Apologists for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians claim the state has a “right to exist” in an effort to legitimize the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Zionists taking it upon themselves to try to defend Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people frequently level the charge that its critics are attempting to “delegitimize” the self-described “Jewish state”. Israel, they counter, has a “right to exist”. But they are mistaken.
This is not to single out Israel. There is no such thing as a state’s “right to exist”, period. No such right is recognized under international law. Nor could there logically be any such right. The very concept is absurd. Individuals, not abstract political entities, have rights.
Individual rights may also be exercised collectively, but not with prejudice toward the rights of individuals. The relevant right in this context is rather the right to self-determination, which refers to the right of a people to collectively exercise their individual rights through political self-governance. The collective exercise of this right may not violate the individual exercise of it. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights, and a government has no legitimacy without the consent of the governed. It is only in this sense that the right to self-determination may be exercised collectively, by a people choosing for themselves how they are to be governed and consenting to that governance.
The right to self-determination, unlike the absurd concept of a state’s “right to exist”, is recognized under international law. It is a right that is explicitly guaranteed, for example, under the Charter of the United Nations, to which the state of Israel is party.
The proper framework for discussion therefore is the right to self-determination, and it is precisely to obfuscate this truth that the propaganda claim that Israel has a “right to exist” is frequently made. It is necessary for Israel’s apologists to so shift the framework for discussion because, in the framework of the right to self-determination, it is obviously Israel that rejects the rights of the Palestinians and not vice versa.
And it is not only in the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory that Israel’s rejectionism is manifest. This rejection of Palestinians’ rights was also manifest in the very means by which Israel was established.
There is a popular belief that Israel was founded through some kind of legitimate political process. This is false. This myth is grounded in the idea that the famous “partition plan” resolution of the United Nations General Assembly—Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947—legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority to the Zionist leadership for their unilateral declaration of Israel’s existence on May 14, 1948.
Indeed, in that very declaration, Israel’s founding document, the Zionist leadership relied on Resolution 181 for their claim of legal authority. The truth is, however, that Resolution 181 did no such thing. The General Assembly had no authority to partition Palestine against the will of the majority of its inhabitants. Nor did it claim to. On the contrary, the Assembly merely recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, which would have to be agreed upon by both peoples to have any legal effect. The Assembly forwarded the matter to the Security Council, where the plan died with the explicit recognition that the UN had no authority to implement any such partition.
The Zionists’ unilateral declaration is frequently described as a “Declaration of Independence”. But it was no such thing. A declaration of independence assumes that the people declaring their independence are sovereign over the territory in which they wish to exercise their right to self-determination. But the Zionists were not sovereign over the land that became the territory of the state of Israel.
On the contrary, when they declared Israel’s existence, Jews owned less than 7 percent of the land in Palestine. Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district of Palestine. Arabs also constituted a numerical majority in Palestine. Despite mass immigration, Jews remained a minority comprising about a third of the population.
Even within the territory proposed by the UN for the Jewish state, when the Bedouin population was counted, Arabs constituted a majority. Even within that territory, Arabs owned more land than Jews.
Simply stated, the Zionist leadership had no legitimate claim to sovereignty over the territory they ultimately acquired through war.
Notably, the acquisition of territory by war is prohibited under international law.
Far from being established through any kind of legitimate political process, Israel was established through violence. The Zionists acquired most of the territory for their state through the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population, more than 700,000 people, from their homes in Palestine. Hundreds of Arab villages were literally wiped off the map.
So when Zionists claim that Israel has a “right to exist”, what they are really saying is that the Zionists had a “right” to ethnically cleanse Palestine in order to establish their “Jewish state”.
Obviously, there is no such right. On the contrary, once again, under international law, ethnic cleansing is recognized as a crime against humanity.
Zionists charge that critics of Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians seek to “delegitimize” the “Jewish state”, but it matters that the unilateral declaration by the Zionists on May 14, 1948, had no legitimacy. It matters that the crime of ethnic cleansing cannot be justified or legitimized.
When this charge is leveled at Israel’s critics, what is really happening is that it is Israel’s apologists who are attempting to delegitimize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, along with the internationally recognized right of refugees of war to return to their homeland.
Regardless of the illegitimacy of the means by which Israel was established, it exists. This is the present reality. However, the demand by the state of Israel that the Palestinians recognize its “right” not just to exist, but to exist “as a Jewish state” is simply a demand that the Palestinians surrender their rights and accede that the Zionists’ unilateral declaration and ethnic cleansing of Palestine were legitimate.
And that is why there has been no peace. There will be no peace until the rights of the Palestinians are recognized and respected. The problem for Zionists is that for the Palestinians to exercise their rights would mean the end of Israel’s existence as a “Jewish state”.
But what would be wrong with ending a fundamentally racist regime that perpetually violates international law and Palestinians’ human rights? What would be wrong with replacing it with a government that respects the equal rights of all the inhabitants of the territory over which it exercises political sovereignty and rules with the consent of the governed?
To anyone with any honesty and moral integrity, the clear answer to both questions is: nothing.
For all those who take an active role in pursing peace and justice, it is therefore to that end that we must focus our collective efforts. It starts with gaining a proper understanding of the true nature of the conflict and helping to open the eyes of all those who have integrity, but who have been deceived by the lies and propaganda that have perpetuated the violence and injustice for so long.
Order a signed copy of the author’s book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict exclusively from ObstacleToPeace.com.
Click here to learn more about the book and order your copy.
An excellent and succinct article. The title may shock and will certainly draw shouts of anti-semitism. But the analysis is clear, factual and proves the point. The question we must all ask ourselves is a simple one. How can Israel be an exception to international law? Why was apartheid appalling in South Africa, but not in Palestine?
We should all except that the holocaust was a wicked tragedy. Indeed much of European history is blemished by pogroms and discrimination against Jews. Yet those crimes against European Jews most certainly did not confer the right upon them to migrate to Palestine, to occupy the land by force and to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population. Nothing in international law supports such a crime.
