To seize the present opportunity, one-state advocates need to stop mistaking the two-state solution with the goal of the US-led so-called "peace process".
Among active supporters of Palestinians’ rights, there is a strong popular tendency to reject what is known as “the two-state solution” in favor of a “one-state solution” to the Israel-Palestine conflict. However, this rejection is premised on the mistaken assumption that achieving the two-state solution was the goal of the now essentially defunct US-led so-called “peace process”. And the failure among Palestinian supporters to recognize this critical distinction is itself an obstacle toward a peaceful and just resolution.
The reality is that the goal of the “peace process” has never been to realize the two-state solution. And falsely equating the two has had the regrettable consequence of serving the interests of Israel’s occupation regime. It is, as the idiom goes, to throw out the baby with the bath water.
There are really two fundamental misunderstandings here: one about the two-state solution and the other about the “peace process”. These misunderstandings are a consequence of Zionist propaganda that has taken the form of common knowledge, but which is devoid of truth.
The US, of course, has always characterized its role in the “peace process” as benevolent and the process itself as being designed to achieve a two-state solution, but this must not be confused with the two-state solution. What must be recognized is that, while the latter is grounded in international law, the former is premised on a rejection of the applicability of international law toward a just resolution.
The True Meaning of Resolution 242
The Zionist propaganda at the heart of this confusion is Israel’s unilateral interpretation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which interpretation has no validity under international law.
This resolution was passed in the wake of the June 1967 war, during which Israel occupied the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The US government and media—including, regrettably, alternative online publications supportive of Palestinians’ rights—routinely propagate Israel’s false claims about Resolution 242 as though representing its true meaning and the intent of the Security Council. By mistakenly equating the “two-state solution” with the “peace process”, Palestinian supporters are unwittingly propagating the Zionist myth about Resolution 242, which is immensely damaging to the Palestinians’ cause.
The misinformation centers around the Security Council’s call in that resolution for Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied during the 1967 war. Israel’s ridiculous contention is that it was the will of the Security Council that Israel could retain some of the land it conquered during the war, and that Israel has no obligation to withdraw from occupied territory until a final peace agreement is reached that includes a final settlement on borders.
One of the foundational premises of the “peace process” is the US’s acceptance of Israel’s false interpretation as a framework for what have heinously been dubbed “negotiations”. Under this framework, the Palestinians must “negotiate” with their occupier while remaining under the thumb of the military occupation regime, and while Israel continues to prejudice the outcome of said “negotiations” with the continual expansion of its Jewish settlements constructed illegally within occupied territory.
The intended outcome of this US-led process is to force the Palestinians to surrender their rights to an extent deemed satisfactory by Israel. Under the US framework, Palestinians not only must surrender even more of their land to Israel, but also their right to return to their own homeland, from which a majority of them were expelled during the campaign of ethnic cleansing by which the “Jewish state” of Israel was established in 1948.
The governments of Israel and the US would have the world believe that this framework is grounded in international law. They even cite Resolution 242 as the basis for the “peace process”. But it is a twisted shadow of Resolution 242 that the “peace process” represents, not the principles of international law the resolution was intended to uphold.
The truth is that it was the unanimous will of the Security Council that Israel must completely and immediately withdraw its forces from Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in accordance with the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible.
Suffice to say that powerful Zionist propaganda all too readily accepted by the US and other Western governments has achieved its desired effect. The Western media in turn also propagate the myth, casting a spell over the public mind. Even Palestinian supporters have been deceived into believing the myth over reality—not unlike how the related myth that the UN created Israel persists despite having no basis in fact.
It is time for this bewitchment to end.
The Goal of the So-Called “Peace Process”
It is upon the basis of that Zionist myth about Resolution 242 that the US-led so-called “peace process” was constructed. While the US has claimed to support a two-state solution, it has emphatically opposed the two-state solution.
This is something supporters of Palestinian rights must not continue to fail to understand. It is all well and good to reject the goal of the “peace process” along with the process itself. But it is a fundamental strategic mistake to equate the outcome desired by Israel and the US with the two-state solution.
Simply stated, the “peace process” is the process by which Israel and the US have long blocked implementation of the two-state solution.
In order to accomplish that aim, the “peace process” is premised on a fundamental rejection not only of Palestinians’ rights, but also of the applicability of international law toward finding a just resolution.
