their wide bums in Westminster, the Grenfell Star Chamber tells the workers they are responsible for killing the residents, not the corporate billionaires. Trump produces this racist tract and USUKIS commits biological warfare on its economic rivals.

          War against Johnson and the racist Tories.

    • Antonym

      South Africa today is a total failure; Zimbabwe even more. No only for Whites but also for Blacks and Coloreds. The Blacks being the mayority got full power over both nations mineral and climatic riches but these were squandered away by massive corruption of Black leaders Zuma and Mugabe plus families. Crime is world record breaking.
      Israel has some climate riches but barely minerals: those are in the other Sunni Arab neighboring countries. A little Jewish Bantustan in that Sunni Arab ocean is not such a bad idea: Jewistan. The world already counts dozens of Islamitic “stans”, so don’t be hypocrites.

      • fedup

        Come back when you have a cogent and reasoned argument, as opposed to the relativist pap, setting out “blacks corrupt incompetent, whites capable uncorrupted go getters ”

        What utter racist tosh!

        • Antonym

          Typical Lefty reply: in anger due to seeing a different view other than own gets upset, fails to read properly and projects non written stuff on subject, topped off by some insults.
          Stalin would be proud of you.
          Come back when you have a cogent and reasoned argument.
          My wife is black by the way.

        • Bayard

          The ethics of independence and majority rule are one thing, the reality another. We, the liberal whites, expected the black inhabitants of these countries to achieve in two generations what had taken us a hundred, that is the psychological transformation from a tribal society to a modern, “democratic” one. Unsurprisingly, they were unable to do this in most cases.

          • Bayard

            Indeed, when we British were released from the colonial rule of the Romans, we fairly quickly reverted to the tribal society we had had before they came, and that was after four hundred years, so it is nothing to do with race.

  • Sean_Lamb

    Time the Jewish State dropped in the same historical dustbin that the White Australia Policy has been consigned to.

    Personally I think that they should stick with Palestine, as it is a name with a lot of history behind it, but as a transition I am open to Palesrael or Istine

  • Anne O'Nimmus

    It is my contention that *any* US/UK trade deal will not only be contingent on the UK rejecting BDS, but more than likely will demand approval of this godawful mess of criminality. Or no deal.

  • mrjohn

    You will hear some supporters of Israel say that when the returnees arrived it was half desert, half malarial swamp. If that is true I recommend they find a new sky fairy.

    • Republic of Wales

      “A land without people for a people without a land” I was told around 1967.

      • John A

        As early zionists admitted about their hopes to colonise Palestine “The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man”.
        So basically, they cuckolded the bride and are gradually poisoning the husband to make him weaker and weaker till he finally drops dead.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ mrjohn February 2, 2020 at 01:38
      ‘…half desert, half malarial swamp..’
      A huge exaggeration, but there where large areas of both. Obviously, those areas were cheaper to obtain for settlers, who just happened to have backers with big pockets and an agenda. Sure, many colonial Jewish settlers died of malaria, but outside injection of funds allowed many swamps to be drained and thousands of Eucalyptus trees to be planted. In the early days, the Zionists were actually buying the land, often from absentee landlords. It was only later, when they had gained a strong foothold in the country, that they took off the gloves and showed their true colours, as determined to take over and rule the whole territory.
      As for ‘God’ promising Moses the land was for the Jews, that’s the same ‘God’ that ordered every man, woman, child and animal to be slaughtered. I don’t (as a Christian) accept that that was the same ‘God’ Jesus called his father. But it could very well explain why Jews tend to be so successful in life……

  • Ben

    “you can claim it was necessary to drive the Palestinians out because of the urgent need to create a Jewish state after the holocaust…”

    Of course, the glaring problem with this narrative is that AFTER WW2, AFTER the big bad Jew killer had been defeated, and his former state riddled with shame, there was clearly no need for a Jewish state. Because most of Europe & the USSR had just removed the source of their anguish. European Jewry would never again be targeted in such a way.
    To justify one genocide with another is surely the strangest happening of the 20th Century. After the Haavara Agreement saw Hitler finance a great deal of Israels initial set up, one has to wonder what convergent agendas existed, that used the holocaust to justify the sudden, unquestionable establishment of a white power base in the centre of the mineral rich middle east.

    • Tom Welsh

      Exactly so, Ben.

      Indeed, some sources suggest that the Nazis actually copied many of their ideas and methods from Jewish examples – as documented in the Old Testament.

      Chosen people – check.
      Therefore entitled to exterminate lesser races – check.
      Morality concerns only the Chosen; others are no more important than cattle – check.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Tom Welsh February 2, 2020 at 10:38
        He also got ideas from the British Empire, of which he was very impressed. To wit, concentration camps (from Britain’s wars against the Boers).

  • OnlyHalfALooney

    Craig:

    It is worth pointing out that the apotheosis of the apartheid system, the Bantu Self-Governing Act of 1959, was given Royal Assent by Queen Elizabeth II, a point now rather skated over by a false narrative that apartheid was a solely Afrikaaner project post-Independence.

    This is not quite accurate. The Union of South Africa became independent in 1910. After the Balfour Declaration (1926), the British government had little influence on the South African government and legislation although the British monarch remained head of state. The South African situation before it became a republic (in 1961) was similar to Australia and Canada: the monarch was represented by a Governor General. In the years during which Apartheid legislation was introduced in successive steps by the Afrikaner Nationalist government, the Governors General were also Afrikaner nationalists.