This is one of the finest succinct discussions I lon the legal issues surrounding the creation and the present occupation I have yet read. Kudos to the author and to fpp for publishing. I would have that Israel is part of an international regime of states whose fundamental basis for sovereignty and rule violate core principles of international humanitarian and human rights law, and which therefore have no legitimacy and need to be replaced by states that respect those fundamental rights. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are certainly too obvious examples as what the the Syrian state yeah States like Iran and turkey come very close to that criteria.
What an incredible article! Sharing this now! Thank you!
Thanks for the feedback.
This is one of the best, most precise and concise analytic articles I have read on this matter. Kudos from someone who has been following this matter closely for over 50 years.
Thanks, Cliff!
Hi once again Jeremy.
Before I refute the premise of this article I would like to challenge the premise of your whole Foreign Policy Journal.
You state: “The government perpetually lies to the public about important issues”, but you give no evidence. Thus inviting the reader to take on trust that you are the truth teller when calling the Government perpetual liars.
Even if, however unlikely, it was literally the case that you always told the “truth” (whatever that is) and the Government perpetually lies, how can that be a basis for any progress in foreign relations or indeed any relations, which ultimately have to be based on building trust and mutual respect? Calling people you disagree with perpetual liars isn’t a basis for achieving such goals. How can you not see that your approach is self defeating by its very conception?
Turning to this article we see a perfect example of what I am saying.
Your headline makes a bold statement claiming to demonstrate why Israel Has No ‘Right to Exist’.
And your answer is because there is no such thing as a right to exist. Which happens to be true.
And indeed this was the initial reaction of Israel too, as this old quote from Abba Eban demonstrates:
“Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its ‘right to exist.’ Israel’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement…. There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its ‘right to exist’ a favor, or a negotiable concession.”
But of course if Israel’s right to exist has been made into an issue, so eventually one has to respond and fight on the terrain, however absurd, that one finds oneself forced to fight on.
What you have done in this article is reverse the relationship between cause and effect to tar Israel with promoting the very premise with which it has been, and is in this article headline, falsely accused.
I have to confess Jeremy, I am genuinely surprised how much the pure intellectual dishonesty of this approach reminds me of the worst forms of hatred against the Jews.
False. There is an endless amount of evidence that the government perpetually lies to the public about important issues in these pages.
Nice of you to acknowledge that what I wrote is true.
So now pointing out that the claim by apologists for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians that Israel has a “right to exist” is false is “to tar Israel”?
So telling the truth is somehow anti-Semitic as long as the truth is inconvenient for Israel’s apologists?
Truly, the genuinely surprising intellectual dishonesty on display here is your own. Begone, troll!
Steven Baker: “The government perpetually lies to the public about important issues”. Not only do they lie about important facts, but they lie about almost everything. Some obvious lies are well know, others have been hidden quite well. Journalists are paid by their own and also by foreign governments to spread lies those governments want people to believe in order to profit materially from favorable views or to hide wrongdoings.
I challenge you to read, for example, a book published by Udo Ulfkotte, who worked for the well known German Newspaper, FAZ, for many years. The book is not available in English, because the US and the UK do not want you to know what is going on.
I suggest you do some research since you seem to be incapable of seing any validity in Jeremy Hammond’s argument.
I think this is article is accurate and fair — and more importantly, courageous.
Thank you.
How can so many people be ignorant of the fact that Palestinian’s are Semetics ?
1) Israeli Jews are entitled to self-determination just like any other people. This right is enshrined in the UN charter.
2) If you want to dismantle all states created by conquests and wars you’d have to dismantle virtually all states in the world. No one is crazy enough to say that Spain ought to be dismantled because of the Reconquista and the ”ethnic cleansing” of the Arabs and the Jews. Who would dare say that Turkey has no right to exist because of the dispossession of the Greeks, the Kurds, and the Armenians? If you feel that only the state of Israel should disappear, you have to justify that by using universal arguments. I doubt you can.
3) Zionism was not a choice for the Jews, it was a necessity. Jews did not go to Palestine on holiday or to enrich themselves. They went there because they were persecuted and they had nowhere else to go. Even after the War, most Holocaust survivors were not allowed to move to the West. They were FORCED to go to Israel. If you really think that Zionism was wrong, you need to give the Jews an alternative. Otherwise, what you really mean is that they should have accepted to die.
4) Finally, A.B. Yehoshua has very well summarized what left-wing Zionism stands for: a homeless nation has the right to seize only part of another people’s homeland, as all peoples are entitled to self-determination (or to use Amos Oz’s metaphor: a drowning man has the right to grasp someone else’s plank but not to push him into the water). One can disagree with this assumption, but claiming that the Jews are entitled to their own piece of land like all other peoples is not “racist” or “supremacist.”
Correct. Arab Palestinians are also entitled to self-determination, and it is Israeli Jews denying this right to the Palestinians, not vice versa. As explained in the article, it also remains true that Israel has no right to exist.
Very well. Yet the fact that other states were also established through the wholesale violation of other peoples’ rights does not legitimize or justify the means by which Israel was established.
It was not necessary for the Zionists to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Arabs. That was a choice.
This is nonsense. No people have a right to violate the rights of other people.
1) Well, the two state solution aims to provide self-determination for both Jews and Arabs. Left-wing Zionists believe that a homeless people has the right to recover only part of its ancient homeland, precisely because those who live there now are entitled to self-determination as well. Unfortunately, just like Netanyahu, you believe that either Jews or Palestinians can have a state of their own, not both peoples.
2) Once again, virtually all states were created through conquests and wars. Why would Israel be the only state that has to disappear? You have to justify this double-standard.
3) Most of the Palestinian refugees were not expelled, they fled the fighting – expulsions took place 120/530 Palestinians villages that were emptied of their population during the First Arab-Israeli war. Israel did not allow them back because they attacked the Yishuv in the first place and Israelis did not want to allow a hostile population in its midst.
That was wrong indeed, but this is what was done at the time with most hostile minorities (Germans of Eastern Europe, Chams of Greece, Jews of Arab lands, Muslims of India, Hindus of Pakistan, etc.). Besides, in all the regions of Palestine where Arab forces defeated the Jews, every single Jews was expelled. Besides, 1% of the Israeli Jewish population and 8% of Israelis aged between 18 and 21 were killed in the course of this war. It’s not as if the Jews started the war and expelled anyone for no reason.
