To a Greater Palestine
Part 1: Who is Genociding Whom?
The atmosphere was electric. Jubilant as town squares when home teams emerge victorious from World Cups. But nothing was sporting in the frenzy observed over captured Israelis by images of pummeled bodies paraded in the backs of pickups amidst fevered mobs shouting how great God is. Of women so bloodied there could be no doubt how savagely they had been violated, of babies stabbed, shot or burned to death, of repeatedly live-shot dogs finally ceasing to twitch. These and countless other horrific images posted to Telegram briefly shattered illusions in the West.
Garry Kasparov tweeted, “Ukraine & Israel are paying for Western weakness in blood. There will be more victims until the free world unites and fights using its unparalleled economic and military advantages.” He’s right, of course. If anything, he’s understating the scale of conflagration and bloodshed threatening to engulf us all. As we teeter at the brink of World War III, globally perceived Western weakness undermines deterrence, inflates regional power vacuums and increasingly sparks local eruptions. Two distinct genocidal wars now flare on the world stage, threatening to catapult us over the edge.
The first, ongoing almost two years, festers in Ukraine with no end in sight. The second, a boil that remerges ever more virulent, has discharged yet again in Israel. Also without end in sight and, while few deny both wars are genocidal, there is intractable dispute regarding who seeks to genocide whom.
In Ukraine, the question of genocide can and likely will be conclusively settled. Russia justified invading Ukraine in order allegedly to protect ethnic Russian lives and culture in Ukraine from, or so it claimed, ongoing genocide by Ukrainians. Before the World Court, Ukraine contends that Russia’s genocide allegations constitute nothing but Russian propaganda – total fabrications and utter lies. Moreover, contends Ukraine, it is in fact Russia committing genocide in Ukraine – which seems entirely consistent with Russia denying any Ukrainian identity can exist in the first place and continually threatening, promising and advocating just that.
Concerning Israel and Palestine, however, the question of genocide will likely never get conclusively settled. During weeks following the slaughter in Israel, as Israel kept urging Gaza residents to move south and prepared its ground assault to eliminate Hamas tunnels, rockets, weapons and leadership, there were vast pro-Palestinian rallies in capitals all over the world. Accusations of occupation, apartheid and genocide are routinely, habitually, reflexively leveled at Israel while, throughout, Hamas – which is chartered explicitly on the destruction of Israel – persists advertising its genocidal ambitions. However difficult to make sense of these conflicting genocidal claims in midst and fogs of war, prevailing confusion, falsehood and historic misleading, it grows critical to resolve the question of genocide before we and our questions are rendered moot.
So let’s try. Starting with, however briefly, a slightly less incomplete glance at past events surrounding the partitioning of Palestine and subsequent refugee crises than is routinely reported.
It should come as a surprise to all who yearn for peace via the two-state solution that it has long since been implemented. No joke – seriously. The bloody saga of Palestine – Israel began in British Mandatory Palestine, which included today’s Jordan and Israel. All residing in Palestine at that time, prior to 1923, were Palestinians. Whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist – there might have been a couple – makes no difference. All were Palestinian. But then, as of September 29, 1923, the portion of Palestine roughly corresponding today’s Jordan was calved entirely for Muslim Palestinians only. No Jews allowed in over three quarters the territory of former Palestine partitioned into today’s Jordan. Muslim Palestinians settling east of the Jordan River turned Jordanian after 1923 but Christians, Jews or Hindus could not exist as citizens there. More than three quarters of British Mandate Palestine was declared exclusively Muslim.
Jewish Palestinians were not remotely thrilled with this one-state solution, which saw the creation of an exclusively Muslim state covering more than three quarters of what had been Palestine – but they accepted it. They trusted and hoped for a two-state solution to soon be implemented, expecting the less than quarter remaining of former Palestine, however diminished, to be set aside for them. Which, as it turned out, kept not happening. Jewish Palestinians were still hoping, fighting, struggling when, a quarter century later in 1947, they, along with the rest of the world, observed the partitioning of British India. Observed, and were no doubt struck how, in contrast, there had been nothing fair when it came to the partitioning of British Palestine. Jordan had been established for Palestinian Muslims, and Pakistan for Indian Muslims. India had been declared independent and resolved for Hindus. All the while Palestinian Jews remained stateless in the ancestral land they had never left since time immemorial.
Jewish Palestinians weren’t thrilled, Muslim Palestinians – those who remained rather than become Jordanian – were not thrilled either, and the British were not thrilled in grappling to govern the tumultuous hot mess that the remaining fragment of Palestine became. In 1947 the British gave up, asked the U.N. for help and the U.N. recommended the remaining fragment of Palestine be partitioned yet again – one part for Jewish Palestinians, another part for the remaining Muslim Palestinians. This, then, was to become a three-state solution in the former British Mandate Palestine. Over three quarters Muslim only, the remaining less than quarter to be divided between Muslims and Jews. It was more than a bit absurd. Like dividing a nice, large house where two families clash into a three-bedroom apartment and a bachelor unit – and then, instead of separating the clashing families, allocating the three-bedroom exclusively to one family only while leaving the bachelor communally open for the clashing families to share. Belatedly, subsequent decades of increasingly severe clashes in the bachelor unit – what a surprise – the deeply considered notion got proposed to separate the families clashing there by dividing the bachelor into two closets with shared amenities.