    Although the British colonial authorities treated the “natives” very badly indeed and segregation and discrimination was everyday practice as it was in most British colonies, the grand plan of Apartheid was mainly H.F. Verwoerd’s idea. Ironically, Verwoerd was not even a “true Afrikaner”, having been born in Amsterdam to Dutch parents. Whether Verwoerd’s ideas about race were influenced by his time studying in pre-war Germany is a matter of continuing debate. Personally, I think the answer is quite obvious even if difficult to prove historically.

    It is worth also noting however, that the “Bantustan” policy had its origins in the “Native Land Act” of 1913, which set aside only 1/8 of South African land (the bad bits) for (black) “natives” (in “native reserves”), The Afrikaner nationalists were not in power at the time and the British government had far more influence on the South African government then than it did later.

    But I agree with you that the idea that it was “only the Afrikaners” who were responsible for segregation and serfdom of native African peoples and discrimiation against “Indians” and “coloureds” is complete rubbish.

  • Dungroanin

    The drafting, draftees, addressee, signatories and the intrigue and circumstances created and events unfolding around the very short and instantly publicly published BALFOUR declaration – is essential for anyone who wants to understand the truth of how the ancient semetic peoples of Palestine and the Middle East, of multiple religions were subjected to the greatest crime of the last century.

    • OnlyHalfALooney

      To avoid confusion, there were two “Balfour Declarations”.

      The 1917 Balfour declaration was a statement by the British government supporting a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

      The 1926 Balfour declaration concerned the relationship between Britain and its dominions. It stated that the dominions were fully autonomous and “not subordinate to each other other in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs”. In other words, South Africa, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were to be treated as fully independent “though united by a common allegiance to the Crown”.

      • Mary

        1917.
        There was no show without a Rothschild.

        Balfour Declaration, (November 2, 1917), statement of British support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” It was made in a letter from Arthur James Balfour, the British foreign secretary, to Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild (of Tring), a leader of the Anglo-Jewish community. Though the precise meaning of the correspondence has been disputed, its statements were generally contradictory to both the Sykes-Picot Agreement (a secret convention between Britain and France) and the Ḥusayn-McMahon correspondence (an exchange of letters between the British high commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, then emir of Mecca), which in turn contradicted one another (see Palestine, World War I and after).

        https://www.britannica.com/event/Balfour-Declaration

  • M.J.

    I see this plane as mutual backscratching by Trump and Netanyahu. Jared Kushner may well know perfectly well that Palestinians could never accept it. But the reaction of the UK and EU is disappointing. Hopefully a future Democrat government in the USA and a revival of centrist over populist parties throughout Europe (including the UK) might exert a better influence. But that could take some years.

  • Dave

    Israel/Palestine is a small area hardly big enough for two states even with agreement, which is why the “two state solution” was always a holding position as Israel advanced its interests and even now its still professed until nothing of Palestine is left.

    But here’s the irony, the more they advance, you end up inevitably with the “one state solution”, but how could such a state remain “Jewish” without Apartheid, hence the need to perpetuate the “two state” con!

    The question is do the Palestinians now declare for the one state solution whilst still occupying part of the land and seeking full rights within a unified state, which would probably get almost unanimous international support.

  • Jaap Hamburger

    About ‘Jewish refugees’ from Arab countries: the main argument here is that Palestinians bore no responsibility whatsoever for those ‘events’ and this can’t be made to pay the price for that. Jewish refugees from Arab countries vs. Palestinian refugees from Palestine: the equation is a complete fraude.

  • Spike

    Thanks for having the humanity to advocate for a one state solution.

    Although it really makes no difference in appraising the morality of the situation, it’s worth mentioning that the Jews of Eastern Europe who founded the State of Israel have no more ancestry of people in that part of the world than do any other people of European descent. The Eastern European Jews are descended from Italian (Roman) converts who migrated northward and then spent centuries in profound genetic and cultural isolation. This is strongly indicated by genome analysis as well as by obvious appearance similarity. The Eastern European Jews are clearly not ‘Semites’, are not descended from ancient Israelites, and if they are in a diaspora from anywhere, it would be Italy.

    Because of the predominance throughout history of the wife taking the husband’s religion in an intermarriage, there do exist some Middle Eastern markers in the Y chromosome of some individuals, but to claim descent from that is, in the very least, engaging in the ultimate declaration of male supremacy.

  • Vinnie Pooh

    2 points

    1. Everybody in the “international community”, meaning professional diplomats and leaders of state dealing with this snafu, are tired of the Palestinians. Not with the people (no one cares), but with the leadership. PLO is just a bunch of corrupt local clan leaders, it has always been the case, and remains the case. They are not interested in a Palestinian state itself, all they are interested in is mooching money from donors. Hence this muted reaction – the PLO ship has sailed.

    2. There was and is a single state constituency within Israel. However, these guys are slightly to the left of Netanyahu, and waaay to the right of the “two state solution crowd”, to whom the international community decided to hitch their bandwagon. And this crowd is still in denial that this plan has failed, but it is them who represent Israel in international institutions and define its interaction with the outside world. So the one state solution ship has sailed as well, as its constituency in Israel has been ignored and marginalised by the international crowd.

    Solution? Seems like there is none.

  • Tom Paine

    Sometimes you just got to toss the tea into the harbor and give the Queen the finger.
    Its the only way.
    Because no occupying power is ever going to voluntarily weaken itself by given an occupied nation independence. Not unless the occupied make it so painful and expensive to the occupiers that they finally are forced to agree. That is the history of people-kind.

  • Republic of Wales

    Minutes after writing the above comment on my laptop, I try to add another thought and find the text box border turns red and I cannot enter any text.
    Is this your anti spam system or have I been banned?
    For flying the flag for Welsh independence?

    From my phone.

1 2

Comments are closed.