4) Please answer my question. What was the alternative to Zionism? Jews were persecuted and Western countries refused to grant them asylum. Even after WW2, most Holocaust survivors were not allowed to move to the West. They were left to rot in Displaced Persons camps until Israel was created. If you think Jews should have stayed in Europe and die, say it clearly.
Ostensibly, yes, but while the Palestinian leadership has long accepted the two-state solution, Israel has always persisted in rejecting it.
Please refrain from engaging in strawman argumentation, which is a violation of the terms of use of the comments section. Anyone who’s read my book Obstacle to Peace knows I advocate the two-state solution.
And it does not follow from your observation that Israel has a right to exist.
There is no double-standard. It simply does not follow that Israel has a right to exist.
They were expelled by virtue of the fact that they were not permitted to return to their homes once the fighting ended.
And it does not follow that Israel has a right to exist.
You can’t get the right answers if you ask the wrong questions. The relevant question you mean to be asking is: What was the alternative to ethnically cleansing Palestine? And I’ve already given you the answer, which is: The alternative was to not ethnically cleanse Palestine.
It would be tedious for me to provide a list of all the things I don’t think when stating clearly what I do think. I might just as well advise you to state that if you think European countries and the US were right to refuse to absorb Jewish refugees and right to instead to participate in the wholesale violation of the rights of the Palestinians, say it clearly.
1) The Palestinians also are responsible for the collapse of the peace process. They destroyed the Israeli peace camp by launching the Second intifada while the Israeli left was in power. Ehud Barak was far from perfect, but he ultimately accepted the Clinton parameters. The Palestinians killed him politically and that was a terrible mistake. Also, the Palestinians rejected not only Olmert’s offer in 2008, but also the Kerry/Obama peace plan in 2014. It was a major mistake as well. They won’t get anything better than what was put on the table by Obama in 2014.
2) I really thought you advocated the dismantling of Israel. But still, I do have a point: the BDS movement, the New Left review, and most of the far-left claim that only one state should disappear: Israel. This is a real double-standard and they fail to justify it.
3) As I said earlier, back in the day, all hostile populations were systematically expelled. In fact, the Palestinians also perpetrated ethnic cleansing against Jews living in the West Bank and East-Jerusalem during the First Arab-Israeli war. Judging the past with today’s lenses is completely anachronistic.
4) I never said that it was a good thing that Western countries refused to absorb (most) Holocaust survivors. I said that Jews had no other choice but to create the state of Israel. Had there been no anti-Semitism, cultural Zionism would have flourished but political Zionism would have disappeared – or remain marginal.
5) I maintain (in part) what I said. Just like Netanyahu, you believe that there is room for only one legitimacy in this part of the world. I beg to differ. Zionism was not a choice for most of the Jews who went to Palestine, it was a necessity. In fact, Zionism saved the lives of 500,000 Jews who went to Palestine before it was too late.
Hence, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a struggle between good and evil, it’s a clash of rights. Jews were right to conquer (part) of Palestine, as they needed a patch a land to protect themselves against anti-Semitism, and the Palestinians were right to resist.
Stephen Van Evera was right when he said that the Christian West should be blamed for the conflict – not the Israelis nor the Palestinians.
That statement ignores the fact that the so-called peace process is the very means by which Israel and its superpower benefactor have long blocked implementation of the two-state solution.
You may really believe your interlocutor believes something, but it is still strawman argumentation to falsely attribute your beliefs about your interlocutor’s beliefs onto your interlocutor.
It is true that some 2,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from the Old City after Zionists had ethnically cleansed West Jerusalem of most of its Arab inhabitants, some 30,000 Palestinians. This fact changes nothing about what I’ve written.
I never said that you said that. Clearly, you missed the point of what I did say, which was once again that you should refrain from violating this site’s terms of use by engaging in ad hominem and/or strawman argumentation.
It is a simple logical truism that the means by which a state is established is either legitimate or not legitimate, and it is a simple historical fact that Israel was not created through any kind of legitimate political process, but through ethnic cleansing.
1) You can’t deny that the Second Intifada has destroyed the Israeli left. You also can’t deny that Abbas said no not only to Olmert (in 2008) but also to Kerry and Obama (in 2014).
2) I made no ad hominem attack. I just misunderstood what solution you advocated to solve the conflict.
3) You can’t focus on the Nakba without looking at the whole political context. Around 75,000 Jews were forced out of their homes during the fIrst Arab-Israeli War (10% of the Israeli Jewish population). Furthermore, 1% of the overall Israeli Jewish population and close to 10% of the Israeli youth got killed as well.
It’s not as if the Israel Parliament voted a decree out of nowhere to expell the Palestinians just for fun.
The Palestinians are those who launched the war (even though they had good reason to do so). When people talk about the expulsion of the Chams (Albanians) from Greece after WW2, or the detention of Japanese-Americans during WW2, they never fail to explain the political context.
4) Jews needed to conquer part of Palestine and the Arabs were right to resist. All the rest is rhetoric.
Irrelevant. The fact remains that the so-called peace process is the very means by which Israel and its superpower benefactor have long blocked implementation of the two-state solution.
To be clear, instead of addressing what I said, you falsely attributed a strawman argument to me, which, as I pointed out, is a logical fallacy as well as a violation of the terms of use of the comments section.
You are engaging in trolling behavior. Only warning.
There is no political context that in any way changes anything I’ve said about the Nakba. The fact remains that the Zionists established Israel by ethnically cleansing Palestine of most of its Arabs.
I reject your opinion that it was necessary for the Zionists to ethnically cleanse Palestine of most of its Arabs. That was a choice.
1) Well, thanks to the peace process, the Palestinians were offered a state along the lines of the Clinton parameters in 2001, 2008, and 2014.
2) You seem to agree that Jewish immigration to Palestine (before the Nakba) was justified.