However unhappily, Jewish Palestinians agreed to the 1947 three-state solution. Of course they did. Even a closet with shared amenities beats homelessness and getting hunted like vermin everywhere. So did a sufficient international plurality at the U.N. agree. Muslims everywhere, including Muslim Palestinians, did not. Of course not. Who wants to live in a closet next to the vermin dump while all the relatives on the other side point and laugh from their huge three-bedroom? So humiliating. Muslim Palestinians utterly refused to agree to any independent state for Palestinian Jews whatsoever. Nevertheless, on May 14, 1948, Britain abdicated all rule and governance over Palestine, Israel was declared extant and, on the following day, the united Islamist armies of Syria, Lebanon, (trans)Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq attacked. These combined armies were definitively “Islamist”, loudly and proudly boasting their stated goals to not only destroy the nascent Israeli state but also to genocide the former Palestinian Jews – now Israelis. The distinction between Muslim identity and Islamism remains significant today, with Islamist societies such as Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas dedicated to finishing the job Hitler had toiled during the Holocaust and the united Islamist armies failed to complete in 1948, whereas Muslim nations such as Egypt and Jordan are no longer hell-bent on genocide.
It is well known how Islamist armies united, attacked in 1948, ultimately failed. Other vital particulars are no longer well known though, having become unmentionable in our prevailing narratives. One such concerns the fate of Jews resident in Islamist societies when those societies banded together to genocide Israel. They all, without exception, became hostages. Mercilessly persecuted, they had no options to survive other than flee. All who survived fled for their lives. To this day virtually none remain in all those nations where their communities had sometimes predated the rise of Islam itself.
The flow of refugees went both ways of course, to and from Israel. So what about the Muslim refugees in and about 1948? As all know, they too fled. What is most vehemently disputed, however, is why they fled – and whether they too were persecuted to flee for their lives and abandon their properties and communities, just as the Jewish refugees from Arabia. There can be no doubt atrocities were committed on all sides. Yet there is a great deal of evidence that the Palestinian refugees were not routinely expelled from Israel. Why then did they flee?
Those sympathetic to Israel contend there was no expulsion policy, that Muslims were sometimes begged to remain in Israel and that the causes of their flight are not difficult to glean by reference to even inimical sources during and about those times. Such sources indicate Muslims in Israel genuinely believed the promises of Islamist invaders and leaders: that they should briefly get out to avoid getting slaughtered alongside Jews, just for a few days or weeks at most, until all the Jews were driven into the sea. Thereafter, they were promised, they would return to partake in seizing whatever remained. Moreover, contend sympathetic sources, not all Muslims fled Israel. Those who did not believe the Islamist promises, and thus did not flee, ultimately became full Israeli citizens as a matter of course – and, despite all historic, ethnic and religious divides, now stand together as Israelis.
Those inimical to Israel contend only myths and lies are espoused by Israel sympathizers. To them the Zionist crusader entity is an illegitimate occupier, oppressing, expelling and dehumanizing Palestinians since 1948; or Israel is an apartheid regime; or Israel is actively engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide, and, in light of any or all these charges, should and will be destroyed.
On rare occasions some marginally civil debate may arise between the sympathetic and inimical. Most often, the dispute appears designed only to assign unforgivable blame, dehumanize the other and thereby tacitly justify genocidal intent. Ideologically impacted and factually hazed as the dispute is, there appears no hope to resolve it. What common ground can be imagined between those currently cheering the Hamas slaughter atrocities – and those horrified?
The goal here is not to find common ground between the armed camps, however. If there is implacable genocidal intent then further partitioning to a three-state solution will fail yet more spectacularly than the two-state solution implemented in 1923 and 1948. Rather, the goal is to answer who is seeking to genocide whom, to better understand why so and, subsequently, to search for any conceivable resolution even if no common ground can exist.
Israel claims to have no genocidal intent but, rather, to always fight only in self defense against those seeking to genocide it. The evidence generally appears to bear this out – not only during past weeks. In all lost wars against Israel, Islamist societies were never shy to proclaim their genocidal ambitions. To this day remaining Islamist societies such as Iran regularly call for Israel’s destruction. Hamas, of course, is Chartered on genocide.
Some argue, citing separation barriers and border walls, that Israel is an apartheid regime. This claim seems valid among those who claim Israel is an illegitimate state with illegitimate borders. Among those lacking any particular genocidal intent, however, such claims make no sense. Why take greater issue with Israel’s borders than with any other borders established by partition or armistice?
If Israel always fights only in self-defense then the walls and barriers it erects to defend itself cannot be conceived as evidence for apartheid. Just because apartheid is offensive. There can be no apartheid in self-defense no matter how those habitually attacking defensive fortifications may curse. Effective defensive fortifications such an in China, ancient Constantinople, bordering Ukraine and Belarus – even Hadrian’s Wall – are thought to be great by all except those whose ambitions to pillage, subjugate or genocide the fortifications frustrate.
If the genocidal intent is all Islamist that would also explain why there remains such a significant Muslim minority in Israel – roughly 21% of Israel’s population – enjoying full citizenship and political representation. It would account why, by contrast, virtually no Jews remain in Arabia and Iran. Why, on one hand Israel patriated all Jewish refugees whereas, on the other hand, no nation in Islam will deign to settle Palestinian refugees outside refugee camps. Even Egypt, which can no longer be thought Islamist, refuses Palestinian entry and temporary refuge.
Why won’t Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi open the Rafah crossing to Palestinians even now? Does his hatred for Israel render any concern for Palestinian civilians utterly trivial? Hardly. But to be seen collaborating with Israel is too hazardous in Islam. It could fatally erode his leadership – even if not result in inevitable assassination as with Sadat after collaborating and committing to peace with Israel.
Chances exist that, under pressure from the U.S. and Israel, al-Sisi will eventually relent to open the Rafah crossing. This would enable Gaza civilians to temporarily shelter in Egypt, facilitate Israel’s effort not just to de-militarize but eradicate terrorist Hamas in Gaza and partly defeat Iran and Hamas’ calculations that invading Gaza will scuttle the Abraham Accords, force Saudi Arabia’s return to the Islamist fold and perhaps pave a way to Israel’s destruction. How? By deploying Gazans as human shields – per standard Hamas practice – while simultaneously charging Israel with genocide at maximum volume on the world stage, that stage will be set for the most potent Intifada in Israel yet, a tsunami of opposition to Israel’s very existence– and maybe, just maybe, set the world stage to forbear one single nuclear strike by Iran in Israel. One is all it would take. The ultimate Islamist goal to wipe Israel off the map could finally be achieved and triumphal Iranian supremacy, in and beyond the Middle East, would forever be assured.
Of all the charges directed against Israel, “longest occupier” is the least implausible. Hamas’ slaughter atrocities in Israel were instantly justified as resistance to occupation. Sure it was a bit heavy-handed. Not entirely to be condoned. But – shouted Hamas’ apologists – when oppressed so long by the evil, genocidal, apartheid, colonial, crusader Zionist occupier entity – what else can you do?
Except Israel is neither a genocidal nor colonial occupier. Entirely apart from the uninterrupted Jewish presence in the Holy Land, all evidence indicates Israel is a reluctant occupier of territories captured in defensive wars, always fighting in self defense only to survive. It was not Israel that rejected the 1948 three-state solution. Israel did not expel Muslims in the wholesale manner Jews were expelled from Arabia and Iran. Israel patriated all Jewish refugees whereas, in Islam, no Palestinian refugees have been patriated. All territories captured by Israel were in defensive wars it astonishingly won to survive. At the end of the 1973 war, when Israel had advanced all the way to Damascus and Cairo, it neither annexed nor occupied those vast territories. Just the opposite – it sued for peace. When Sadat genuinely offered peace in return for captured Sinai, Israel gladly took that deal, giving up more land than it kept. When Israel offered Arafat a deal similar to the 1948 three-state solution in exchange for endorsing Israel’s right to exist – that is, in exchange for ending the violent struggle for Israel’s destruction – Arafat pretended to accept the deal while revealing that he in fact did not; that it was just a hudna to him. And while the West Bank indeed remains captured and occupied territory – it was captured from Jordan, not from Palestinians. Yet Jordan has vehemently refused to take the West Bank back. It is Palestinians who demand it. Captured from Jordan in defensive war as it was – how can Israel gift it to Palestinians if they will not abandon their genocidal ambitions? That’s precisely what Israel attempted in Gaza – Egypt too had refused to take administration of Gaza back – and the results speak for themselves. The results of Israel’s 2005 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza shriek for themselves.
Part 2. Victim or Oppressor: Ideology and Reality
In the West an ideological mindset has metastasized according to which all conflicts are invariably viewed as being between ‘victims’ and ‘oppressors.’ Since Israel has emerged victorious from every conflict – never mind Israel would not have emerged at all if not victorious – it ideologically follows that Israel must be the oppressor and Islamist societies must be identified as the victimized oppressed. As for the manner of Israel’s oppression – once Israel is identified as the oppressor, most any charge will do. No issue of evidence or question of truth pertains once Israel is invariably identified as the oppressor. Whatever form the oppression might take is all the same – it must take some form since, ideologically, it would be inconceivable for an oppressor to not oppress. Be it occupation, apartheid, genocide, land theft, war criminality – it’s all the same.
How does ideological confusion deploy in practice? It deploys as ideological farce, as in the latest instance still splayed across countless headlines. The claim was that hundreds of Palestinian civilians had been killed sheltering at a Gaza hospital. Hamas blared that the tragic, worst ever loss of life in a single incident in Gaza was due to a deliberate Israeli air strike. Abbas accused Israel of a hideous war massacre. At the New York UN headquarters, Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour, standing with numerous ambassadors from Arab countries, declared collective outrage at the massacre “committed by the Israeli forces against a hospital.. in which.. about 500 civilians have been torn apart...” As Hamas was raising the ante from 500 to 800 casualties, Western media coverage spontaneously, instantly – ideologically – turned to blame the purported massacre on Israel. It was to be expected Al Jazeera would blame Israel, of course – but it wasn’t only Al Jazeera. It was the New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post, CNN, Politico – the list goes on. Israeli officials were more than somewhat dismayed during subsequent interviews with Western media. Knowing how, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, Hamas lies and deploys the population of Gaza as human shields, how could Western media so quickly rush to judgment without any skepticism, without any presumption of innocence to the heinous charge and without allowing Israel or indeed international intelligence any time to determine what really happened? Response from Western media was scant but in chilling agreement with the Russian foreign ministry’s demand for Israel to prove its innocence. “How quickly can you prove that it wasn’t you?” parroted Sky's Anna Botting – while insinuating, throughout, that even if Israel hadn’t done it this time, it still was at fault – as the oppressor.
Unexpectedly to those commentators sheltered in their ideological corners, Israel did manage to produce both video and audio evidence quickly. Evidence according to which Israel not only didn’t do it but, as it turns out, it didn’t even really happen as Hamas had claimed. Moreover, the evidence Israel produced made it quite clear that Hamas knew it was their own subsidiary Islamic Jihad at fault for what did happen. This was neither the first nor last time that a rocket misfired from amongst Gazan civilians at Israeli civilians plummeted back onto the Gazan civilians Hamas and its Islamist ilk hide among.
Western media was extremely skeptical of the evidence Israel produced. Few were willing to take evidence produced by Israel at face value evenly as Hamas accusations were amplified absent any evidence. Independent investigation, as well as intelligence from UK and US sources, however, consistently corroborated the Israeli evidence. And it doesn’t ultimately matter. As Sky’s Anna Botting so astutely kept insinuating, even if Israel didn’t do it this time – there’s always next time. Plenty of time and space under the ideology umbrella to charge endless false, heinous accusations – each of which will demand distinct refutation for Israel to prove innocence against the ceaseless international presumption of guilt. None of which refutations, jointly or severally, will dislodge the oppressor label indelibly, ideologically affixed as a stab target to Israel’s back – nor the oppressed victim carte blanche Hamas forever replays as it martyrs innocent civilians in Gaza and jubilates slaughters in Israel. No matter what the reality might be, Israel must always be at fault.
Perhaps the most damaging consequence of our simple minded ideological oppressor-victim dualism is how thoroughly, weeks since the Hamas atrocities and slaughters in Israel, the outrage onus was reversed by just one single, heinously false accusation. That’s all it took to reverse our moral polarity. One victim-blaming blood libel to agitate mass hysteria against Israel throughout the world. And then, when the evidence came in that Hamas knew, that the perpetrator was its own subsidiary Islamic Jihad – did Western moral repugnance revert to Hamas? Hardly. The general tone is that it seems Israel didn’t do it, after all – but that Israeli evidence has not been thoroughly and independently verified. Which is terrific – evidence should always be verified. Except not, apparently, prior to rushing to judgment where and whenever Hamas claims about Israel are concerned. Since Hamas is the victim and we must believe all victims. That’s why we cannot muster any equivalent moral repugnance for Hamas no matter what atrocities it persists with while holding the oppressed victim carte blanche.
What every ideological argument in support of Hamas boils down to is this. If Israel is the oppressor, then anything Hamas does, no matter how horrifying, must be cast as resistance. Sure, Hamas breaks international laws and resolutions – so what? So does Israel. And it is Israel who is the oppressor. Regardless of historical reality the Palestinian people are the oppressed and Hamas, chartered on the genocide of Israel, is just trying to liberate Palestinians from Israeli oppression. Regardless whether burning babies, torturing children, raping women, beheading men – or shooting cats and dogs.
This is why it is so easy for westerners to be skeptical even about the brutally documented Hamas slaughter atrocities, yet so difficult for westerners to be skeptical about unverified then debunked Hamas claims about the Gaza hospital bombing: if Israel is the oppressor, it cannot possibly a victim, and if Palestinians are victims, they cannot possibly conduct atrocities – regardless how evident.
This is the ideological crux keeping us in the West not only from contributing to resolve the mid-East morass – but even from understanding it. Some argue that the ideological myopia reflected in Western media is dangerous, that it has caused riots and cost lives. Indeed it has, but it is far more dangerous than that. The worst actors on the world stage understand Western ideology very well. Some, like Putin, have long been stoking it to fever pitch in order to divide, conquer and demonstrate how untenable Western democratic principles are. These worst actors each seek to obtain their own victim-identified carte blanche in order to get away with slander, murder, even mass murder. Fortunately, Russia hasn’t found much traction playing the victim, alleging Russophobia while justifying its atrocities in Ukraine as “de-Nazification”. Hamas, on the other hand, has. Victim-identified Hamas, a polity explicitly chartered on the destruction of Israel, can engage in slaughter atrocities while secure from most any Western comprehension that the genocidal ambitions Hamas keeps boasting and acting out are the reason Israel must defend itself. Secure in knowing westerners will keep ideologically categorizing Hamas’ slaughters as resistance to oppression, Hamas can expect and count on us to always put carts before horses and to hysterically denounce Israel as the oppressor each time Hamas can force Israel to fight back in self-defense. This isn’t a recipe for disaster in the mid-East alone – it’s far more dangerous than just that. Divided and weakened by ideological myopia as we’ve become has emboldened all the worst actors on the world stage at once. Little hope remains to avoid the final World War.
Perhaps media should be held at least somewhat accountable for fake news that instigates violence. But we shouldn’t get too distracted by how hazardous our ideological fixations are. More attention to just how stupid our fixations are should suffice. In this regard, of all media outlets uncritically regurgitating Hamas propaganda, the example set by CNN is perhaps the most poignant. Because CNN tried to come across a little less ideologically – it really did. In the spirit of which – coming across less ideological – CNN published a short segment alerting against Hamas anti-Israel propaganda sweeping social media. It was a clever tactical move to make while the world was still reeling in wake of the Hamas slaughter atrocities in Israel. What a great opportunity to associate social media with terrorist propaganda – and, by contrast, identify mainstream legacy media, particularly itself, with sober, responsible, vetted, trustworthy reporting. So, CNN raised alarms over Hamas propaganda sweeping social media – only to then platform and amplify Hamas propaganda several days later on its own network. CNN was not alone – not by any means – but having just postured for trust in mainstream reporting made it particularly tawdry.
The ideological umbrella will not shelter us from darkness rising in recurrent tides. Crouched under it, eyes and ears plugged shut, we have stumbled through 30 brief years from what seemed like victory for freedom and democracy to the complete opposite brink. Now, while Ukraine and Israel fight against fascists and Islamists, let us at least not undermine them further. It is our values they fight for so let us drop the ideological scales from our eyes and, if not contribute, at least get out of the way.
Part 3: Understanding the Nakba
The core Israeli identity is contained and expressed by the words “never again.” More than anything else, this is what it means to be Israeli. If being Jewish means being pogrommable and holocaustable then being Israeli means something more like, “Try it and see what happens to you.” That’s only to be expected. Israel emerged from of the ashes of attempted, almost wholly successful final solution genocide. Israeli cultural character ought to be, even if not that clearly understood, fairly familiar by now. Israel is quite reasonable when confronted by force. Israel is also reasonable when confronted by genocidal ambitions lacking force. When the two are combined, though, when Israelis get triggered to believe there is a genocidal existential threat – that’s when Israelis cease being reasonable. That’s when all of Israel ceases being reasonable and proceeds to fight regardless of cost or consequence. Why then would anyone step into this wasp’s nest and whack hell out of it while beating genocidal drums? Why not just poke at it without drumming – or form a drum circle around it without simultaneously poking? Would that not be far more rational than combining both simultaneously, triggering the entire nest and getting stung to death?
One answer, pertaining at least to the present mid-East war, is strategic. Russia desperately requires to erode Western attention and support from Ukraine. Iran desperately requires to derail further normalization between the nations of Islam and Israel via the Abraham Accords. Therefore, with Israel divided and vulnerable like never before, how could Iran, no doubt with Russia’s encouragement, not choose precisely this time to unleash Hamas?
It makes sense. But strategy alone cannot begin to answer why Hamas attacked so rabidly once unleashed. Why, knowing the inevitable Israeli response, Hamas committed the unspeakable slaughter atrocities it did. One might think the inevitable Israeli response is what Hamas was seeking to exploit.
Why, for what reason did Hamas do what it did? It was not in resistance to alleged occupation of Gaza – which occupation does not even exist. It wasn’t in resistance to any occupation – since Palestinians turned away multiple opportunities for a state along lines of the 1948 three-state solution in exchange only for credible peace. It wasn’t due to the plaint that Gaza is an open air prison – since, if so, it is a prison with two doors and Hamas commits disproportionately few atrocities through the door to the south. It wasn’t friction with West-Bank settlers who take as good as they give – and holds no candles compared to violence in many cities. It wasn’t the always falsely reported standard incitements at Al-Aqsa. It certainly wasn’t in hope of successfully destroying Israel – all combined Islamist armies failed in that task multiple times. So what was the point? What was the reason?
It isn’t that hard to understand. Hamas, while not representing Palestinians democratically, genuinely embodies and expresses fundamental aspirations of Palestinian culture and identity. And Palestinian identity is rooted in the “nakba”, the perceived catastrophe of Israel’s 1948 creation. Those Muslim Palestinians who left were promised right of return within days or weeks at most if only they got out of the way of the combined Islamist armies arriving to destroy newly minted Israel. And, just like Russians believed and expected Kyiv to fall in three days, so did the Palestinian refugees believe Israel would be destroyed in short order. Just as Russia’s war in Ukraine is failing, so did the anticipated Islamist destruction of Israel fail. But there can be no doubt the Palestinian refugees believed in the promise. Those who did not believe presumably did not leave – electing to remain and become Israeli citizens instead. Whereas those that believed left only to then become stateless refugees when the combined Islamist armies were defeated – breaking their promise to destroy Israel.
More clearly seen in this light, then, the nakba was not, as often perceived, restricted to the 1948 creation of Israel. What catastrophe would there have been had Islamist armies succeeded in destroying Israel and putting Jews to the sword or into the sea? Had the promise to destroy Israel not been broken there would have been a windfall from the perspective of Palestinians who fled the anticipated destruction of Israel – not a catastrophe. Rather than become refugees, they would have returned not only to their own lands and possessions but to those of the wiped out Jews as well.
Rather than a single event and brief moment in time, the nakba persists to this day like nightmares from which Palestinian refugees cannot and may not wake. The promise to destroy Israel was repeated several times by Islamist societies and combined armies. Each time, during each war, Palestinian refugees fervently believed. Each time, the promise was again broken and their prayers more utterly shattered. And, worse yet, while Jewish refugees from Islam were settled in Israel as a matter of course, while Muslim Palestinians who stayed became citizens of the sole mid-Eastern democracy, Palestinian refugees forever remain refugees in Islam, living symbols of an unthinkable, inconceivable shame, their stateless existence both reminding and denouncing how all Islam could not eradicate Israel from its tent.
In this light, then, the nakba cannot end until either Israel is finally destroyed – or some other, genuinely creative alternative is conceived. It is possible for former Islamist societies to eventually become accustomed to Israel’s presence in the tent of Islam. Not so for the Palestinian refugees. They are the betrayed of Islam. For them, only Israel’s destruction can bring fulfillment of the promise, end to the betrayal, deliverance from exile and release, relief from lifelong, generational humiliation.
If the reasons identified here are not too misguided then the foregoing provides a fair theoretical framework and guide to answering who tries to genocide whom in the mid-East morass – and more importantly, why. It explains how genocidal ambitions can coil the foundation of a people’s identity so viscerally as to compel unquenchable eagerness to kill and to die intertwined. The greater difficulty lies in attempting to answer what could effectively be done – other than throwing hands in air and giving up in despair.
Palestinians have emphatically rejected the three-state – commonly known as two-state – solution in exchange for credible peace on several occasions. Pursuant to reasons explored above it should no longer seem so mysterious why so. Moreover, in light of current effective causes and events on the ground, it should be amply clear that land captured in war from either Egypt or Jordan cannot be unilaterally gifted to Palestinians. Nothing short of Israel’s destruction – from the river to the sea – will do, and it would be increasingly suicidal for Israel to attempt trading land for peace again with those seeking its genocide. All this, very unfortunately, is but one portion the problem. It must also be taken into account that while great pretense is made for Western audiences to value Palestinian lives in Islam – the precise opposite is true. Valued is only the Palestinian cause in Islam – the ongoing, permanent, existential, genocidal threat to Israel. Palestinian lives, on the other hand, are infinitely expendable and eagerly sacrificed to the cause. So much so, in fact, that the Hamas leader shamelessly admits it makes no difference to him how many Palestinian lives the Palestinian cause may cost. All Palestinians can be expended and must be sacrificed for resistance, liberation and so forth. And by “resistance”, “de-occupation”, “liberation” and so forth he means nothing less than genocide of Israel of course. Only complete liberation from the river to the sea will do. From the river to the sea – the genocide shall be free. That is why it makes total sense for Hamas to deploy Palestinian civilians as human shields. If not actively killing then their utility is in dying for the cause. Their deaths, unintended when Israel goes after Hamas, will debilitate Israel – not Hamas. As far as Hamas is concerned their deaths are intended, planned and most welcomed by the genocidal, suicidal Palestinian cause. That is also why, knowing full well Israel will not stop until it finishes with Hamas, neither Jordan nor Egypt will allow Palestinian civilians to take temporary shelter there. They too lack compunction sacrificing Palestinian lives to the genocidal cause. Perhaps not as eagerly – but Islamist sentiments do not vanish easily from Islam. “It would eliminate the Palestinian cause,” said Egypt’s El-Sissi, arguing that if a Palestinian state had been created in past negotiations there would be no war now. But El-Sissi knows extremely well that Palestinians more than once rejected that state if only in return for credible peace such as – only – Sadat had genuinely offered. He understands perfectly why Palestinians are doomed to reject peace in exchange for anything short of the promised expiation of Israel from the river to the sea. Unless Islam allows, nothing short of Israel’s destruction can restore Palestinian status and honour throughout Islam. And El-Sissi, though he cannot be labeled Islamist just for this, thus far does not allow. His fear for the Palestinian cause does not equate to fear for Palestinian lives. He too reinforces how Palestinian lives must continue to be sacrificed for the cause.
In Islam it is the Palestinian cause that is valued. It is valued for the safe, reliable, permanent existential threat it poses to Israel. Conversely, what is valued in Israel and the West are Palestinian lives. The genocidal Palestinian cause, were it understood in the West as it is in Islam, would be regarded as singularly abhorrent – if not downright evil. This is why leaders in Islam will invariably reject any Palestinian solution that could erode or deteriorate their precious cause. They will not contribute one inch, insisting the problem must remain Israel’s, understanding perfectly that nothing Israel can offer short of ceasing to exist will suffice. Even if Israel proposes Egypt or Jordan take territories with Palestinian populations entirely under their control – they refuse. Any Israeli or Western demand for Muslim leaders to contribute something, anything to the well being of Palestinian status or state gets vehemently rejected. That’s simply not what the Palestinian cause is about in Islam. Thatcher suggested some Palestinian resettlement in Egypt – rejected. Netanyahu suggested some resettlement in the Sinai – rejected. Other suggestions for some resettlement in Sinai – rejected. Temporary Palestinian civilian shelter in Jordan or Egypt? Rejected. The Palestinian cause, indicate all leaders in Islam, takes total, complete, absolute precedence over any and all Palestinian lives.
This, oddly enough, provides a hint to the only solution this writer can imagine. Nothing Israel can offer will suffice. Anything Israel alone offers will only further exacerbate. But if Islam at large would contribute some territorial crumbs from their vast tables? That would do the trick. The key is for Palestinian refugees to not just obtain their state – but standing, title and status in Islam. Thus, it can not and must not be some tiny, non-contiguous, non-viable, divided, broken, humiliating remnant repartition. There must be a contiguous country Palestinians can and will be proud of. Proud enough to lift spirits past and beyond the nakba. Too proud to keep clinging to current genocidal and suicidal ambitions. So proud as to make it absurd to prioritize destroying someone else’s country over building one’s own. For the humiliation and sacrifice of generations, in atonement for the broken promises, for having so long existed as mere effigies to Islam’s genocidal failure – Palestinians are owed a country greater than Israel and – why not – greater than some others in Islam.
Part 4: The Workable Three-State Solution
What should Greater Palestine look like, then? Ideally, it should be shaped as a crescent moon. Starting from Gaza on the Mediterranean, through Sinai to the Red Sea. There, a Palestinian port nearby to Eilat and Aqaba. Just a small corner of Saudi Arabia, for symbolic purposes. Into Jordan, through to the river. Both sides of the Jordan River, obviously to be negotiated. Who can doubt some parts on the east bank are owed as well? Devout Jews who identify the West Bank as Judea and Samaria should have some voice west of the river too. Then a small portion of Syria, buffering Israel from Syria and Iran. And a tiny buffer through southern Lebanon and northern Israel back to the Mediterranean, more surety against Hezbollah.
Pipe dream? Absolutely. Possible? Remotely. But.. it is owed. If we all survive the looming World War, if Israel survives the coming mid-East conflagrations and clearly understands what nakba really means, what the Palestinian cause has always been, then Israel can begin to negotiate future Abraham Accords not just for itself but for Palestinian refugees as well. For have Palestinian refugees not become the Jews of Islam? That is the crux. For Israel to squarely oppose the Palestinian cause as traditionally pursued in Islam — as justification for the obliteration of Israel – but take up fighting for Palestinian refugees, their lives and viable statehood. For Israel to reverse onus and make it known to all how much is owed Palestinians – particularly by Islam. To leave no more doubt about the real meaning of nakba: betrayal and sacrifice of the people to a suicidally genocidal cause. After Israel finishes with Hamas it must champion to elevate the people above the cause – otherwise the genocidal, suicidal Palestinian cause will only find renewed expression and forever continue to return.
How can this be negotiated successfully? Mostly by shaming. For how can Israel make these demands for Palestinians on the world stage – and Islam entirely refuse? It would be too shameful. Israel should offer reparations to Muslim refugees and demand commensurate reparations for the Jewish refugees from all Arabia and Iran – then ensure all refugee reparations, for Muslims and Jews alike, are allocated to facilitate Greater Palestine.