Actually, the vast majority of the world’s governments, as well as the United Nations organization, already recognize Palestine as an independent state. One of the few legitimate objections to such recognition is that Palestine doesn’t meet the definition of statehood since it doesn’t have legally defined borders, which is a requirement for statehood under the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. But, then, if Palestine shouldn’t be recognized as a state for that reason, then, by an equal measure, neither should Israel.
The description by the US media of past so-called “offers” from Israel as “concessions” rather than ultimatums is simply a reflection of the US government’s habit of rejecting international law so long as its application would be contrary to Washington’s policy aims. It is simply another illustration of how the mainstream media serve to manufacture public consent for US government policy. Other examples abound, such as the media’s description of East Jerusalem as “disputed” territory, even though it is a simple and uncontroversial point of fact under international law that East Jerusalem, too, is “occupied Palestinian territory”.
The point is that the single strongest weapon the Palestinians have on their side—the weapon most feared by both Israel and its superpower benefactor—is international law. By equating the goal of the “peace process” with the two-state solution and rejecting it on that basis, Palestinian supporters are in effect, albeit unwittingly, joining with the US and Israel in rejecting the path forward as determined by the application of international law. And that is a grave strategic error that must be recognized and corrected.
‘Two-State’ vs. ‘One-State’ Solution: A False Paradigm
The rejection among Palestinian supporters of the two-state solution does not rest only on the mistaken association of it with the goal of the “peace process”. It is also grounded in the realization that what the Arabs of Palestine wanted from the beginning was a single democratic state in which the rights of the minority would be respected, and that this outcome remains the most just one today.
It is a common view among supporters of the global boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement that the two-state solution is dead, never had any validity to begin with, and must be rejected in favor of the one-state solution. Yet the explicit goals of the BDS movement are as follows:
- Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
- Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
- Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.
No doubt, for all three of these goals to be implemented would effectively mean the realization of a single democratic state. And yet, the most immediate of these goals, to see an end to Israel’s occupation regime, is in essence a call for the two-state solution to be finally implemented.
The two-state solution is not necessarily the end goal, but it is a required step along the path to be able to realize a single democratic state. Only once the occupation is ended will the Palestinians be able to gain the political leverage required to compel Israel to comply with international law, which will in turn be necessary if there is to be any realistic hope of Palestinian refugees exercising their right to return to their homeland.
The Path Forward
The actions called for by the BDS movement are tactics, but what is the strategy? Israel is not going to change its policies to align with the worthy goals of the movement simply on account of people at the grassroots level advocating these tactics. It is simply not realistic to expect that these tactics will cause Israeli policymakers to have a fundamental change of heart, formally annex Gaza and the West Bank, grant Israeli citizenship to the Palestinians, welcome Palestinian refugees home, and protect the equal rights of all under Israeli law. This is a wishful fantasy, not a strategy.
While popular grassroots movements are an important part of any struggle for liberty and justice against an oppressive state regime, to be truly effective, they must align with an overall pragmatic strategy.
There are essentially three main obstacles that must be overcome for a just peace to be realized. The first, of course, is Israel. But what the tactics employed by the BDS movement unfortunately overlook is that the obstacle of Israel’s persistent violations of Palestinians’ rights cannot be overcome without addressing the second main obstacle, which is the government of the United States.
Only once it becomes politically infeasible for the US government to continue its policy of supporting Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians will there be any hope of similarly making it politically infeasible for those crimes to continue.
While effecting the paradigm shift necessary for that change to occur is primarily the responsibility of the global community of activists, and especially the American people, the third main obstacle is one that must primarily be overcome by the Palestinian people themselves: their own leadership.
This, too, is an obstacle the BDS tactics unfortunately do nothing to address.
Two of the initial agreements underlying the “peace process” are the Oslo Accords, which established the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PA has long been under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, whose term as President actually expired nearly a decade ago. And Abbas has served his role well, inasmuch as the intended purpose of the PA under the Accords was to serve as Israel’s collaborator in enforcing its occupation regime. (See again my book Obstacle to Peace for documentation.)
Since the UN General Assembly recognized Palestine as an independent state in November 2012, the PA has had recourse to international legal mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is very telling that the PA has to date made almost no effort to pursue legal remedy through such mechanisms. (What few steps it has taken it has pursued only halfheartedly.)
Hamas won legislative elections in 2006, and its success was in no small part due to its criticisms of the corruption within the PA and the willingness of Abbas and his party, Fatah, to surrender Palestinians’ rights by giving in to Israel and the US’s ultimatums.