You depart a great deal from pro-Palestinian orthodoxy, which claims that Jews had no right to move to Palestine without the consent of the Arabs to begin with.
3) As for the Nakba, you decide on purpose to disregard the political context:
-the Palestinians attacked the Jews first
-10% of Israeli Jews were forcefully displaced in the course of this war
-1% of the overall Israeli population and close to 10% of the Israelis aged between 18 and 21 (many of whom were Holocaust survivors) got killed.
When people talk about WW2, do they talk only about the expulsion of the Germans of Eastern Europe, and the internment of Japanese-Americans? Of course not. You cannot pick and choose what suits your ”case” like a lawyer. Peace requires mutual understanding and empathy for both sides. Obviously, that’s not your cup of tea. Too bad!
The fact remains that the so-called “peace process” is the process by which Israel and the US have long blocked implementation of the two-state solution.
Whether or not it was “justified” is irrelevant to what I’ve said. You really should address what I’ve actually said rather than inventing other things to attribute to me to argue against.
See, you’ve just done it again. I warned you against engaging in strawman argumentation after you falsely attributed to me the following view: “you believe that either Jews or Palestinians can have a state of their own, not both peoples”.
And since you ignored my warning to cease this trolling behavior, you are now banned for trolling.
On the contrary, I simply don’t hold a fantastical view of the conflict grounded in Zionist propaganda. Once again, everything I’ve stated in my above article is valid, and there is no political context that renders anything I wrote invalid.
It is instructive that despite your numerous opportunities to identify even a single factual or logical error in the article, you have failed to do so.
Thank you Jeremy. Great article! I truly appreciate your efforts to bring greater clarity to a situation that apologists for Israel routinely claim is far too “complicated” for most people to understand. When in reality, the primary problem and its solution, or possible solutions are much simpler than most of them want to admit. The reason being, the solution would first require a better understanding of the historical context void of Zionist/Israeli propaganda, and a willingness to openly acknowledge that reality. To which, most apologists are either oblivious to, having been effectively indoctrinated by a seemingly endless barrage of erroneous or one-sided talking points that are all to often parroted by complicit politicians, academics and corporate media sources, or, they studiously and disingenuously avoid what they are already well aware of, as to not have to acknowledge the truth of the matter. Sometimes it’s a combination of these, which is referred to as willful ignorance.
I also admire your patience when responding to your detractors and trolls with your commonsensical perspective, which is much simpler than they would likely prefer. It appears that many of them are operating under a dearth of genuine facts, historically speaking, which they could change if they were to read more of your writings. Regrettably, most either don’t want to know the truth, or they don’t want others to know it, as it would detract from their agenda.
Leif, thank you for your comment and positive feedback.
It seems obvious to me that Zionists intended all along to eventually dominate the entire region known as Palestine, to which they referred to in Yiddish as ‘Eretz Yisrael’, meaning the territory that matched the largest expanse of biblical Israel. It is for this reason that Israeli leaders routinely sabotaged the “peace process” with unreasonable demands and disingenuous claims that it was the Palestinian’s refusing to negotiate in good faith. It is for this reason that the ever growing illegal settlements have been allowed to continue unabated and defended by the State of Israel and its IDF.
I see only two possible solutions…
One-State solution where all citizens are treated as equals under the law, including equal voting rights, equal representation and the right to return. This would also require many concessions made to Palestinians in order to equalize the overwhelming considerations that have historically been given to Jewish people alone. The families who lost homes, property and businesses would have to be compensated. Between the Israelis and the Palestinians, I see Palestinians being the most willing to live in a single state, as long as everyone had equal rights. Zionists would undoubtedly prefer to remain the dominate force, and the majority of Israelis would likely agree, as they have been raised to fear and even hate Palestinians and far too few of them know their genuine history, just the one rewritten to their advantage.
Two-State solution where Palestine has statehood and receives back all the territories that Israel seized through aggression and its methodical expansion through the unlawful usurping of Palestinian land. One of the benefits to this solution would be the Palestinian reacquisition of land that had been and continues to be stolen by illegal Israeli settlers. The Palestinians would not only get the land back, but all the homes and amenities built upon it, like the modern highways that Palestinians are currently not allowed to use. These homes could be allotted to Palestinian families who had previously lost homes and property in both Palestine and the area commonly referred to as Israel. Unfortunately, I also see Palestinians being more amenable to this solution than Israelis.
Leif, I tend to agree, but don’t see the one-state and two-state solutions as mutually exclusive alternatives. Rather, the only way to achieve the one-state solution is through first implementing the two-state solution, which essentially means ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Yes, Jeremy, the obvious path toward either would require Israel to first stop the occupation, and of course a two-state solution could potentially lead to a single state where everyone had equal rights and shared in the benefits of whatever resources were available in either of the two regions.
Glad we’re in agreement about that!
Couldn’t agree more. Won’t be following Jeremy any longer.
Ann, you wrote, “Couldn’t agree more. Won’t be following Jeremy any longer.” But it isn’t clear what you were replying to. What was it you were agreeing with? And what did I write that you evidently have an objection to?
Thanks for the article I’m making a documentary right now about the issue and this is useful to include
Love this article. 100 % realistic, honest and someone finally understands where Israel is in the wrong! I really appreciate the hard work put into this article, and I thank you for making my day! couldn’t help but read every single argument in the comments too! ?
Thanks for the feedback.
So you’re just an apologist for war crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide and colonial invasion. The difference is that the Palestinians are still fighting their war and there is still time to join the right side and help them.
Thanks Jeremy for articulating what my feeble pen cold not.
Pray what is it that tickles your risible faculty?
The ENTIRE Hebrew fable from EDEN to SINAI has no basis in REALITY. The SHEM SHAM is the longest running farce in human history. Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent.
THOSE who can persuade you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities while deeming yourselves patriots and saints.
“this approach reminds me of the worst forms of hatred against the Jews.”…manipulative and unwarranted…perfect example of what we are living under in the USA and why BDS support practically puts one on a terrorist list. At least more are waking up to these truths and not falling for lines like this anymore.
Jeremy complete rubbish. this article is nonsense that it gives no solution except maybe the “finale solution”…
Anthony complete rubbish. your comment is nonsense that contains not substantive criticism but mindless dismissal and implied ad hominem attack by means of strawman argumentation.
AMEN! Thank you Jeremy! I am a typical person who struggles with expressing anti-zionism but not wanting to express anti-semitism. To tell the truth, I am so vehement about the subject that I am almost ready to make the leap, and call myself an anti-semite! How less than 5% of the US population can influence the Israeli subsidy to the tune of 3-5 BILLION dollars a year is simply beyond me! Of course, how many of those Jews are actually Zionists? Not so many! Just to accentuate the point; a tiny few people having such tremendous influence on terror and world affairs! I would guess that fully 50% or world terrorism comes fro the United States’ support of the illigitimate state of Israel. Jews took Israel by force and terrorism. PERIOD!
I have similar sentiments, but I have come to understand that there is no reason to be conflicted, because the Israelis themselves now affirm that anyone who is anti-Zionist, or merely questions Israeli policy, is an anti-Semite. This is no official policy of the government of Israel. If that’s the way they want to define it, then so be it..
Excellent article!
Thank you.
The modern roots of the problem have to do with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Both Jews and Arabs lived throughout the Ottoman realm. Please explain why Arabs have the right to found 20+ Muslim-majority states in that region but Jews do not. Following WW 1, it was Arab refusal to accept a Jewish state that influenced the Western powers’ decision to postpone the creation of Israel, at the cost of 6 million Jewish lives.
The root of the problem is that the dualism Arab/ Jew is false. Arab is a race, Islam is a religion. Turning a religion into a race is at the heart of the whole issue. European Jews came to Palestine as colonizers. They were frightened by those who “spoke Hebrew but looked like the enemy”, the original jews of Palestine who were eventually treated as second or third class Jews. They had nothing to do with those original Semites culturally. They learned and acquired their “native” language. Israel was conceived in Europe, attempted to build a piece of Europe within the middle east, and, until today, has zero interest in being a “middle eastern” country (as is evident by its continued categorization as “Europe” in drop-down menus on websites, in sports and music festivals, and competitions and exchanges of all sort). It is absurdity to blame a people who constitute a majority on a land for refusing to give up their land to a minor entity.
“In my many talks with Ariel Sharon and my work with Ariel Sharon there was a clear understanding, a very clear planning, of spreading the Jewish communities in the way that there will be no option for a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. (…( It’s true that in the course of history Arabs came to this area from all over. But the promise of God is more important than the changes in history and the political changes. That is why you have to put it deep, deep into your mind that you do not have any chance whatsoever, in any point of history, neither you nor any of your offspring, to ever have an independent state of your own here.” Daniella Weiss, a prominent activist in the settlement movement.
Of course it is the Jewish Supremacists mindset that their nation has a “right” to exist. Everything is their right because their god gave them everything and everyone to serve them! Now with a mentality such as this and the power to slowly enforce this belief upon the world, it is high time that the world acts and removes Israel from any power and all Jewish positions of power worldwide. We must assume the Byzantine rule of law and no Jew can be in education, banking or government positions! Peace would be upon the earth!
Sure, but anti-Semitism is taken to specifically mean hostility to Jews. It’s not really helpful to conflate the term in this case with all Semitic people.
What is not helpful is to conflate the term to not mean what it means.
The “anti-semitic” slur was based on the falsehood that modern Jews are the descendents of the Hebrews and therefore posess some legitimate claim to Palestinian land. In fact, most Jewish settlers of Palestine are Eastern Europeans, primarily from what comprised the Russian empire.
They are in no way Semites or semitic.
The continued use of this term represents buy-in to Zionist colonial propaganda.
You don’t think that an exclusive Jewish state of indeterminate size, in a region that isn’t predominately Jewish and populated with large numbers of Jews from Europe with Western values might jar with some who haven’t long rid themselves of a foreign occupying power?
You don’t see any cause for friction?
According to this link the reason why Plo denies The Jewish state of Israel’s right to exist is because it claims the Jews are not a nation and Judaism is just a religion. I would consider that is singling out Israel.
In your opinion is that an accurate description of Arab nationalist thought regarding The Jewish state of Israel’s right to exist. ?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/israeli-zionist-response-to-mary-davis-and-jonathan-rosenhead/
This denial of a Jewish state’s right to exist is specifically stated in the PLO Charter article 20 which reads:
“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.”
This rejection of Jewish right to nationhood as well as statehood did not originate in the PLO charter but was one of the Arab nationalist claims against Zionism from very early in the dispute, long before there was a State of Israel.
Want proof? ok… here’s 3 little digits that might get tings going; the govts findings on 9/11. More proof? The govts. version of J.F.K.’s assassination.
You say “Regardless of the illegitimacy of the means by which Israel was established, it exists. This is the present reality. However, the demand by the state of Israel that the Palestinians recognize its “right” not just to exist, but to exist “as a Jewish state” is simply a demand that the Palestinians surrender their rights and accede that the Zionists’ unilateral declaration and ethnic cleansing of Palestine were legitimate.”
That is not the case.
The demand by the state of Israel that the Palestinians recognize its “right” not just to exist, but to exist “as a Jewish state” is a demand that the palestinians recognise the Jewish people’s right to self determination.
The Palestinian refuse to recognise the Jewish people’s right to self determination as they refuse to accept the existence of the Jewish people as stated in the Plo charter.
Recognising the Jewish people’s right to self determination is a sine qua non in order for Israel to recognise the Palestinian’s people’s right to self determination and for them to achieve statehood.
Holocaust denier Abbas is unlikely to take the necessary steps, so in my opinion Palestinian statehood is not on the horizon.
You said you do not want me start new threads. Is it ok if I want to respond to something you wrote in the article rather than anything you said in the comment section to start a new thread?
I did not say I don’t want you to start new threads. I told you to stop replying to comments by starting new threads instead of keeping comments threaded by clicking the reply button.
Yes, it is, for the reasons explained in the article. Simply ignoring those reasons and reasserting the very falsehood I debunk in the article is not an argument.
