The momentum to recognize a Palestinian State is unstoppable

By Farhang Jahanpour

Once again, the British Parliament has led the way with an epoch-making decision. On Monday 13 October 2014, British lawmakers voted overwhelmingly in favour of recognizing Palestine as a state. With 274 to 12 votes they passed a motion stating: “This House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.”

The Conservative Party’s whips advised the party’s MPs to stay away from the vote. As a result, nearly 90 per cent of the ruling Conservative Party members were absent from the vote. (1)

The Israeli government lobbied actively against the motion. The Zionist Federation of Great Britain, the oldest Zionist federation in the world, launched a campaign calling on British Jews to write letters to their MPs, urging them to oppose the motion. The more mainstream Jewish organizations also joined the campaign.

On the other hand, a number of Jewish MPs spoke eloquently in favour of the motion. The veteran Labour Party MP Gerald Kaufman, supporting the motion, accused Israel of “harming the image of Judaism” and contributing to anti-Semitism. In fact, the motion would not have made it to the floor of the House without the support of the Jewish leader of the Labour Party Ed Miliband.

Most of those who spoke in favour of the motion were emphatic about Israel’s right to exist, but they felt that it was time to give the Palestinians the same rights that the Israelis enjoy.

Nearly a hundred years ago, on 2 November 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour issued a short statement that has come to be known as the Balfour Declaration, which set in motion the events that led to the establishment of the state of Israel.

It read: “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

This declaration was of course contrary to the promises that the British Government had made to various Arab leaders that if they joined the war against the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs would be able to establish an Islamic caliphate on all the Arab lands ruled by the Ottomans. The declaration was issued long before the Holocaust and the horrendous persecution of the Jews.

Balfour’s motivation was mainly political. He thought that by so doing he would appeal to President Woodrow Wilson and his two closest advisors, Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, who were avid Zionists. His other motive was that supporting the Zionists would appeal to Jews in Germany and America and help the war effort.

Lloyd George who was the prime minister at the time of the Declaration testified before the Palestine Royal Commission, saying: “The Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word” (2)

In his Memoirs, Lloyd George further elucidated his position: “The Balfour Declaration represented the convinced policy of all parties in our country and also in America, but the launching of it in 1917 was due, as I have said, to propagandist reasons… The Zionist Movement was exceptionally strong in Russia and America… It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.” (3)

Of course, at the time, the Jews constituted a small minority of the inhabitants of Palestine. A British census of 1918 estimated that there were 700,000 Arabs and only 56,000 Jews in Palestine. The Jewish population had in fact grown since the beginning of the 20th century, as in the 19th century the Jews constituted only about 4% of the population.

After World War I, the United Kingdom was given a Mandate by the League of Nations over Palestine. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of Resolution 181, proposing the partition of Palestine between Arabs and Jews. The land allocated to the Arab State included about 43% of Mandatory Palestine, while 56% was given to the Jews, despite the fact that at the time of the partition the Jews constituted only 33% of the population. According to a Survey of Palestine prepared in December 1945 there were 1,076,780 Muslims (58% of the total population), 608,230 Jews (33%), and 145,060 Christians (9%). (4)

In other words, a third of the population was given 56% of the best parts of the land on the Mediterranean coast, while the other two-thirds who constituted the original inhabitants of the land had to be content with 43% of their own land. One per cent of the land was set aside as a special zone for the international city of Jerusalem.

It is clear that the Palestinians, who held the overwhelming majority in Palestine and who had not been consulted over the allocation of their land to some newcomers, opposed the resolution.

It is important to point out that the resolution passed with a relatively small majority of 33 votes in favor, 13 against and 10 abstentions. The resolution was never taken to the Security Council. It is also noteworthy that Britain, that held the Mandate over Palestine, abstained in the partition vote at the United Nations.

A large number of American Jewish organizations were strongly against the establishment of a Zionist state, as they believed that their interests would be better served in democratic countries in the West, rather than being confined to a new Zionist state.

