"It is the Palestinian leadership's rejection of the Barak-Clinton peace proposals of July-December 2000, the launching of the intifada, and the demand ever since that Israel accept the "right of return" that has persuaded me that the Palestinians, at least in this generation, do not intend peace: they do not want, merely, an end to the occupation - that is what was offered back in July-December 2000, and they rejected the deal. They want all of Palestine and as few Jews in it as possible. The right of return is the wedge with which to prise open the Jewish state. Demography - the far higher Arab birth rate - will, over time, do the rest, if Iranian or Iraqi nuclear weapons don't do the trick first."
Yep. Powerful, in-depth piece. Appreciated it. I heard you on Coleman Hughes last year. You are a steady, wise voice.
Well this proved prescient, especially the bit about unilateral withdrawal (no it was just Gaza and not the West Bank) leading to rockets and other attacks and then eventually reconquest
Despite the bleak analysis, this makes me nostagic for a time when a left-of-centre British newspaper would publish such an essay. Otherwise, two thoughts:
a) The pessimism has certainly proved warranted, except perhaps the following observation:
"Israel is currently populated by 5m Jews and more than 1m Arabs (an increasingly vociferous, pro-Palestinian irredentist time bomb)."
Things would seem to be better here in 2025 than they were in 2002. Or is my outside view mistaken?
b) "I don't believe that Arafat is constitutionally capable of agreeing, really agreeing, to a solution in which the Palestinians get 22-25% of the land (a West Bank-Gaza state) and Israel the remaining 75-78%, or of signing away the "right of return"."
Doesn't this 22%-78% breakdown show the problem of projecting Palestinian identity into the past? That's 22% of the British mandate of Palestine, ignoring the Transjordan protectorate. If we speak of Arabs rather than Palestinians in this regard, the ratio looks very different. This is not to deny Palestinian identity now. If the Arabs in the region feel Palestinian and aspire to Palestinian nationhood, there is nothing wrong with that. But anachronistic terminology warps perceptions.
It seems to me as a historian, Benny is being selective or may simply not want to recognize that there was once something called Ethical Zionism that, most likely, Arabs would have collaborated with if it weren’t squashed by war-monger Jabotinsky in 1923 with his essay “The Iron Wall”. Benny suggests that the Oslo Accords demonstrate that there were moments in history, since Jabotinsky, that Zionists really wanted to share the land! Yes, there was that one (1) time, and that one courageous figure, Rabin, that was soon assassinated as a result. Can you think of any other! No. Jabotinsky’s ideology has always been the dominant thinking throughout Zionist history and Ethical Zionism relegated to feeble attempts at asserting itself. Ethical Zionism was undermined by Jabotinsky when he said “We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want”. Ironically, up until October 7, it seemed to me that the world believed the “innocence” of Zionist “aims” and the “honeyed words” that made them “palatable”. I sense, however, that since October 7, the wool has been pulled off of many eyes. Still, I agree with Benny that Zionists also have a legitimate claim to the land. But for the world and especially Palestinians and Arabs to recognize it, a return to Ethical Zionism is a must. I also agree that a two state solution is dead and a one state solution is even less viable as it would ultimately lead to an even bigger apartheid. Fortunately other solutions have been suggested such a outlined in “A Land for All” https://www.alandforall.org or in this “Stairway to Piece” commentary https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0DVVH4QTD?dplnkId=6bb866d5-6cd9-4f71-b360-b9ab245d67f7&nodl=1.
After the outbreak of open, virulent anti-Semitism post-Oct 7, is this really prescient when it talks about the alienation of Israel's friends due to its control over the West Bank? Perhaps they were already alienated due to 80% of Israel's population being Jewish.
This must have been written 30 years ago. The population of Israel is over 10m, with 2m Arabs and well over 7m Jews. It was interesting getting past Morris’ virtue signaling and to get to the heart of the matter.