As I also document in Obstacle to Peace, the US and Israel’s response to Hamas’s victory was to conspire with Abbas to illegally overthrow the Hamas government. The result was a full rending of the political leadership, with Hamas remaining in power in Gaza, but Abbas’s regime controlling the West Bank.
Israel also escalated its longstanding blockade of Gaza into a full scale siege of the narrow strip of land, with the goal of punishing the entire civilian population living there for the crime of having Hamas as their leadership.
Any successful strategy toward realizing a just solution must include achieving the necessary unity among the Palestinians’ political leadership. There have repeatedly over the years been on-and-off talks about reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, but these have never gained much traction, primarily due to the obstinance of the PA.
The outcome of the last such effort was Abbas successfully urging Israel to escalate its collective punishment of Gazans by cutting off electricity that it is legally obligated as Occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure the supply of.
Establishing a unity of purpose among Palestinian leaders is a necessity. And that purpose must be to cease collaborative efforts with the Occupying Power and instead pursue legal remedy for Israel’s violations of international law through the international institutions now available to the Palestinians.
When Israeli leaders become afraid to go outside of the territory under Israel’s control for fear of being arrested for war crimes, then an end to the occupation will finally be in sight.
While there are reasons to believe that the tide is turning, there yet remains a long, hard struggle ahead for the Palestinians. For those of us who support them in their struggle for liberty and justice to be effective in our own efforts, we must, too, be unified in strategy. And for any strategy to have hope of success, it must include recognition of the reality that there is no realistic alternative path around the two-state solution to the one-state goal.
I myself have argued in the past that the two-state solution is dead, and that a single democratic state is the only just solution. While I did not at that time make the mistake of equating the two-state solution with the goal of the “peace process”, I did fail to recognize that it is not an endgame in itself, but a necessary step. I have since recognized the error in my thinking, which evolved considerably during the process of researching and writing Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, which I wrote primarily to empower those who are active in the struggle with the knowledge needed to effect the paradigm shift that is necessary to eliminate this particular obstacle.
Those who support Palestinians’ rights must not make the mistake of believing and propagating the lie that the goal of the “peace process” they rightly reject has been to establish the two-state solution. On the contrary, the goal of the “peace process” has always been to prevent that outcome. It is not the two-state goal, but the evil, lawless distortion of it that is the problem. And while the two-state solution may not in itself be the ideal outcome, there is no realistic alternative to it as a required step along the path toward a single democratic state respecting the equal rights of all its citizens.
So when you think of the two-state solution, don’t think of the goal of the “peace process”. Instead, understand that implementation of the two-state solution is practically synonymous with ending the occupation, which is precisely what the “peace process” was intended to prevent.
An excellent analysis of the problem, as far as you have taken it, Jeremy. The problem is the same globalists, controlled by their control of global money, are running the UN, the World Court, and every little “shithole” country, as Trump calls them, through the World Bank and the IMF. When bribery and financial pressure aren’t working, the assassins move in. This globalist plan, with Israel on point, is a variable speed genocide, the Palestinians being the most obvious targets but globally not the only targets. This, together with so called “Samson Option” (destroy the world with hundreds of hidden nuclear bombs) serves to keep the people of the world off-balance, as it were, in determining how best to deal with these globalists. There is a sanity in their insanity. The Palestinians are needed to show the world the globalists mean business. Palestinians are hostages in what was and should still be their own land. For now, a few dozen or a few hundred will be murdered by Israelis every year, just to keep the pot bubbling and show the world who is boss. When and if the globalists decide to eradicate the Palestinian people there will be an overshadowing event that distracts the world from what is happening in Palestine. Such an event could be World War 3. Should such an event occur, I only hope the City of London, Washington and Israel achieve the Rapture described in their Holy Book.
This article is premised on the notion that Israel’s interpretation of Res. 242 is incorrect. In fact it is entirely correct, and there are documented conversations about the specific changes that lead to it reading “territories” instead of “the territories”.
The misinformation centers around the Security Council’s call in that resolution for Israel to withdraw from the (?) territories it occupied during the 1967 war.
Res. 242 didn’t call for a withdrawal from “the territories”. Res. 242 was also meant to resolve a conflict between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, not Israel and a fictional non-existent country called Palestine.
Israel’s unilateral interpretation of Resolution 242 is false.
You claim that there are “documented conversations” showing that the Security Council’s intent was just as Israel claims. Yet you cannot produce this documentary evidence because it does not exist. I have produced for you what does exist from the relevant documentary record, which shows incontrovertibly that Israel’s unilateral interpretation is false.