The American diplomatic establishment was also largely opposed to the resolution. General George C. Marshall, who had acted as chief of staff of the American armed forces during World War II, and who had returned to the government as secretary of state to help the inexperienced former vice president Harry Truman who had become president after the sudden death of Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, just a month before the Allied victory in Europe and four months before the victory over Japan, and the man who was responsible for the Marshall Plan, was adamantly opposed to the resolution.

Marshall and a majority of diplomats at the UN saw a direct UN trusteeship, succeeding the British mandate, as the only solution to halt the bloodshed. After clashes broke out in Palestine over the planned partition, Marshall urged Truman to reconsider and the State Department urged Truman not to grant diplomatic recognition to the Jewish state. Later on, Marshall resigned over American recognition of Israel.

At midnight on May 14, 1948, the British relinquished control of Palestine, and one minute later the Jewish Agency, under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed the new state. President Truman was the first head of state to recognize Israel. Again, his motive for recognition of Israel was mainly political, rather than being based on his love for the Jewish people.

In a 10 November 1945 meeting with American diplomats who had been brought in from their posts in the Middle East to urge Truman not to heed Zionist urgings, Truman bluntly explained his motivation:

“I’m sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” (5)

Despite all the political motivations for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, it was only right that after centuries of persecution and especially after the Holocaust the Jews should have a homeland of their own, be free to practice their religion and to live as they wished. However, the other part of that promise, namely the establishment of a Palestinian state on a smaller portion of the Palestinian land, has remained unfulfilled.

On the contrary, after the establishment of the state, Israel has deliberately tried to expand its territory and push the Palestinians out of their lands. Although the Jews had been given a disproportionately large part of Palestine, after the 1948 War with the neighboring Arab countries, Israel’s territorial gains reduced the Palestinian share of the land to only 22%.

In fact, taking over the whole of Palestine had been a Zionist plan from the start.

The Zionist leadership did formally accept the partition plan, but when many Zionist leaders objected, they were persuaded by Ben-Gurion to agree to the official acceptance. However, in several secret meetings Ben-Gurion made it clear that the partition borders were unacceptable and must be rectified at the first opportunity.

The minutes of these meetings reveal the real intentions of Ben-Gurion and the hardline Zionists. (6) In July 1948, Ben-Gurion gave orders for the operations in Lydda and Ramleh: “Expel them!” (7) Some 70% of the Palestinians were expelled from Israel.

Since then, Israeli governments have turned more and more rightwing and the suffering and dispossession of the Palestinians have intensified. There is no need to catalogue all the atrocities committed by both sides during all these years. After the 1967 war, Israel proceeded to occupy the remnant of the Palestinian lands and expanded illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

Various U.N. resolutions have declared those settlements illegal and have called on Israel to return to pre-1967 borders, but most have been vetoed by the United States and ignored by Israel.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice by a 14-1 majority declared illegal the wall built by Israel deep in occupied Palestine, but again the construction of the illegal wall incorporating more Palestinian lands has continued.

Meanwhile, keeping 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza under siege since 2007 is regarded as collective punishment. Furthermore, Israel has attacked Gaza three times in the last six years alone (2008-09, 2012, 2014). In the latest attack, Israel killed more than 2,100 people, the majority of whom were civilians.

The Oslo Accords in 1993 provided a glimmer of hope that the two sides could resolve their differences peacefully and a Palestinian State would be established in the West Bank and Gaza in what constitutes only about 20% of Mandate Palestine, but the so-called “Peace Process” has continued without producing any tangible results for the Palestinians.

In the 2002 Arab League Summit the Arabs offered a new peace plan announcing that all of them would recognize the State of Israel if Israel returned to its pre-1967 borders and if a Palestinian state was established in the occupied territories with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The resolution was later adopted by all the 57 members of the Islamic Cooperation Organization, including Iran, but there has been total silence on the Israeli side regarding that offer.

Seeking recognition

There seems to be no other peaceful path left for the Palestinians but to go through the international organizations and seek recognition from various countries. On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly voted to recognize the Palestinian Authority as an observer state. The degree of US and Israeli isolation in the international community was best demonstrated by the overwhelming support given to the resolution, with 138 votes for, nine votes against and 41 abstentions.

