Sunday, April 16, 2023
Elder of Ziyon
_____________________________________________________________________
It was interesting to once again read an article about “one state” and see how it relies on the same false premises as the previous recent claims regarding this at HRW, Amnesty, etc; very similar language employed to advance the theory
The key sentence to always look for is “river to the sea” which is a classic far-right extreme national Palestinian talking point that has always asserted that Palestine must be “river to the sea” to remove Israel from the map
This is important because the “river to the sea” is not a policy Israel has pushed, it’s solely a talking point historically of Palestinian extreme nationalism. And it’s all about Gaza. The key focus is always to force Israel to reoccupy Gaza
It’s important to always be keyed into what is going on in these articles. Israel withdrew from Gaza but the goal of the “River to sea” Hamas movement and extreme nationalists was always to continue to define Gaza as “occupied”
This was a lesson of the withdrawal. It didn’t matter if Israel withdrew and kept withdrawing, because it would always be defined as “occupying” so as to keep the “River to sea” narrative.
It’s an important phrase to look for, because when we hear “one state” this is never about a one state of equality, this is solely about creating one Palestinian state from “the River to the sea” like every map used in a Hamas classroom.
The bait and switch with any article on “one state” is it pretends to be about getting rights for Palestinians, but ignores the fact that Israelis also deserve rights and Israelis don’t want to run Gaza or “the River to the sea”
What’s interesting is the article suggests the US seek to terminate Israel’s military rule…except when Israel has ended military rule, like leaving Gaza…the “River to the sea” crowd demand Israel re-occupy or define it as occupying anyway.
This is a key point. Because under Oslo the PA received autonomous areas run by a U.S.-backed Palestinian Security Force…but the goal of “River to the sea” is to make sure Israel returns to military rule in Ramallah. It doesn’t want more withdrawal.
Now look at the bait and switch…they want an end to military rule. But also say “River to the sea” and then say “equality”. How do they suggest Israel will return to rule Gaza which is run by Hamas except via military force…but then bring in equality?
Of course another part of the scam of “River to the sea” is to turn Hamas into just a random organization that “brooks little dissent” ; whereas Israel is described as having the most harsh draconian rule…of course no mention that Hamas is a far right extremist hate group
I just wonder if under the term “brooks little dissent” is included mass murder ethnic cleansing genocidal hate crimes that Hamas carried out? All the bus bombings were just “not brooking dissent”. No mention of rockets that can go 100km…
Anyway, back to the premise. To get to the “River to the sea” and reoccupation of Gaza the claim has to be made that this is all a single state, which it is not. Anyone who drives from Tel Aviv to Ramallah and Gaza knows it’s not one state
Nevertheless we get sentences like this…is the Gaza-Egypt border controlled by Israel? It’s not right? So the whole premise is based always on bad information. Israel doesn’t control all entry points to Gaza. But the whole premise is based on Israel controlling Gaza
And we can see how problematic this is by just looking at how the same publication ran an article on Nagorna-Karabakh above the same piece…but that conflict is described totally differently.
When they discuss that conflict somehow the same logic and standards about controlling the entry of goods and people isn’t applied…so we can see that the analysis about Israeli control is solely applied to Israel to force Israel to re-occupy Gaza
The irony of the push for one state today is that Israel is MORE divided from the West Bank Palestinian Authoriry areas and Gaza than in the past. This isn’t the 1980s…Gaza and the WB have been ruled by Hamas and the PA for more than a generation.
Think about it. Someone born in Gaza in 2005 is now 18 years old. And this “River to the sea” nonsense suggests that they will be under one state along with Tel Aviv? How? How would that happen?
Israel was told to withdraw. It did withdraw from Gaza and all it got was Hamas and rocket fire and endless attacks and Iran exploiting the withdrawal to send in middle tech; and it was told even if it withdraws it still “occupies”
The goal of “River to the sea” was always to prevent Israel leaving. The more Israel leaves, the more it is told it is one state. Because the goal was always One Palestinian State. Greater Palestine. Not two states.
Here is the piece in full
Let me add a few more aspects to this. When people push for one state of “equality” but without “military rule” they premise this on everyone being peaceful. These ideas, like “federation” might work in some place living in peace and coexistence, like in parts of the EU…
But how can anyone force Israel and Hamas in Gaza under one state? It doesn’t make sense, it is trying to force groups to live together that have grown apart and despise one another.
The one state people are purposely naive. They know Gaza can’t be ruled by the same polity that rules Tel Aviv and Ramallah and Jerusalem. They know this. These people would suggest turning Serbia and Kosovo into one state…
The lie of one state is like suggesting that after years of brutal war, like in Ukraine, that somehow Ukraine and Russia and Belarus will be “one state”…it’s so ridiculous…and yet the theory keeps getting play because no one has to answer tough questions
The theory is based on so many false premises, the worst of which is trying to force Israel to reconquer Gaza to force it into one state…but mostly it’s based on a lie that ignores the reality of division on the ground. It purposely ignores this
The reason they don’t mention Iran arming Hamas or rockets or bus bombings is because to get to one state one has to ignore the extremist hate rhetoric that underpins much of Hamas rule and the PA. When people are educated for hate for generations how can they be one state
These articles always are tough on Israel right wing government but they don’t ask questions about the far-right in Ramallah and Gaza, to get to one state how does anyone suggest forcibly putting together groups that viscerally oppose one another?
In essence the program is for civil war, and that’s why River to the sea was always the motto, just like in 1947…it was about removing the desire of two groups for two states to force one state on them. They didn’t want it in 1947 or today.
One could argue the one state lobby is a colonial lobby designed to create new states like in the eras of the past where lines would arbitrarily be drawn and peoples forced together, wars resulting.
Although this article falls under the overall context of opinion and analysis…it still deserved fact checking regarding who controls the Gaza - Egypt border; it’s misleading to claim Israel controls it and on this hinges a key part of the one state argument.
I also double checked the piece and couldn’t find any reference to Egypt throughout. How can you mention Gaza and not Egypt? Also Iran is mentioned only twice…kind of ridiculous considering it helped massively arm Hamas and this caused the Gaza blockade
How can anyone suggest Israel must control all this area and extend equal citizenship to everyone but not mention that a foreign power is plowing weapons in that prevent this very thing…it’s deceptive and misleading
It’s also interesting how the logic always applied to Israel is never applied to any other “occupation” like Afrin (no one demands Ankara extend equal rights there)…never used as analysis for any other disputed area or autonomous region or conflict.
Also it’s interesting how they claim Israel is one of the most “illiberal” states but of course they never see that in other states the prioritize the rights of one group over others like Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, etc. they only find this in Israel…
I’d be more willing to accept articles like this if these folk were also writing about how Kurds deserve equal rights and Ankara shouldn’t occupy Afrin and Yugoslavia should be one state again or whatever…but it’s never consistent. It’s only about Israel “River to the sea”
Also if these kinds of articles treated Hamas as the far right extremist Greater Palestine organization that it is…instead of always claiming Israel’s right is extreme but downplaying Palestinian nationalist far rightism.
Another assertion in the piece that rings hollow is critiquing the Abraham Accords and monarchies that normalized…but somehow not minding those “thrones” that didn’t normalize in Doha or Kuwait…like one monarchy bad, others good…be consistent if you don’t like monarchies
You can’t be against authoritarianism when it makes peace with Israel “but doesn’t represent the people” but then not mention the authoritarians in Syria and Iran who also don’t represent “the people”. Which is it? Authoritarians are bad only when they normalize…
|
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
