"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.
Basically, Zionism is right, Palestinians are wrong for not agreeing Zionism is right.
And then biased categorization of everything that comes out of this fundamental Conflict.
Instead of giving your Biased Views about the Barbars and the Civilized, you should answer why Zionism is right to create a Rectangle and force it into a Triangle Shape or whatever analogy you used, why was it Right to create a jewish Ethnostate in a absolute Majority Arab Land.
„They deserve a State like every People“ What kind of Kindergarden Argument is that, then let the Alevites/Druze/Circassians create a ethno State in Israel and kick the Zionists out there, cause every People deserve a sState
So? Make the Argument instead pf vaguely throwing in a Point, afraid to make an actual Argument that can be discussed.
Also, go quote for me the „Un-Charter“ that explains why the other Ethnicities cant create a Ethnostate but jews from Europe can create a Ethnostate in a Place where the natives are majority non jewish
"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
Interesting that the Israeli Jewish birth rate is now higher than the Israeli Arab birth rate.
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.
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.
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.
Prescient- and not much has changed.
Basically, Zionism is right, Palestinians are wrong for not agreeing Zionism is right.
And then biased categorization of everything that comes out of this fundamental Conflict.
Instead of giving your Biased Views about the Barbars and the Civilized, you should answer why Zionism is right to create a Rectangle and force it into a Triangle Shape or whatever analogy you used, why was it Right to create a jewish Ethnostate in a absolute Majority Arab Land.
„They deserve a State like every People“ What kind of Kindergarden Argument is that, then let the Alevites/Druze/Circassians create a ethno State in Israel and kick the Zionists out there, cause every People deserve a sState
The rights of peoples to self-determination and statehood is in the UN Charter. If you don't like it, you can take it up with the UN.
So? Make the Argument instead pf vaguely throwing in a Point, afraid to make an actual Argument that can be discussed.
Also, go quote for me the „Un-Charter“ that explains why the other Ethnicities cant create a Ethnostate but jews from Europe can create a Ethnostate in a Place where the natives are majority non jewish