With the exception of the United States, Canada, the Czech Republic, Panama and Israel, only the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Micronesia, and Palau voted against that resolution. That resolution passed with a much larger majority of members than the resolution on the Partition Plan that led to the establishment of Israel.

Already 135 countries have recognized Palestine as a state. The list includes Poland before joining the EU. After Sweden recognized Palestine, Ireland has been considering doing so. (8) The recent behavior of Israeli leaders and the moribund peace process have led more and more people to believe that at long last the Palestinians should also be given their rights.

Of course, there are many obstacles on the path of Palestinian statehood, but inaction is not an option.

As Israel has already gobbled up so much Palestinian territory, the two-state solution may already be nonviable and Palestinians may opt to live in a single democratic state made up of Jews and Arabs. Whatever they decide to do, the international community should show support for the end of the longest conflict in recent history.

In the same way that the horrors of the Holocaust pricked the conscience of mankind and led to the Jews being given a state of their own, nearly 70 years of dispossession, statelessness, discrimination, humiliation, killings and apartheid policies must persuade the world to put an end to this dreadful situation.

The continuation of the present situation is not only unfair to the Palestinians, it is also against the long-term interests of Israelis and Jews as a whole. In the words of Sir Alan Duncan, a senior Conservative politician who served as the coalition’s international development minister, in a speech at the Royal United Services Institute following the vote in the House of Commons, “Occupation, annexation, illegality, negligence, complicity: this is a wicked cocktail which brings shame to the government of Israel. It would appear that on the West Bank of the Jordan the rule of international law has been shelved.”

He went on to say: “This illegal construction and habitation is theft, it is annexation, it is a land grab – it is any expression that accurately describes the encroachment which takes from someone else something that is not rightfully owned by the taker. As such it should be called what it is, and not by some euphemistic soft alternative. Settlements are illegal colonies built in someone else’s country. They are an act of theft, and what is more something which is both initiated and supported by the state of Israel.” (9)

The momentum for an end to the conflict is unstoppable. The least that the vote in the British Parliament and the recognition of Palestine by more and more states can do is to embarrass the US Administration, if not Congress, not to veto a Security Council resolution that would establish a viable Palestinian State living side by side with Israel, or one democratic society, giving the Palestinians equal rights and allowing millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their country.

It is time for the entire international community to support this momentum.

1. See Anshel Pfeffer, “U.K. vote: A symbolic gesture to the Palestinians – a red warning light to Israel” Haaretz, 14 October 2014

2. See Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of Palestine, (Olice Branch Press, 1991) p. 14

3. David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, Volume II, (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1939), chapter XXIII, pp. 724-734

4. See A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Institute for Palestine Studies, pp. 12-13. ISBN 0-88728-211-3

5. See Evan M. Wilson, A Calculated Risk: The U.S. Decision to Recognize Israel(Clerisy Press, 2008), p. 126

6. See Uri Avnery, “Sacred Mantras”, CounterPunch, June 28, 2011.

7. See Dominique Vidal, “The Expulsion of the Palestinians Re-examined”, Le Monde Diplomatique, December 1997

8. See Juan Cole, “Will Ireland Recognize Palestine”, October 17, 2014.

9. See: “Alan Duncan Slams Israel’s West Bank ‘Apartheid’ In Fierce Attack” Huffington Post, 14/10/2014.

Farhang Jahanpour


Related video added by Juan Cole:

Euronews: “UK MPs hold symbolic vote to recognise Palestine”

19 Responses

  1. One of the reasons why this occupation has become permanent is that Israel has successfully conflated two quite separate issues into one.

    What I mean is that the Israeli narrative claims that the “peace negotiations” is about whether (or not, in this case) Israel will ever agree that the Palestinians can have their state, and until Israel *does* give its permission-slip then Palestine Ain’t No State.

    Think about it: Israel is not the sovereign power. Israel’s A-OK is therefore not a prerequisite for the establishment of (much less the int’l recognition of) the state of Palestine.

    The end of this endless occupation **does** require Israel’s agreement. Sure, it does, but that issue is Another Issue Altogether.

    After all, the USA occupied Iraq in 2003, and that didn’t mean that George Bush “owned” Iraq, nor did it mean that USA had gained a “right” to “decide” if Iraq would be regarded as a state or Just Some Territory That Uncle Sam Liked Squatting On.

    This question: Is Palestine a state or is it merely a territory? is something that does not require Israel’s say-so, precisely because Israel didn’t gain that “right” by seizing this by force of arms.

    Meanwhile, this question: What will it take for Israel to agree to end the occupation? is something that only the government of Israel can answer.

    But those are two different questions, and Israel only has a “right” to decide one of them.

    • “Is Palestine a state or merely a territory?”

      Depends on who you ask, however it is not much of a “state” if the IDF controls the sea, air, land and population there.

      “What will it take for Israel to agree to end the occupation?…..”

      (1) a UN Security Council resolution;

      (2) a final status agreement between Israel and Palestinian factions;

      (3) a unilateral Israeli pullout – as occurred in Gaza in 2005

      Another 66 years could pass before Israeli “peace negotiations” bear any fruit.

      • Mark: “Depends on who you ask, however it is not much of a “state” if the IDF controls the sea, air, land and population there.”

        Yeah, but the point I am making is this: Israel **isn’t** the arbiter of that question, and Israel standing up and shouting “No! No Way! Not Unless I Say So!” that doesn’t form the definitive answer.

        Mark: “however it is not much of a “state” if the IDF controls the sea, air, land and population there.”

        The same was equally true of Iraq in 2003.
        Did that mean that Iraq wasn’t a state in 2003?

        And as for your three conditions, well, there is another way…..

        • “Did that mean Iraq was not a state in 2003?”


          (1)Iraq had many its own citizens supporting the toppling of the Baathists.

          (2)The U.S. did not re-settle hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens in Iraq;

          (3)The U.S. did not prolong military occupation for decades after 2003 but established an interim government;

          (4)The U.S. did not try Iraqi citizens in U.S. military tribunals.

      • It is unlikely that Israel has even another 10 years before it is forcibly dismantled. Although many still believe the myths of the “mighty Israelis warrior,” the hard truth is Israel is trying to paddle up the waterfall with an obsolete paddle There are several unstoppable trends that mean that either Israel will negotiate a FAIR agreement within the next few years or it will have a fair agreement forcibly imposed on it shortly thereafter.

        (1) The Israelis supporters outside Israel are literally dying off – that is they are growing very old and the replacement humans have zero sympathy for Israel. This is happening all over the globe. Even in the US, the generation change is happening and soon not even the congress critters will stay bought.

        (2) The world is awash in weapons equal to any weapon Israel has or will ever have. In fact, many nations (Iran, China, etc.) have invented whole new methods of warfare that almost ensure an Israeli defeat. Tens of thousands of low cost, reasonably accurate missiles easily trump very expensive aircraft and pilots and very expensive anti-missile systems. Also, now every soldier has automatic weapons (per CJ Chivers there are well over 100 million AK-47 and equivalent weapons on earth with thousands more being made each and every day). Tom Friedman is very, very correct that the world is flat when it comes to technology and that also applies to war technology.

        (3) After Israel loses the USA, no other country on earth will protect Israel because it is no value to any other country. Israel has no natural resources and only a miniscule part of its intellectual property is unique and all intellectual property can easily be stolen or revere-engineered.

        There are many other reasons why Israel has no future, but unfortunately, Israelis are so delusionally deep into their myths, they have no ability to understand just how bad their future will be if they don’t make the best deal they can today.

        The MAJOR problem in Israel today is there is NO ONE with the political clout and military power to make Israelis understand just how limited their future will be if they continue on the same path. Israelis are quite simply walking blindly over the cliff.

        • Well, here’s a classic example of how delusional Israel’s leadership is: “Libya was a new creation, a Western creation as a result of World War I. Syria, Iraq, the same — artificial nation-states — and what we see now is a collapse of this Western idea”

          That the Israel Minister of Defence proclaiming the inevitable end of all the Middle East states that were created as a result of the decisions made by the colonial powers in the aftermath of WW1.