Beyond that lie, you are simply repeating one of the absurd fallacies I addressed in the article. Perhaps you should actually read it before attempting a rebuttal.
I stopped reading after your blatant falsehood (quoted above). “Territories” is not the same as “the territories”. Correct the falsehood and Ill continue reading.
“It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”
-Lord Caradon, British Ambassador who drafted the approved version of Res. 242.
It’s too bad you chose willful ignorance over self-education. Had you kept reading, you could have learned why your belief is false.
Hint: you have to look at the relevant documentary record, which Lord Caradon is lying about in the quote you just provided.
I review the relevant documentary record here:
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2018/01/26/un-resolution-242s-true-significance-vs-popular-zionist-myth/
We can all be confident, IsraelReconquista, you will gleefully churn out Zionist propaganda until you lose the nerve to do so, which is something that will also happen.
The reason why the British divided off Transjordania is because the British were horrified by the behaviour of the Jews towards the long-term Arab population and desired to restrict the extent of the appalling, genocidal activities of the Zionists.
The entire creation of Israel is questionable since there is no god in the first place.
That is the first lie that needs to be corrected.
“God” is not a title deeds office.
It should never be used as such, those that do have deliberately used religion is a deliberately deceptive manner in order to manipulate the populace via politics.
I have no objection to religion per se but should never be allowed to influence the policies of a state in the way that it has in occupied Palestine and Saudi Arabia – f.e. Zionism and Wahhabism.
A religion is a set of values, that are meant to be ethical.
A cult charades as religion, but is a controlling, dominating form of exploitation. It is good to recognize the difference. Read a little about cults. Their leadership is usually the clue to what they are doing – funnelling off assets for their own exclusive use.
I agree with Mr.Hammond’s astute assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
I would like to discuss Israel’s shortcomings relative to the more than 70 years of occupation. Specifically, what has the Zionist State really gained since 1948? Yes, they’ve illegally claimed more land than what was originally granted to them by UN resolution 181 II in 1947 that established partitions in Palestine and they’ve built settlements for a few thousand people in the West Bank.
However an occupation drains the economy of the occupier and is not fruitful or wise. Israel’s 70 years of Palestinian oppression has gained them little in economic or political currency. They are foolish to continue controlling the lives of 5 million indigenous people that expends billions of shekels from Israel’s treasury for insignificant return. They should end the occupation and realize a separate Palestinian nation is a future economic market with low transportation costs to exchange goods across each other’s defined borders. Unfortunately the Zionists are too bigoted and short-sighted and refuse to engage in meaningful dialogue with the Palestinians. So another 70 years of occupation will happen in Palestine.
” Yes, they’ve illegally claimed more land than what was originally granted to them by UN resolution 181 II in 1947 that established partitions in Palestine and they’ve built settlements for a few thousand people in the West Bank.”
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/
The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:
In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.
In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.
In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical.
The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1b602bef03f6a8cc9c18249fcd2a3ec863f088eada99b77617540eb5637ff21.jpg
Actually, the Peel Commission proposed a “compulsory transfer” of Arabs outside of the proposed “Jewish state”, and from that time forward, the idea of ethnically cleansing Palestine was mainstream thinking within the Zionist leadership. And, of course, Israel did come into being by ethnically cleansing Palestine.
It would be superfluous to continue identifying your errors.
Unfotunatey facts don’t substantiate your mythology.
Even Benny Morris, a champion of the Palestinian narrative concludes: “Transfer never became a general or declared Zionist policy.” The Zionist movement even tried to get the Labour Party in Great Britain to change its pro-transfer platform. The Labourites ignored them, at most conceding that the transfer would not be a coercive one. Morris now more clearly states in interviews and articles that the Palestinian refugee problem was the result of the Arab decision to go to war to destroy the nascent state of Israel.
It is the Arab leads who embraced “compulsory transfer” as is evident by the fact that not a single Jewish community survived any territory controlled by the Arab armies.
And, of course, Arab did carry oit ethnic cleansing of its 800,000 Jews not to mention their unsuccessful attempt to destroy the state of Israel and the ensuing genocide that was promised.