I assume it is ok to start a new thread on things you wrote in the article which I want to comment on.
(1)You say “A declaration of independence assumes that the people declaring their independence are sovereign over the territory in which they wish to exercise their right to self-determination. But the Zionists were not sovereign over the land that became the territory of the state of Israel.”
You have not sourced your assertion that the people declaring their independence are sovereign over the territory in which they wish to exercise their right to self-determination.
If there is no sovereign in then palestine which there was not in ’48, there is no legal impediment for any people to self determine in that area. Any land palestinians had they could keep. So Palestinians lost nothing by Israel declaring statehood. They certainly did not lose sovereignity as they never had it.
(2) May I ask if you consider Israel today (despite its origins) a legal state and if so when it became one.?
It is not necessary to provide a source to support an elementary logical truism.
Technically, inasmuch as it lacks legally defined borders, it does not meet the criteria for statehood under international law.
YES YES very good
When you speak of the Holocaust you are spreading propaganda because it is a HoloHOAX! GO TO: http://www.chuckmaultsby.net/id172.html
You dispute and refute but you come nowhere near proving the premise of this article. You provide no argument for why Israel has a right to exist, and cannot logically do so, thus your argument is meaningless and irrelevant.
I commend your application of consistent logic and verifiable facts to defeating Zionist propaganda. Thank you for your service to truth, and your disservice to lies.
“Recognising the Jewish people’s”
Your entire post hangs off this falsehood. There is no such thing as a “Jewish people”. There is the religion of Judiasm, it confers no genetic heritage upon it’s adherents.
Any arguments you make based on that premise are false from the start.
“right to self determination is a sine qua non in order for Israel to recognise the Palestinian’s people’s right to self determination and for them to achieve statehood.”
This part of your argument simply dissolves into nonsense, with no logical or reasonable basis or point.
@Danielle So using a civil tone to present factual information reminds you of the worst forms of hatred against Jews??? How would you react to internment camps like Auschwitz? Do I sense a hint of a superiority complex? Maybe even a bit of a snooty attitude??
Ahhh you must be a person of faith. Faith means to avoid knowing what is true. This explains your misconception of this fact based article, and your quick jump to the role of the victim; acting offended. This is the problem when dealing with people of faith — Truth gives offense to your eyes and ears. Danielle, you display the characteristics of classical indoctrination. After close examination of your profile picture I just have one question, do you moooo? You have to take a better profile picture from a different angle. The angle of your picture brings out the worst in your jawbone and amplifies the size of your nose. The look of your eyes matches your attitude, now I see it.
I support the boycott as the only peaceful means of action. “When you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent revolution inevitable” — JFK Why would a person who supports a boycott of Israel be added to a terrorist list? A boycott is non-violent, so justify it. If you are correct that supporting BDS will get you added to a terrorist list then it would only be fair to say that all Jews should’ve been added to the terrorist list on March 24, 1933 when they declared war on Germany that begin with a worldwide boycott of German made goods, hurting the German economy — all because the Wiemar Republic refuse to take the loans at high interest rates.
Had I lived during the early 20th century we wouldn’t be having this conversation
To Jeremy Hammond, thank you for a really entertaining read. I printed your article to use when this discussion comes up in an effort to stay out of jail. Great articulation similar to a philologist.
Your article is thorough and factual. This insane obsession with affirming Israel’s right to exist is rooted in the fact that the majority of Israel itself is built on stolen Palestinian land. The only ones who can grant the rogue entity that status are the Palestinians who were dispossessed of their homes and land. To tell the truth is not hate, Israel is a racist and apartheid state. To take a stand and fight for the Human Rights of the indigenous Palestinian people is not anti-Semitism. To call out the IOF/IDF regarding their brutal tactics against the Palestinian Arab population is not anti-Semitism. To fight for Human Rights is the moral, ethical and humane thing to do. Recently, I wrote a poem that was plublished at the Palestine Chronicle entitled, “One Very Important Question.” I will include it here.
One Very Important Question of our time,
Is what will become of Palestine?
The world came together post world war two,
to ensure that global annihilation would never ensue.
The UN created a court, named the ICC,
to right the wrongs, to hear justice’s plea.
The court has been presented with fact after fact,
But the Organs of Justice have all failed to act.
Caught in the crossfire of greed and hate,
the brave Palestinian people await their fate.
As greedy despots war and hoard,
Is the fight for rights a smorgasbord?
Many Human Rights Defenders wear the sign,
But stay strangely silent on Palestine.
In our struggle, there’s no pick and choose,
“We’ll support this one if it shares our views.”
If you choose to fight for right,
fight for the children stolen in the night.
Over seven decades they’ve been oppressed,
waiting for their wrongs to be redressed.
A Very Important Question of Our Time,
Is where do YOU stand on Palestine?
Laughable, indeed. Jeremy needs to study up on the real history of the never-existing “palestinians.”
Karen, if you think I’ve erred on some point of fact or logic in the article, you are welcome to point it out. Please note that leaving criticisms that are totally devoid of substance is a violation of the terms of use of the comments section.
4,000 years of Jewish history – no such entity as “palestine” & no such people as “palestinians.” Show us all “palestinian” antiques – you’ll never find even one. Jeremy is the poster child for Golda Meir’s iconic statement: Until the “palestinians” love their children terrorists more than they hate Jews, there can be no peace.” Never Forget and Never Again!
Karen, if you think I’ve erred on any point of fact or logic in the article, you are welcome to point it out. Please note that comments that are purely ad hominem in nature are a violation of the terms of use of the comments section.
We can all see that Jeremy’s “pat” answer to knowledgable challenges is a cut and paste response. Loathsome.
Karen, if you think that I’ve erred on any point of fact or logic either in the article or in my replies to comments, you are welcome to point it out. So far, we can all see that your criticisms are entirely devoid of substance.
Claiming that a people “never existed” is a prelude to genocide. After all, one can hardly sympathize with the eradication of a population which didn’t exist in the first place. This is dangerously close to Hitler’s oft-repeated dictum that the Jews weren’t really people, or least, weren’t “real Germans”, or “really civilized.” And Palestinians do indeed exist. You can find them, still living, in the marginalized occupied territories. If Israel sincerely believes they’re not real, why do they keep shooting at them?
The “palestinian people” terminology began in 1963 and it certainly was no accident that neither Mark Twain or anyone else who traveled in the area ever mentioned the “palestinian people.” They only spoke of encountering Arabs, Jews and Christians. The British White Papers among other documents during the Mandate people ever mention the “Palestinians” because there were none. There was never a state of “palestine,” a President of “palestine,” nor an artifact of “palestinian” history ever found. They are Arabs. Recall Auni Bey Abdul-Had, a well-known and well-read Arab Muslim leader who in 1927 reported to the Peel Commission: “There is no such country as Palestine! There is no Palestine in the Bible! They did not and do not exist nor did a Palestinian state ever exist. Those people are an integral part of Syria.” I’ll take the work of an Arab Muslim leader. As regards shooting at them: anyone can call themselves anything, and they can still stab an unarmed Jew in the back and someone like you, terrenceknight, would welcome the death warmly.
You are a liar. The people of Palestine were known as “Palestinians” before Israel’s existence. This is observable in the Peel Commission Report, which repeatedly refers to Arabs (as well as Jews) as “Palestinians”.
There is no place for such dishonesty in the comments section. You are banned for blatantly lying to sustain your extreme prejudice against Palestinians.
Point of fact, Jeremy: The word “Palestine” derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12 century BCE occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast (but you knew this, right?). So if you know that, then you also know that the name was revived by the Romans in the 2nd century CE in “Syria Palestine,” made its way thence into Arabic, where it has been used to describe the region at least since the early Islamic era. Have you had the opportunity to visit their “new” museum, devoid of one, single artifact attesting to their “long-standing” presence in the Jewish land of Milk and Honey. It won’t take long to complete the museum walk – guaranteed!
Palestine was officially declared a sovereign state in 1988, and is recognized as such by most of the world, tho there has been a de facto Palestine for centuries. The people who live there are Palestinians. These facts are not in dispute, and easy to understand..
“Always check the source” is an investigative journalist’s mantra. Having done so very easily, let’s have a peek at Mr. Hammond’s critiques: “He (Hammond) refers often to his own blog posts, articles that he wrote for the ‘Foreign Policy Journal’ (for which he is editor), and two books that he wrote, ‘Obstacle to Peace’ and ‘The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination.’ Since these are not peer-reviewed, they are not serious resources. From page 16 of ‘Exposing A Zionist Hoax,’ Hammond references the Peel Commission Report and erroneously suggests that the term ‘Palestinian’ appears in the text, which it does not. That page 6 of the Shaw Report Hammond references, ‘Viewed in the light of the history of at least the last six centuries, Palestine is an artificial conception.’ Moreover, ‘The Arabs never saw themselves as Palestinians and they never saw what was referred to as Palestine as a unit separate from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.” What Mr. Hammond needs to do is share Churchill’s 1922 ‘Statement of Policy’ if he dares.
This is a nonsensical argument. The reason I cited my prior writings is because in those writings I extensively documented the point made here with references to credible sources including primary source materials.
You are just proving your own dishonesty with that false accusation. You are purporting to have checked my sources to verify the truth of what I’ve written, but that is demonstrably untrue here. Evidently, instead you are relying on Sheri Oz as a source (or it’s a strange coincidence that you are making the exact same false claim she made). As she acknowledged after I publicly called her out for lying in a vain effort to attack my credibility, “There truly are multiple references to Jewish and Arab Palestinians” in the Peel Commission Report.
Anyone can see that simply by checking the pages I cited from the document for themselves (as opposed to doing what Sheri Oz did and falsely claiming the word doesn’t appear in the text without having simply checked the pages I cited to see for herself that I’m right).
Once again, you are evidently unthinkingly parroting Sheri Oz’s mindless and substanceless criticisms. The Shaw Commission’s observation that Arab Palestinians joined the British in their war effort against the Ottoman Empire for “a nationalist cause and to liberate their country from the Turks” fully supports my statement that “the Arab Palestinians had a very strong sense of nationalism” dating back even before the Mandate era.
I have read the Churchill White Paper and have a chapter on it in my book The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination.
The demonstrable dishonesty and hypocrisy of your substanceless criticisms prove that you have interest in a serious discussion but rather are simply trolling, which is a violation of the terms of use of the comments of this website.
It’s unfortunate that Jeremy Hammond is forced to defend himself against these kinds of charges, or that the discussion has deteriorated to this dismal level. This is an old trick, usually common to extremists, whereby one tries to attack motive or sources because simple facts cannot be challenged. As a professional journalist, I can attest that Mr Hammond’s journalist integrity remains completely preserved.
Thank you, Terrence.
This is the phenomenon known as “hasbara trolling”, where zionist supporters pollute forums with senseless and factless arguments in a vain attempt to distort the narrative.
The best solution upon spotting a “hasbaranim” as they are called, is simply to block them from the site.
The commenters who have violated the TOU of this site by repeatedly trolling have been banned.
Yes, I see a lot of that these days. It is so pervasive in social media that I can only conclude that Israel is funding propagandists to post their drivel wherever they can, desperate as they are to control the narrative — especially in the US, where the public is beginning awake.
Even though they are, the fact is they were trying to kill the Jews long before Israel was recognized. Palestinians who weren’t hostile towards Jews were often punished by the fanatics. When Hitler rose to power, they found an ally in their plan to kill the Jews, and when the Nazis fell, they adapted and got support from the communist bloc.
This is entirely false. Jews were tolerated throughout most of the Mideast, even as Islam was in its ascendancy, during most of the period we now called the Dark Ages, and there are no recorded massacres of Jews by Palestinians during that period. However, Jews massacred about 100,000 Christians in 614, and there were other attacks of Jews on Christians and Arabs in Malta and Cyprus.
Indeed, the Europeans, unwilling to absorb Jewish refugees themselves, pointed to Palestine as a place where they could go and be welcomed, in contrast to the rampant anti-Semtism in Western countries.