          He does so without – apparently – understanding the irony of that proclamation as it applies to his own state.

  2. D. lowe

    @BlueDuPage @WhiteHouse your turn. Palestinian need to believe they have a right to food&cloths. #Palestine & #kurds STATES not #iS

  3. meadstweet

    @Michelle9647 Zionist Federation of Great Britain, oldest Zionist fed in world – nearly 90% of Conservatives absent from vote.

  4. One way to help the Palestinians rebuild and to constrain Israel would be to place import duties on Israeli goods. Each country that imports Israeli goods would impose a tariff on those goods to be used for the benefit of the Palestinians. The money would be used to rebuild Gaza and compensate the Palestinians for stolen land.

    The beauty of this is that there need be no international agreement for this to work. Each country could act independently. They would collect the tariff and turn it over to the appropriate Palestinian organizations.

    • Import duties could work, but only depending on the importing country’s goverment agreement to do so. The actual trick for evading not possiby duty fees but rather boycott of Israel’s products is the one initiated by Canada’s best friend of Israel, prime minister Stephen Harper, who changed the labelling requirements for produces sold in Canada by not having the companies obliged to use “Made in…”, “Produce from…” Instead it’s now “Prepared in…”, “Packaged in…” So, thanks to Harper and his electorate and friends from B’nai B’rit, Israel is laughing at the face of Canadians who would like to boycott that shameless land and freedom stealing country.

  5. Mr Balfour’s motivation was not political, except perhaps secondarily.

    Mr Balfour was a true believer embedded in a religious Christian culture which favored the Zionist program from the time of the early Puritans well into the 19th and 20th century when Zionism was championed by such powerful figures as Lord Shaftesbury, and Prime Minister Palmerston and about every other English politician including, later, Winston Churchill and whose Zionist appeals appear in the English literature from Milton to George Eliot.

    In fact, Zionism is a creation of Christians, English Christian mostly, and not Jews.despite what Obama and Mr Netanyahu think. Zionism did not become a project of Jews until about the 1880’s in the Russian Pale.

    • Agreed, Theodore Herzl, the primary founder of modern Zionism, was heavily influenced by a Christian minister.

      Later, the impetus came mostly from highly-organized and effective Jewish public relations networks based in the U.S.

      In its beginning in 1945, the American Zionist Emergency Council (AZEC) booked Madison Square Garden, ordered advertisements, and mailed 250,000 announcements – the first day. By the second day, they had organized demonstrations in 30 cities, a letter-writing campaign, and convinced 27 U.S. senators to give speeches.

      Grassroots Zionist action groups were organized with more than 400 local committees under 76 state and regional branches. AZEC funded books, articles and academic studies. Millions of pamphlets were distributed.

      Purely viewed as a public relations effort, the level of organizational efficiency and ultimate effectiveness were nothing short of astounding.

      Today, AZEC is largely forgotten, but is the spiritual ancestor of the vaunted Israel Lobby of today.

      The Israel Lobby today in the U.S. has been described by a University of Michigan professor as “six times as large and 100 times more organized” as its Palestinian-American counterpart.

    • Einstein was quite upset at the idea of the creation of Israel following the Zionist plan, which he called fascist in a December 4, 1948 letter to the New York times co-signed with some 27 other NY Jewish intellectuals, and asking the US president not to meet Menachem Begin and not to support the creation of Israel.

  6. Despite Obama’s ramblings to the contrary, it is a complete myth that Jews longed for a homeland for 2000 years.

    During the 2000 year period, the numbers of Jewish pilgrimages to Palestine was minuscule compared to the numbers of such Christian pilgrimages.

  7. Seanad [Irish Senate] calls on Government to recognise Palestine

    Wednesday 22 October 2014 22.16

    Fianna Fáil senator Averil Power tabled the motion Fianna Fáil senator Averil Power tabled the motion

    The Seanad has passed a motion calling on the Government to recognise the state of Palestine.