This is a piece that contains many facts and some of the criticisms of Palestinian/Arab leaderships maximalist and rejectionist behaviour hold some truths as well. But ultimately this reads as a classic orientalist piece where Benny laments the irrational, fueled-by-hatred, murderous “Barbarians” who cannot help but kill, lie to and cheat the “Civilized” colonizer who wanted nothing but peace - next to all the land of course. They are genuine, truthful, peaceful, basically the total opposites of the colonized who are seemingly inherently incapapable of those virtues. See most of the pioneers of Zionism knew that what it is that they came to do in Palestine: namely steal the land. Most of them slso brought along with them from Europe the same type of contempt for Non-White people that had allowed their own persecution in Europe. So for them co-existence with the natives was a non-starter. The idea always was to create an ethno state primarily because - as one might understand and even have some sympathy for - of centuries of persecution as a minority in various lands/states. But whatever justification the zionists convinced themselves off, they knew at the same time that the arabs who had lived in Palestine for centuries would not take kindly to folks coming to rob them of their homeland - who would? Ben Gurion himself said as much. Thats why the yishuv was so well prepared for conflict. The embryonic arab states were everything but. In many ways, the arab states have failed the Palestinians in profound ways. But fact of the matter is that the yishuv created an ethno state on stolen land and cleansed it for the most part of its native people in order to colonize it. That is the original sin that doesn’t get mentioned here at all here. Jews have always lived in the region and were not denied acess from their places of worship or holy sites. Also the picture painted of the IDF and Israeli leadership is so rosy…feel ilke the writer is truly kidding himself there, wonder if he changed his opinion on that as well. It’s an old piece I know, but reading about Ehud Barak - basically Epstein’s BFF - as “sincere” and “good” is very funny as too.
Hereditary refugee status is a non starter and article 194 is a suggestion and not legislated.
How many infants born before 1946 in mandatory Palistine are still alive today? By all means give them Israeli citizenship they will be on their pension on TelAviv beach and their kids can get Israeli visas to visit them like all other tourist do.
"It is the Palestinian leadership's rejection of the Barak-Clinton peace proposals of July-December 2000, the launching of the intifada, and the demand ever since that Israel accept the "right of return" that has persuaded me that the Palestinians, at least in this generation, do not intend peace: they do not want, merely, an end to the occupation - that is what was offered back in July-December 2000, and they rejected the deal. They want all of Palestine and as few Jews in it as possible. The right of return is the wedge with which to prise open the Jewish state. Demography - the far higher Arab birth rate - will, over time, do the rest, if Iranian or Iraqi nuclear weapons don't do the trick first."
Yep. Powerful, in-depth piece. Appreciated it. I heard you on Coleman Hughes last year. You are a steady, wise voice.
Well this proved prescient, especially the bit about unilateral withdrawal (no it was just Gaza and not the West Bank) leading to rockets and other attacks and then eventually reconquest
I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to change their cherished opinions in the face of evidence. Thank you for posting this.
Despite the bleak analysis, this makes me nostagic for a time when a left-of-centre British newspaper would publish such an essay. Otherwise, two thoughts:
a) The pessimism has certainly proved warranted, except perhaps the following observation:
"Israel is currently populated by 5m Jews and more than 1m Arabs (an increasingly vociferous, pro-Palestinian irredentist time bomb)."
Things would seem to be better here in 2025 than they were in 2002. Or is my outside view mistaken?
b) "I don't believe that Arafat is constitutionally capable of agreeing, really agreeing, to a solution in which the Palestinians get 22-25% of the land (a West Bank-Gaza state) and Israel the remaining 75-78%, or of signing away the "right of return"."
Doesn't this 22%-78% breakdown show the problem of projecting Palestinian identity into the past? That's 22% of the British mandate of Palestine, ignoring the Transjordan protectorate. If we speak of Arabs rather than Palestinians in this regard, the ratio looks very different. This is not to deny Palestinian identity now. If the Arabs in the region feel Palestinian and aspire to Palestinian nationhood, there is nothing wrong with that. But anachronistic terminology warps perceptions.
It seems to me as a historian, Benny is being selective or may simply not want to recognize that there was once something called Ethical Zionism that, most likely, Arabs would have collaborated with if it weren’t squashed by war-monger Jabotinsky in 1923 with his essay “The Iron Wall”. Benny suggests that the Oslo Accords demonstrate that there were moments in history, since Jabotinsky, that Zionists really wanted to share the land! Yes, there was that one (1) time, and that one courageous figure, Rabin, that was soon assassinated as a result. Can you think of any other! No. Jabotinsky’s ideology has always been the dominant thinking throughout Zionist history and Ethical Zionism relegated to feeble attempts at asserting itself. Ethical Zionism was undermined by Jabotinsky when he said “We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want”. Ironically, up until October 7, it seemed to me that the world believed the “innocence” of Zionist “aims” and the “honeyed words” that made them “palatable”. I sense, however, that since October 7, the wool has been pulled off of many eyes. Still, I agree with Benny that Zionists also have a legitimate claim to the land. But for the world and especially Palestinians and Arabs to recognize it, a return to Ethical Zionism is a must. I also agree that a two state solution is dead and a one state solution is even less viable as it would ultimately lead to an even bigger apartheid. Fortunately other solutions have been suggested such a outlined in “A Land for All” https://www.alandforall.org or in this “Stairway to Piece” commentary https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0DVVH4QTD?dplnkId=6bb866d5-6cd9-4f71-b360-b9ab245d67f7&nodl=1.
After the outbreak of open, virulent anti-Semitism post-Oct 7, is this really prescient when it talks about the alienation of Israel's friends due to its control over the West Bank? Perhaps they were already alienated due to 80% of Israel's population being Jewish.
There are no " territories" only Israel.
Can you show a history of a community identified as Palestinians before the 20th century?
Am I right thinking this was written in the early 2000s or did I misread?
Or the Arabs will be expelled to Arab Palestine and Egypt and we will all love peacefully.
Prescient- and not much has changed.
This must have been written 30 years ago. The population of Israel is over 10m, with 2m Arabs and well over 7m Jews. It was interesting getting past Morris’ virtue signaling and to get to the heart of the matter.
Maybe a little context would be nice here? It's only in the fine print or subheading that this is 25 years out of date.
What does it tell us today?
Seems outdated, given Israel’s behavior since 2002
This is a piece that contains many facts and some of the criticisms of Palestinian/Arab leaderships maximalist and rejectionist behaviour hold some truths as well. But ultimately this reads as a classic orientalist piece where Benny laments the irrational, fueled-by-hatred, murderous “Barbarians” who cannot help but kill, lie to and cheat the “Civilized” colonizer who wanted nothing but peace - next to all the land of course. They are genuine, truthful, peaceful, basically the total opposites of the colonized who are seemingly inherently incapapable of those virtues. See most of the pioneers of Zionism knew that what it is that they came to do in Palestine: namely steal the land. Most of them slso brought along with them from Europe the same type of contempt for Non-White people that had allowed their own persecution in Europe. So for them co-existence with the natives was a non-starter. The idea always was to create an ethno state primarily because - as one might understand and even have some sympathy for - of centuries of persecution as a minority in various lands/states. But whatever justification the zionists convinced themselves off, they knew at the same time that the arabs who had lived in Palestine for centuries would not take kindly to folks coming to rob them of their homeland - who would? Ben Gurion himself said as much. Thats why the yishuv was so well prepared for conflict. The embryonic arab states were everything but. In many ways, the arab states have failed the Palestinians in profound ways. But fact of the matter is that the yishuv created an ethno state on stolen land and cleansed it for the most part of its native people in order to colonize it. That is the original sin that doesn’t get mentioned here at all here. Jews have always lived in the region and were not denied acess from their places of worship or holy sites. Also the picture painted of the IDF and Israeli leadership is so rosy…feel ilke the writer is truly kidding himself there, wonder if he changed his opinion on that as well. It’s an old piece I know, but reading about Ehud Barak - basically Epstein’s BFF - as “sincere” and “good” is very funny as too.
Hereditary refugee status is a non starter and article 194 is a suggestion and not legislated.
How many infants born before 1946 in mandatory Palistine are still alive today? By all means give them Israeli citizenship they will be on their pension on TelAviv beach and their kids can get Israeli visas to visit them like all other tourist do.