Your argument is a logical fallacy called a “straw man”. It has no bearing on whether the Jews are owed a state at the expense of Palestinians.
In short, your argument is a distraction and false.
You’ve misunderstood what is meant by a “Straw Man” fallacy, but I’ll let you look that up for yourself. Actually, Arch, its you who is guilty of a logical fallacy, not Jeremy; because whether or not there was animosity between Palestinians and Jews in the distant pass has no bearing on whether the Jews are owed a state at the expense of Palestinians. Nothing you have said addresses any of Jeremy’s arguments.
Apologies – I was responding to StopRevisionistHistory … something weird about that reply button.
Arch — yes, I see that now. This is an example of the difficulties of trying to keep track of an continuing narrative online, with the unavoidable overlaps and confusions. The argument that somehow the Palestinians are obligated to give up their country to absolve themselves of a crime they did not commit is particularly pernicious to the arguments of Zionists.
“Arabs and Jews”? Why make a difference?
There are Arab Jews (or Jewish Arabs if you like). Indeed the Hebrews were what to-day we would call Arabs, Abraham was born in the ancient city of Ur, close to to-days Basra in Iraq (when it was Egypt of course).
Judaism is a fine old religion, Judaism is the foundation on which the two later Semite Religions of Christianity and Islam were built, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all venerate the God of Abraham.
Zionism is a European Nationalistic, racist political movement, no different to the European Nationalistic, racist political movement of the Nazi party, particularly in Zionisms emulation of the Nazi racial superiority ideals.
Most of the worlds 15 million or so followers of Judaism live in their own respective homelands, with neither the desire nor the need to live on Palestinian land..
Those who do live in the Israeli state, are fully enthusiastic for the Zionist Apartheid policies that discriminate against the intrinsic Palestinian population – that was not forced upon them, it`s what those Israelis want.
5 million UN registered Palestinian refugees, all denied their right of return to their homeland, simply because they are non-Jewish.
Judaism teaches “Treat your neighbors as you would yourself”, Judaism would allow a Palestinian right of return, with equal rights for all.
Zionism demands the exclusive use of land from the Nile to the Euphrates – That is certainly racist and supremacist.
Zionism is a disgrace to Judaism – Zionism brings shame upon Jews.
Gee, I wonder why Jews “migrated to Palestine” in the first place. You make it sound like an arbitrary decision. And you and the author of this article neglect to mention the 1948 war. Nope: European Jews just rocked up, stole a country and kicked out the inhabitants. Sounds pretty terrible. But that’s not exactly what happened.
But… Is it right to apply this condition to the whole citicians of Isarel? or is jus applicated to the country? That is a point I didn’t understand at all. Otherwise it sounds cruel but when you bceome a enemy and don’t want to follow rules or instructions you get this…
I agree with you
Declaring a particular ethnic group to not only not exist, but to never have existed, is an excuse for future genocide. It is easy to explain the disappearance of a people if you maintain they never existed in the first place. More and more, Israelis sound like Big Brother in “1984” — denying plain facts by rewriting history.
On the contrary, that is exactly what happened. Tell us what happened to the village of Deir Yassin?
His entire piece was nullified by the opening statement: NO state has a right to exist; rights only extend to individuals, not abstracts. Just an opinion piece…..
You confuse a logical truism with an opinion.
Your argument contains a massive ex post facto falsehood when you state that taking land by conquest was banned under international law at the time of Israel’s founding (1947-1949, depending on which end dates you use). This is blatantly untrue, and you know this. You just hoped that no one would click through the link and bother to check the date for the ratification of U.N. Resolution 242–November 22, 1967. The act of taking land via conquest was not banned internationally until almost 20 years after the founding of the modern state of Israel.
If you want to talk about the illegality of taking land post-1967, that is a conversation worth having. But military conquest has literally been the most common means of settling complicated questions of statehood, self-determination, national security, etc., for all of prior human history. If you really want to lean on that weak link of an argument, then logically none of us have any right to be anywhere we are. If you want to take a “moral” stand and say “Ah, but now we’re making a new world!” then you need to start at November 22, 1967. You can’t just time warp back twenty years with a double standard to claim that Jews are bloodthirsty, violent savages in a world (and region) full of sweet little sheep. Come back to reality, won’t you?
The bottom line is that you are a zealot, a troll, and your ego and theatricality are adding unnecessarily to the suffering of both the Palestinian and Jewish peoples. Time for you to find a new career.
First of all, my argument does not depend on what international law did or did not exist in 1948. Second, Resolution 242 did not establish the principle that acquisition of territory by war is unlawful, it merely observed this longstanding principle of international law.
“The doctrine of conquest and its derivative rules were challenged in the 20th century by the development of the principle that aggressive war is contrary to international law, a view that is expressed in the covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, the charters and judgments of the international military tribunals created at the end of World War II to try those accused of war crimes, the Charter of the United Nations, and numerous other multipartite treaties, declarations, and resolutions. The logical corollary to the outlawry of aggressive war is the denial of legal recognition to the fruits of such war. This implication was contained in what became known as the Stimson Doctrine, enunciated in January 1932 by U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson and subsequently affirmed by the assembly of the League of Nations and by several conferences of the American republics.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/conquest-international-law
So spare us your ignorant vitriol.
The bottom line is that you’re very foolish. Your comment is nothing but an hysterical reaction to plain facts. Attacking a writer with whom you disgree for being a “zealot” or a “troll” is puerile behavior, and blaming his efforts to defend Palestinian liberty or contributing to their own suffering is ridiculous and stupid. I suggest you try to find a career. Any career at all.
Can you prove that historically? i.e. Diaspora
So was the American Declaration of Independence not really a Declaration of Independence? The Americans did not have sovereignty over the colonies at the time they declared independence
I disagree. Had the State of Israel existed prior to 1948, the anti-semitism would’ve been much less, and the Holocaust would not have happened. Having said that, the Palestinians also need an independent, sovereign nation-state of their own that’s comprised of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, alongside Israel, and NOT in place of Israel, the way lots of people advocate.