    It is unlikely to change policy but the decision is the latest boost for Palestinian authorities campaigning for international recognition, coming after a similar move by the British House of Commons and Sweden’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state.

    The motion called on the “Government to formally recognise the state of Palestine and do everything it can to help secure a viable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that citizens of both states can live in peace and security”.

    It had cross-party support and passed without a vote.

    Tabling the motion, Fianna Fáil senator Averil Power said Ireland should “make it clear that statehood is a right of the Palestinian people and not a bargaining chip for the Israelis to play in further sham negotiations.

    “In doing so, we will help increase pressure on Israel to pursue a genuine peace process that has a real prospect of delivering peace and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

    The Government is unlikely to follow the motion but Ms Power said Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan would visit the Seanad in November to discuss the issue.

    “It was great that we didn’t have to have a vote as we had cross-party support, which sends out a strong message,” she said.

    Ahead of the vote, the Israeli ambassador to Ireland, Boaz Modai, said he had contacted all senators to urge them to vote against the measure.

    “Stunt gestures such as recognising ‘Palestine’ unilaterally are counter-productive because they only give excuses to those on the Palestinian side who hope to achieve their goals without talking directly to Israel,” the embassy said in a statement.

    But the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign called the move an important expression of support for Palestinian statehood that would “increase diplomatic pressure on Israel to end the occupation”.

    link to

    • Please refresh my memory: Wasn’t there a humanitarian boat that left Ireland a few years ago to bring medication, food, and other products to Gaza before or after the Turkisk ferry Mavi Marmara’s target of attacks and piracy in international waters by Israel?

  8. There were influences in U.S. Congress in 1948 that led to Israel’s creation, including New York’s Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits.

    There were also 26 pro-Zionist U.S. senators that made foreign aid dependent on a commitment that those recipients’ representatives at the United Nations vote in favor of the November 29, 1947 Partition Plan. Many of the nations were still rebuilding after WWII and badly needed the funding from the U.S. State Department.

    It also should be noted that the U.S. gave only de facto recognition to Israel in 1948 and de jure recognition did not come until 1949.

    1948 was an election year and Truman’s advisers recommended his support of a Zionist state due to the fact many swing states, such as New York and Illinois had substantial Jewish populations and his opponent, New York’s Thomas Dewey, was about to declare his support for an independent Israel.

  9. Max Weiss flags a blip of apparent sanity in the recent, largely un-noted pronouncement of the Likudnik Israeli President, Reuven Rivlin:

    At a conference earlier this week, Rivlin, Israel’s president, said “It’s time to admit honestly that Israeli society is sick.” He went on to suggest that his country’s Jewish citizens have “forgotten how to be decent human beings.” link to, and link to

    Of course the message is also that “both sides” are equally at fault, but maybe, having found they are walking themselves into a cul-de-sac with an IED at the end of it, and hearing footsteps and seeing lots of movement in the shadows and doorways, and hearing ever more weapons being locked and loaded all around, some of the Likudniks are sensing their vulnerability… The sharp move, of course, would be to try to “freier” the Palestinians into “making nice first.” link to

    Of course, there’s always that nice cache of 200 or 400 or 600 nuclear weapons on constant alert. link to, giving the vicious old Likudniks a nice “Samson Option.” You have to wonder what their Rulers’ personal escape plans are… link to

    I wonder: Israeli espionage on “us” has given them access to all our Single Integrated Operational Plan and CONPLAN 8022 documents. I wonder if our battlespace managers have had equal access to the Israeli “National Target List” and operational plans? And what, particularly, the Xtianists and Rapturists in the US Air Force have in mind, if they do?

    • President Rivlin just made news when he appeared at a ceremony memorializing the massacre of 47 Arabs in 1956 by the IDF for unwittingly violating a curfew.

      He acknowledged the incident as a crime.

      Rivlin has previously had a reputation as a conservative Israeli politician, having defeated the more liberal Meir Sheetrit to succeed Shimon Peres as Israel’s largely ceremonial head of state.

      His recent actions have made some waves among the Jewish-American community.

Comments are closed.