These negotiations must begin with Saudi Arabia. That is key. The least will be asked from the Saudis, none in Islam will consider budging absent Saudi leadership and legitimation – and regardless how radical the idea may first seem, it fits on the Abraham Accords table as if it has always been there.
To Saudi Arabia Israel can say, “Are you serious about peace and normalization? Ok then, stop driving the Palestinian people crazy to genocide us. Forgive us for surviving and forgive them for always reminding you that we survived. If you’re serious then please set aside a few square miles in the very north-west of your country. That’s right – it will undermine the Palestinian cause. That’s the whole point! Wash your hands of the genocidal Palestinian cause. Do something for the Palestinian people instead, for heaven’s sake. Come on – just do this one symbolic thing and you’ll never need worry about Iran again. Set aside thirty miles from your north-west corner for the Palestinian people to seal our deal.”
Simple – but by no means easy. The genocide Israel cause isn’t just Palestinian. All Islamist societies are united in it – and it continues commanding reflexive, nostalgic respect throughout Islam to this day. Islamist Iran, however, is not content to rest solely on the laurels of more traditional genocidal ambitions. Iran also boasts nuclear ambitions which, some say, have already been practically accomplished. It is this combination – genocidal and nuclear – that has everyone scared. Including the Saudis and anyone else Iran might turn against after hypothetically destroying Israel. This is what has made Abraham Accords, any normalization whatsoever possible between Israel and Arabia. The fear of Iran vastly inflates Israel’s utility as both foil and shield against Iran. Conversely, however, Iran fears any peace or normalization between Arabia and Israel. Further accords would derail not only its traditional genocidal ambitions – but all its mid-Eastern hegemonic momentum. That, primarily, is why Hamas instigated the October 7 slaughter atrocities when it did. To re-invigorate the Islamist genocide cause and to shatter both current and future peace accords before they materialize. That is how the leader of Hamas had his speech ready prepared to broadcast everywhere in Arabia on October 7 – the very day Hamas launched their slaughter. The message? After much language designed to confuse the cause of genocide with resistance and liberation, this: “We say to all countries, including our beloved Arab countries: you must know that this entity which is incapable of protecting itself from our fighters is incapable of providing you with security or protection.”
That is the message to Saudi Arabia the Hamas’ slaughter atrocities in Israel were meant to convey. “You think Israel can protect you from Iran? Think again. Israel can’t even protect itself.” So, credit where credit is due. It was a brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed peace and normalization derailment. It ruthlessly yet artfully sacrificed countless Palestinians and Israelis upon the genocidal Palestinian cause altar. But there are fair chances it will fail. First, because Hamas slaughters are well understood to have been coordinated by Iran – and thus only increase anxiety and fear of Iran. Clearly, Iran is capable of any atrocity – including nuclear. Second, Saudi Arabia neither seeks nor expects Israel’s active protection against Iran in return for peace and normalization. Saudis only seek the benefits of economic, technological, military and intelligence collaboration – especially nuclear assistance. Once Iran has nukes – so must the Saudis. Last, the likely calculation would have Israel serve as a lightning rod. In every possible world, Iran will always strike Israel first. Thus, none other need fear an Iranian first strike. In turn, needing not fear genocidal participation from Arabia, what remains of Israel subsequent to an Iranian first strike will focus entirely on retaliating Iran’s first strike – permanently eliminating the Iranian threat to all.
It won’t be easy but, if the Saudis agree, Israel should talk to Egypt next. This conversation will also be challenging.
To Egypt Israel can say, “We already gave more land than we kept for ourselves. Not for love or money – we gave the whole Sinai back just for peace. Now you give a sliver of Sinai for peace too. Not back to us. To the Palestinian people. The Saudis are on board you know. So give -- or declare to the world how much you despise the Palestinian people.”
Jordan should be next. If the Saudis and Egypt are on board, this one will be like falling off poorly stacked logs.
To Jordan Israel can say, “Hey, everyone else is going along. Come on, be reasonable. You got more than three quarters of the original Palestine. Give a little bit to the new one. That’s right, Egypt and the Saudis are all for it – the Palestinian cause is so last week. It’s all about the Palestinian people now. You don’t want to be the only ones still betraying the Palestinian people, do you?”
To Syria Israel can say, “Stop shooting, please. Will you stop already? Ok, this is your last warning, stop shooting or we’ll have to carve us a little buffer. Ok, we did warn you.”
And, to Hezbollah, Israel can say the same as to Syria. Thereby completing Greater Palestine for the Palestinian people, bringing lasting peace and ensuring not only Israel’s own survival but complete future legitimacy in the tent of Islam.
If Israel and Western democracies survive the coming conflagration, if any hope remains for Abraham Accords after Israel finishes with Hamas then, if only this initiative is adopted by Israel, there might be a thousand years of peace.