Notwithstanding the carefully crafted "civilizational conflict" narrative that is proffered by Zionists as the frame for the Palestine/Israel issue here in the US, the reality is quite different.
As this article above shows, the conflict is not just between Jews and Muslims, but between Zionists and the indigenous Palestinians, who happen to be both Christian and Muslim.
I am amazed as to how often this basic fact surprises people in the US, especially Israel's American Christian supporters, who routinely buy into the Zionist narrative's dehumanization of the Palestinians despite their being fellow Christians.
It bears noting that the repetition of this prevailing narrative in the US MSM is not accidental.
For those interested in the precariousness of challenging this prevailing narrative about Israel's treatment of Christians in the Holy Land, see:
Suspending recognition of Israel is both logical and reasonable.
Demanding Israel's "right to exist" has always been a major theme of the Zionist narrative, but what exactly does this mean?
The right to a Jewish National Home, or a Jewish State? The right to exist on 1948 Mandate Palestine or within pre-1967 borders? Does it mean the right to exist as a “Jewish” State or a “Democratic” State?
Even though Israelis themselves cannot agree on what this “right to exist” means, the dispossessed Palestinians must unilaterally declare "Israel’s" (whatever that means) “right to exist” (whatever that means), and the very legitimacy of their dispossession and expulsion WITHOUT qualification, before they can even be considered "worthy" of being spoken to?
But there can be NO discussion whatsoever about a reciprocal "recognition" of Palestine? Nor apparently can there be any reciprocity in the demand that the parties "renounce violence."
It is both illogical and unreasonable that Palestine's recognition must be conditioned upon "negotiations," but Israel's recognition must be unconditional even BEFORE negotiations?
The well-intentioned should not buy into these canards, nor should they be an obstacle to peace negotiations. Joint recognition will follow, not precede, agreement on borders and other issues.
Due to its overwhelming military might (as well as cover provided by the US for its actions), Israel has had no incentive to negotiate with the Palestinians in good faith.
Therefore, as it was with South Africa, the only non-violent currently available for changing Israel's calculus is BDS.
The irony here is that those working the hardest to get Israel to stop illegal settlement activity with these actions are actually the ones trying to save the two-state solution, and those blindly supporting the status quo are racing towards a one-state one.
Demographics being what they are, that one-state won't be Jewish.
When it comes to dispossessing the Palestinians of their land, there has been little meaningful difference between the Zionist "right" and the so-called Zionist "left."
While their "left" wing parties have been perceived to be less belligerent and more willing to reach a peaceful solution, their actual history paints a starkly different picture.
"Paying lip service to the division of Palestine while planning and propogating territorial expansionism has been the policy of the Labour party ever since the early days of the Zionist movement, sprinkled by sporadic attempts at giving up some of the territory in return for getting rid of as many Palestinian inhabitants as possible from under Israel's control in the process.
"Labour might have invented this double-tongues policy, but it has now been adopted by all the main powers in Israeli politics, from Kadima to Likud and even the radical mark on the right – Lieberman's Israel Beytenu...
"The fact of the matter is that Labour has supported all the wars Israel has waged, and actually ran and instigated most of them."
While it's certainly true that "right" wing parties are often more openly "oppressive" towards the Palestinians, when it comes to "dispossessing" them of their land, there is (and always has been) a remarkable unity of purpose between the so-called "right" and "left" wings of the Zionist movement.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Notwithstanding the carefully crafted "civilizational conflict" narrative that is proffered by Zionists as the frame for the Palestine/Israel issue here in the US, the reality is quite different.
As this article above shows, the conflict is not just between Jews and Muslims, but between Zionists and the indigenous Palestinians, who happen to be both Christian and Muslim.
I am amazed as to how often this basic fact surprises people in the US, especially Israel's American Christian supporters, who routinely buy into the Zionist narrative's dehumanization of the Palestinians despite their being fellow Christians.
It bears noting that the repetition of this prevailing narrative in the US MSM is not accidental.
For those interested in the precariousness of challenging this prevailing narrative about Israel's treatment of Christians in the Holy Land, see:
link to huffingtonpost.com
Suspending recognition of Israel is both logical and reasonable.
Demanding Israel's "right to exist" has always been a major theme of the Zionist narrative, but what exactly does this mean?
The right to a Jewish National Home, or a Jewish State? The right to exist on 1948 Mandate Palestine or within pre-1967 borders? Does it mean the right to exist as a “Jewish” State or a “Democratic” State?
Even though Israelis themselves cannot agree on what this “right to exist” means, the dispossessed Palestinians must unilaterally declare "Israel’s" (whatever that means) “right to exist” (whatever that means), and the very legitimacy of their dispossession and expulsion WITHOUT qualification, before they can even be considered "worthy" of being spoken to?
But there can be NO discussion whatsoever about a reciprocal "recognition" of Palestine? Nor apparently can there be any reciprocity in the demand that the parties "renounce violence."
It is both illogical and unreasonable that Palestine's recognition must be conditioned upon "negotiations," but Israel's recognition must be unconditional even BEFORE negotiations?
The well-intentioned should not buy into these canards, nor should they be an obstacle to peace negotiations. Joint recognition will follow, not precede, agreement on borders and other issues.
Due to its overwhelming military might (as well as cover provided by the US for its actions), Israel has had no incentive to negotiate with the Palestinians in good faith.
Therefore, as it was with South Africa, the only non-violent currently available for changing Israel's calculus is BDS.
The irony here is that those working the hardest to get Israel to stop illegal settlement activity with these actions are actually the ones trying to save the two-state solution, and those blindly supporting the status quo are racing towards a one-state one.
Demographics being what they are, that one-state won't be Jewish.
When it comes to dispossessing the Palestinians of their land, there has been little meaningful difference between the Zionist "right" and the so-called Zionist "left."
While their "left" wing parties have been perceived to be less belligerent and more willing to reach a peaceful solution, their actual history paints a starkly different picture.
"Paying lip service to the division of Palestine while planning and propogating territorial expansionism has been the policy of the Labour party ever since the early days of the Zionist movement, sprinkled by sporadic attempts at giving up some of the territory in return for getting rid of as many Palestinian inhabitants as possible from under Israel's control in the process.
"Labour might have invented this double-tongues policy, but it has now been adopted by all the main powers in Israeli politics, from Kadima to Likud and even the radical mark on the right – Lieberman's Israel Beytenu...
"The fact of the matter is that Labour has supported all the wars Israel has waged, and actually ran and instigated most of them."
link to theguardian.com
While it's certainly true that "right" wing parties are often more openly "oppressive" towards the Palestinians, when it comes to "dispossessing" them of their land, there is (and always has been) a remarkable unity of purpose between the so-called "right" and "left" wings of the Zionist movement.