The UN representative of the Arabs of Palestine at the United Nations, Jamal al-Husseini, explained before the world that: “The fight would continue, as it had in the Crusades, until the injustice was completely removed.” And for those who are not sure how exactly this would be carried out, he did not mince his words: Palestine would become a “blood bath” in the wake of the Partition Plan. When one of those present at the meeting noted that the border of the Partition Plan was supposed to be one of peace, he retorted that the border “will be nothing but a line of fire and blood.” General Ismail Safwat served as the “general commander of the [Arab] forces fighting in Palestine” until May 1948. His task was to coordinate the various Arab forces operating in Palestine against the Jews in the period between the adoption of the Partition Plan until the Arab invasion later on—truly a senior position. Safwat’s goals were laid out in a telegram he sent to the Arab League Secretariat: “the annihilation of the Jews of Palestine and completely cleansing the state of them” and “tightening the noose of battle on the necks of the Jews and forcing them by force of arms to accept Arab terms.”
Arab League General Secretary Abd al-Rahman Azzam personally promised Safwat that the war aims were the first two he mentioned. Azzam had firm positions on the need to annihilate the nascent Jewish state. He presented the means necessary to destroy the Zionist enemy to an Egyptian newspaper:
“this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine’s Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.”
It would be superfluous to continue identifying your errors.
Yes, he does make that logical fallacy.
First of all, whether “policy” or not, ethnic cleansing is observably what happened.
Second, there does not need to be a historical document stating that it is the official policy of the Zionist leadership to ethnically cleanse Palestine in order for such a policy to exist.
Third, as Benny Morris acknowledges, and as I just pointed out to you in my previous comment, the idea of ethnically cleansing Gaza had been mainstream Zionist thinking since the Peel Commission.
Fourth, the ethnic cleansing operations that had already been underway were formalized into an official plan in April, which instructed military officers that if they were met with any resistance when invading Arab villages, “the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state”. Zionist commanders were given discretion to destroy villages, which, needless to say, would result in their inhabitants fleeing and becoming refugees.
Fifth, Israel refused to allow any of the refugees from the war to exercise their right to return.
Sixth, here is Benny Morris acknowledging what by his own account was “ethnic cleansing”, in his own words: “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.”
I document in detail just how untenable Benny Morris’s denial of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is here:
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/11/14/benny-morriss-untenable-denial-of-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine/
It would be superfluous to continue identifying the error in your thinking.
“Yes, he does make that logical fallacy.”
-Wrong he came to the logical conclusion unfortunately for you it doesn’t fit your mythological narative.
“We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity in the Land of Israel – that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.” David Ben-Gurion, 1937
Your projecting the attempted Arab ethnic cleansing on its intended victim, Israel.
“There is no place in Palestine for two races. The Jews left Palestine 2,000 years ago, let them go to other parts of the world, where there are wide vacant places.” Hajj Amin Husseini, 1936
‘We are solidly and permanently determined to fight to the last man against the existence in our country of any Jewish state, no matter how small it is,’ Jamal al-Husseini, Vice-President of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the effective government of the Palestinian Arabs, told the General Assembly as it was about to cast its vote. ‘If such a state is to be established, it can only be established over our dead bodies.’ And an AHC circular was even more outspoken. ‘The Arabs have taken into their own hands the final solution of the Jewish problem,’ it read. ‘The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will soon be driven out.’
Palestinian-Arab leadership, strove to annihilate the Jewish community or at least mortally wound it. As evidence of this intention, all Jewish points of settlement that fell to the Arab armies in 1948 were looted and utterly destroyed; some were even set on fire and razed to the ground. The same pattern repeated itself in beleaguered rural Jewish agricultural settlements on the eastern edges of Mandatory Palestine (Mishmar Hayarden, Massada, Sha’ar Hagolan, and Beit Haarava), in outlying Jewish communities surrounding Jerusalem (Atarot, Neve Yaakov, Hartuv, and Kibbutz Gezer), as well as in the Etzion Bloc and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, and in kibbutzim in the southern coastal plain on the route of the advancing Egyptian column, which were overrun by Arab forces. It was forbidden to return to these Jewish communities while they remained under Arab control. That was the norm. That was the nature of the war the Arabs embarked on. This was the norm in other conflicts of the period.
“Fifth, Israel refused to allow any of the refugees from the war to exercise their right to return.”
– Wrong would you care to reference the law stating such for all refugees in general. Classification as a Palestinian refugee is unique in that it only requires a 2 year residency in the what became the Jewish state. It is the only refugee status that is inheritable. Presently there are approximately 70,000 Arabs who had a 2 yr residency prior to 1948.
It would be superfluous to continue identifying the error in your thinking.
Wrong. His conclusion was not at all logical, as I have already demonstrated for you. The facts are as I stated them. Willful ignorance is not an argument.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/11/14/benny-morriss-untenable-denial-of-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine/