+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The road to nuclear disarmament runs through Israel-Palestine

By fully backing the Israeli side, the Trump administration is not only making reconciliation with the Palestinians impossible, it is delaying the nuclear disarmament of the entire Middle East.

By Paul R. Pillar

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a press conference on the Iran nuclear program at the Kirya defense headquarters in Tel Aviv, April 30, 2018. (Miriam Alster/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a press conference on the Iran nuclear program at the Kirya defense headquarters in Tel Aviv, April 30, 2018. (Miriam Alster/Flash90)

The significance of the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been the subject of tendentious argumentation. The right-wing government of Israel, not wanting to relinquish the conquered land whose relinquishment would be necessary for peace, often contends, along with its sympathizers, that peace in that conflict doesn’t really matter much anymore.

The region has become preoccupied with other things, goes the argument, and even most Arabs care less about the Palestinians’ situation than about other problems. The kernels of truth in the argument are that the Middle East does indeed have many other troubles independent of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that many Arab governments haven’t exactly been steadfast in upholding the interests of their Palestinian brethren.

Every now and then, however, comes evidence of how the nationalist aspirations of the Palestinians cannot be ignored or extinguished — any more than the comparable aspirations of other people — and of how people living in intolerable conditions will make the limits of their toleration known. The most recent such reminder has been the series of demonstrations, in the face of lethal Israeli force, by residents of the Gaza Strip. Even considered apart from other issues, therefore, the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a significant source of violence and instability.

That leaves the question of how that conflict does or does not contribute to other security problems in the region. Those following the Israeli government line often employ the straw-man argument that not all of those problems stem from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course they don’t, but this fact is not inconsistent with this conflict being a substantial contributor to regional tension and insecurity. And some of the Israeli government’s own positions underscore this linkage.

SUBSCRIBE TO +972 MAGAZINE'S WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

SUBMIT

Consider the issue of nuclear weapons. Most of the states of the region have actively supported diplomacy aimed at making the Middle East a nuclear-weapons-free zone. Israel, backed by the United States and now especially by the Trump administration, has opposed this diplomacy and looked for ways to impede it. These lines of contention were apparent this spring at a preparatory meeting for the next quinquennial review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Israel argues that restrictions on nuclear weapons cannot be considered in isolation from other regional security issues. On the face of it, that is a valid argument, given the possible role of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against perceived non-nuclear threats. But Israel and its U.S. backer define the stumbling block in more Israel-specific terms. The Trump administration’s representative at the preparatory committee meeting spoke of many ostensible and vaguely worded reasons to slow-roll diplomacy on a regional nuclear-weapons-free zone, but the specific problem he singled out was “the non-recognition of Israel by some regional states.”

Any talk of recognition or non-recognition of Israel should immediately evoke the Arab League Peace Initiative, which has been on the table since 2002 and commits all the Arab states to recognition of, and peace with, the State of Israel contingent on a withdrawal from occupied territories and a just settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem.

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump join King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, and the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Sunday, May 21, 2017, to participate in the inaugural opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump join King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, and the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Sunday, May 21, 2017, to participate in the inaugural opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Subsequent modification of the initiative has made clear the Arabs’ acceptance of land swaps that would not require rigid adherence to boundaries that existed prior to the 1967 war. Saudi Arabia took the lead in constructing this peace proposal. The initiative is still on the table. Despite the dalliance with Israel of de facto Saudi ruler Mohammed bin Salman and reports that he is willing to throw Palestinians under the bus as he pursues his own agenda, his government still subscribes to the terms of the initiative.

Let’s review the bidding. The construction of a regional nuclear-weapons-free zone is said to require recognition of an important regional state — a state especially relevant to anything having to do with nuclear weapons — that is not currently recognized by some other regional states. Fair enough: it would be hard to arrive at a strong and effective arms-control agreement without the key players dealing with each other normally as nation-states. Full recognition requires the players in question to recognize the national rights of all other players and not to occupy someone else’s territory indefinitely. Also fair: amid much talk about recognizing Israel’s right to exist, it surely is just as reasonable to insist on recognizing the Palestinians’ right to exist.

The conclusion: the unresolved Israel-Palestinian conflict is one of the major factors preventing an effective region-wide prohibition of nuclear weapons.

President Donald Trump (Joyce N. Boghosian/White House photo)

President Donald Trump (Joyce N. Boghosian/White House photo)

That the Trump administration has gone all in with the Israeli government’s wishes while continuing to claim for itself the principal mediator’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute augurs very badly for any settlement of the conflict in the foreseeable future. The pessimism is only accentuated when taking into account the personal and financial interests of would-be U.S. mediators that make it understandable for Palestinian leaders to reject them as hopelessly biased. The kind of suffering that has played out in Gaza and along the Gaza fence is one reason to regret the dim prospects for peace on this issue.

Deleterious spillover effects on other issues such as the control of nuclear weapons constitute another reason for regret. This is all the more so since Trump set out to destroy the most effective Middle Eastern arms control agreement in recent years — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which has closed all the pathways to a possible Iranian nuclear weapon. If the JCPOA were to survive, it would provide a model for major elements of any Middle East nuclear-weapons-free zone.

Paul R. Pillar is non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and an Associate Fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy. He retired in 2005 from a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community. His latest book, published in 2016, is ‘Why America Misunderstands the World.’ This article was first published on Lobelog.com.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Bruce Gould

      Wait a minute, Mr. Pillar….are you saying Israel hasn’t done anything to pursue the Arab Peace Initiative that was put on the table in 2002?! You’re not saying that Israel just thinks the conflict can be managed indefinitely, are you?

      Reply to Comment
    2. Hello

      But what does it mean to “recognize Israel”? What is “Israel”? Is it the state we see today, or is it the state plus West Bank and Golan, or is it The Land of Israel from Qatar to Gaza and from Golan to Sinai?

      Reply to Comment
      • Ido

        Israel is the country of the Jewish people, re-established on their historic homeland. The borders of said country can be negotiated, as the multiple peace offers to the Palestinians suggest.
        ‘Recognizing Israel’ means recognizing the legitimacy of Israel’s existence, something both Palestinian factions refuse to accept as it goes against their stated goals of Israel’s demise.
        Recognizing Israel’s legitimate existence will in effect put an end to Hamas’ “Jihad” and Fatah’s Phased Plan. Not recognizing Israel’s legitimacy is the core justification of Palestinian terrorist organizations like Hamas to continue their “jihad” against Israel.
        For example last year both Fatah and Hamas leaderships agreed that Israel has no right to exist and they don’t recognize Israel as a legitimate country and as a result “”Every grain of soil in Palestine is ours”, naturally “Palestine” means all of Israel, from the River to the Sea:
        http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=20747

        Reply to Comment
        • Bruce Gould

          @Ido, you live in a country built on the ashes of another society. You might say the same thing about my country, but there is at least one big difference: in your country the ashes are still warm.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            And how many countries aren’t ? why are you ignoring everything from the fact that Jews also lived in that country, the existence of the British Mandate and who actually ruled said region, the Partition Plan, the promise of the re-establishment of a Jewish country in Palestine and how the ashes are the result of said society and their brethren attempt to destroy my country and murder my people. Something they tried multiple times. Minor details, I know.

            You post elegantly ignored the fact that the Palestinian leadership still calls for the elimination of my country and the murder of my people, how they refuse to accept its legitimate existence.
            Also if you want to see actual ashes that are still warm, read about what the Syrians did to the Palestinians in Yarmouk and there the Palestinians didn’t try to murder Syrians or take over the country.

            Reply to Comment
          • mig

            ” re-establishment of a Jewish country in Palestine” Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” HMG regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine. In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development.”

            It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the Organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its Government.

            Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.

            So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty’s Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by (he Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Reino and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change. https://uniteapps.un.org/dpa/dpr/unispal.nsf/0/F2CA0EE62B5680ED852570C000591BEB

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine” – lie. Most of the British Mandate of Palestine was already carved out to be a new Arab state, Transjordan. Whatever was left was going to be divided between another Arab state and a Jewish state.
            “Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.”” – An edited out of context quote, the full quote is “”Mr. Lansing, the American Secretary of State, called me over and asked me: ‘What do you mean by a Jewish National Home?’ That opened the door to us, and Mr. Lansing’s intervention rendered us a very great service. I defined the Jewish national home to mean the creation of an administration which would arise out of the national conditions of the country — always safeguarding the interests of non-Jews of the country — with the hope that by Jewish immigration Palestine would ultimately become as Jewish as England is English” – Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error Page 305.
            Why did you distort the quote by removing “always safeguarding the interests of non-Jews of the country” ?
            “the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine” – there is no such a thing as a distinct Palestinian people in history (until they were created in the 60’s) or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. Nor was there ever a state called Palestine.
            “re-establishment of a Jewish country in Palestine” – Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people. It already existed in the past, hence re-establishment.
            ““the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development” – a single state would have been a big mistake though, sadly the Arabs decided to try and murder the Jews instead of accepting the Partition Plan later on.
            I believe even the Palestinian president is on record admitting that was a stupid mistake.
            “Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian” – exactly. “Palestinians” were never a nationality but the name of residents of the region called “Palestine”.

            Your quoting the (first) British White Paper, of June 1922. You’re neglecting to mention the Jews approved, even though it took away land that was previously promised to them, while the Arabs rejected it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            So we have a mountain of tireless propaganda from Ido Geller that includes the idea that the incoming Zionists, before or after 1948, actually ever lived up to “always safeguarding the interests of non-Jews of the country.” Who does Ido Geller think he is kidding? Then following on that we get a tireless and blatant denial of the Palestinian right of self-determination (which right he would never, ever deny to Jews)—and this by the same guy who wants to tout “always safeguarding the interests of non-Jews of the country.” The brazenness, the chutzpah is really quite amazing. But when you are constantly making stuff up you lose track of how you contradict yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            The misleading and out of context quote was about a future Israel created in the geographic region known as Palestine, which will include non-Jews.
            Seems to be a very popular lie on anti-Zionist sites.
            And despite Israel not being perfect, like any other country in the world including yours, Israel does keep the rights of non-Jews in Israel as dictated by the country’s democratic laws.
            Ask Arabs living in Israel if they prefer to live anywhere else in the Middle-East including the PA and Gaza.
            “the Palestinian right of self-determination” – not what I said, liar. I stated facts: there is no such a thing as a distinct Palestinian people in history (until they were created in the 60’s) or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. Nor was there ever a state called Palestine.
            This has nothing to do with any right of self-determination. The Palestinians exist today and they have every right to self determination which Israel agreed upon officially. You seem to have ignored the part where the Palestinian leadership, both factions, do not accept the legitimate existence of Israel and consider all of Israel as theirs.
            “The brazenness, the chutzpah is really quite amazing” – as if I needed any more proof that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
            “But when you are constantly making stuff up” – hilarious coming from the clueless liar who as I proved numerous times on this site has idea what he’s talking about. I actually made lists of your more hilarious lies and invented nonsense which you of course ignored repeatedly.
            I’ll post them again here, on this technological marvel of a site it will probably take 4 days or so to appear.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Be, here are some examples of your lies, invented nonsense, clueless hilarious mistakes, etc.

            This comments section has a detailed list of your lies:
            https://972mag.com/how-gazas-return-march-can-elevate-the-one-state-movement/135870/

            Another with a detailed list of your lies and errors:
            https://972mag.com/palestinian-poet-convicted-of-inciting-terror-in-facebook-poem/135087/

            Some more:
            https://972mag.com/youre-far-more-likely-to-be-killed-protesting-in-gaza-than-firing-a-rocket/134952/
            https://972mag.com/thousands-of-israelis-palestinians-mark-memorial-day-together/134779/

            I can go on as you are well aware. Would you like me to ?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Oh nooo!!! Not that!!! Anything but that!!! The dreaded list of “your lies, invented nonsense, clueless hilarious mistakes”!!!! Aaauuughh!!! Stop!!! I beg you, stop!!!! LoL.

            Reply to Comment
          • mig

            Ben, as you know, Ido is trapped in zionist propaganda. We can’t hardly blame on him since these are the stories he has heard since childhood. Funny how we can’t read those promises from original Palestine Mandate documents.

            “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            MIG, your ignorance and denial of reality do not turn easily verified facts into “propaganda”.
            If you have no idea about the Balfour Declaration and the Partition Plan, and I’m assuming you have no idea about the MacMahon correspondence regarding the Arabs, I suggest you go educate yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Mig, yes, I know. But Ido is also trapped by bad habits. That he would have to accept responsibility for and want to change. He is not a helpless victim of brainwashing. As you can see he is wont to say “you have no idea about” [whatever it is under argument], and thinks this is an acceptable argument. Ido also seems to think a “fact” is an argument. And that ad hominems are an argument. As far as I can tell. Bad habits are very hard to change.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Another sad, pernicious habit: Make up a “fact” that is not really a fact, but a contentious and misleading interpretation. But insist it is a complete, sufficient and verifiable “fact.” Based on selective quotations, ripping from context, leaving out swathes of context, distortions, whatever. The more belabored, confused and historically complicated the better. Then, when your interlocutor disagrees with your “fact,” call him a “liar.” Or a “clueless liar,” or if you’re really out to make a point, “a hilarious, clueless liar who has no idea what he is talking about.” Do this over and over. And find it “hilarious.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “Make up a “fact” that is not really a fact” – why are you lying about this again ? when the evidence is right there ? when links filled with facts you so far have not been able to refute once are right there ?
            you think lying about this repeatedly will somehow make all the facts I posted disappear ? I literally posted videos of the Palestinian leadership contradicting your nonsense to your face, historic facts based on easily verified evidence that you never touched, pointed how you have no clue about basic historic facts over and over again with cited sources and you continue to lie about this. Amazing.
            “but a contentious and misleading interpretation” – and another. Evidence based facts are not ‘interpretation’. Hey, at least you didn’t call your clueless nonsense “critique” again, that was comedy gold.
            “Based on selective quotations” – prove it. Go ahead. Which of the quotes I posted is out of context ? selective ? for example I Proved Mig’s quote was a misleading edit and provided proof. Go right ahead.
            “disagrees with your “fact,” call him a “liar.”” – again lying about lying, amazing. Nope, I literally listed where you lied, very clearly so, in the links above. Showing what you said and where the opposite was said or happened, very, very clearly so. Amazing.
            “And find it “hilarious.”” – What can I say, I find your lying clueless easily refutable nonsense entertaining. I admit it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Ben, point to any fact I stated and prove me wrong. Go right ahead.
            Also hard not to notice how you ignored the huge evidence of you being a clueless liar who has no idea what he’s talking about 7 posts above. You think doing this will somehow make it all go away ?
            Saying that you’re “trapped” by your lying clueless nonsense would be an understatement since there is so much evidence proving it, see the first 2 lists in the links comment section above.
            “he is wont to say “you have no idea about”” – yes and let’s neglect the part where I actually prove how you’re clueless in detail.
            “thinks this is an acceptable argument” – why are you lying about this nonsense again ? why are you ignoring the huge amount of evidence proving, in great detail, how you’re a clueless liar ?
            “And that ad hominems are an argument” – still mad that I called you a ‘Useful Idiot’ I see. Apparently you still have no idea what that means.
            “Bad habits are very hard to change.” – nearly choked from laughing so hard. Said the pathological liar (see the evidence above) who keeps posting clueless easily to refute lying nonsense. Naturally you ignored every fact I stated in my posts here as well.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Nope. You clearly do what I say you do, Ido. It is quite evident to anyone honest about these matters. They’re all either “facts” that are not really facts, but contentious and misleading interpretations or half-truths or 64th-truths or whatever, or they are facts taken in meaningless isolation, about which unwarranted, overconfident conclusions are drawn with unwarranted bravado. (And unwarranted ad hominem to a degree that is actually embarrassing, for you. But you’re always the last to know.) And tedious to disentangle and explain. It all amounts to propaganda, Mig is right, and yes, there is a perseverative, limited, trapped quality about you. There is also, I might add, a weird, over-invested emotivism about you (“nearly choked from laughing so hard”) that belies your false confidence. You have a very immature style.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “You clearly do what I say you do, Ido. It is quite evident to anyone honest about these matters” – hilarious, the links are right there, 9 posts above, with detail lists of your lies and clueless nonsense.
            I have no idea why you would think saying “no it isn’t!” when the evidence is right there is anything but childish stupidity but here we are again. This is amazing.
            Are you going to ask “the people” to ignore the evidence ? remember when you did that ? I nearly had an aneurysm from laughing so hard.
            “They’re all either “facts” that are not really facts” – why are you lying again when the evidence is shoved in your face over and over again ?
            Let’s start with the first detailed list of your mistakes and lying nonsense (last comment in the comments section), please by all means, which one is wrong:
            https://972mag.com/how-gazas-return-march-can-elevate-the-one-state-movement/135870/

            “but contentious and misleading interpretations” – again: which ones ? prove it. Show it. Why are you having such a hard time with this ?
            “actually embarrassing, for you” – this is insane. your lying nonsense, in great detail, is right there. Why are you lying to yourself like this ?
            “It all amounts to propaganda” – again: prove it. Which fact is wrong ? which quote is out of context ? why are you ignoring these questions repeatedly ? how are you not aware this makes you look like a joke ?
            “You have a very immature style” – oh yes, repeatedly providing detailed evidence how you’re a clueless liar who has no idea what he’s talking about is “immature”. This is some good stuff. Not your best, but still good.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Mig, never said it wasn’t nor is it relevant to my post. The Balfour Declaration is also pre-Mandate (1917). I provided it and the Partition Plan as facts proving my point, please explain how this is “propaganda”.
            Why are you ignoring this ? why did you use a misleading edited quote ? why did you ignore the rest of my post ? how the Jews approved the White Paper of 1922, even though it took away land that was previously promised to them, while the Arabs rejected it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Well. How often do you see someone say something so simplistic and shallow as “I provided the Balfour Declaration and the Partition Plan as facts proving my point”? It encapsulates Ido’s whole style. The Balfour Declaration and the Partition Plan are “facts proving my point.” This would be Ido’s standard of “proof” and his level of argumentation. In a nutshell.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Ben, first it’s hilarious that you completely ignored the post addressed to you with the ton of evidence showing how you’re a clueless liar who has no idea what he’s talking about but can’t say that’s surprising.
            Denial of reality is your forte as evident here as well.
            Second, you call providing evidence about the British promise to re-establish the state of Israel and the actual deed of doing so, you know, what I actually said, as “simplistic and shallow”.
            This is amazing to me. Really. Providing undeniable evidence for a point I made, which you could not refute is “simplistic and shallow”. This is even more childish than your “no you didn’t!” when I provide evidence about you lying or talking ridiculous nonsense and you ignore it.

            “It encapsulates Ido’s whole style” – well, for once you are correct. Providing evidence for what I’m saying is definitely my style. Like yours is repeatedly ignoring evidence shoved in your face over and over again or lying repeatedly as the evidence I posted above clearly show.

            “This would be Ido’s standard of “proof” and his level of argumentation” – Ye,! providing proof about the British promise to re-create Israel has nothing to do with the British promise to re-create Israel. Same with the actual deed.
            As if I needed more proof that you’re a joke.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Ido dear, one feels as if one is talking to a madman here. Who keeps talking with supremely deluded confidence about “evidence” that doesn’t exist.

            Ido: “it’s hilarious that you completely ignored the post addressed to you with the ton of evidence showing how….”

            But this construction, including your hilarity, depends, does it not, upon the proposition that the post showed what you think it does? Since it doesn’t, and it accomplishes this non-showing verbosely and tediously, why would I not ignore it? And why does that not make your hilarity funny in a way you had not intended?

            Now, exactly what non-trivial proposition did you “prove” simply by producing the fact of the Balfour Declaration? If you think you made that even minimally evident to anyone, well, you did not. It is not our fault that we expect an actual substantive argument about something and we expect it stated with coherence. It seems not to occur to you that simply noting the mere fact of the Balfour Declaration “proves” nothing about these complex historical matters.

            This would be a classic example of Ido doing what, on July 3, above, I say he does.

            Ido: ‘“It encapsulates Ido’s whole style” – well, for once you are correct.’

            Yes I am correct, and you are admitting, whether you know it or not, apparently you don’t, that I have been correct all along.

            And ‘Duh’, below, gets at the same phenomenon, when he reminds you that “It’s comical to say the Zionists (not “the Jews”) accepted the loss of Transjordan….”

            You basically stated as “fact” that “the Jews accepted the loss of Transjordan.” ‘Duh’ reminds you that it was the Zionists, not “the Jews” who “accepted” this (distortion #1), and that to say they “accepted” this is a kind of distortion (#2), propaganda, since it may be a “fact” but it is, as I said to you elsewhere, one of those contextless “facts taken in meaningless isolation, about which unwarranted, overconfident conclusions are drawn with unwarranted bravado.”

            Case closed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Ben, the links are right there. The evidence is right there in great detail. Saying again ‘no evidence exists’ is literally insane.
            This goes beyond denial of reality. This is crazy.
            “does it not, upon the proposition that the post showed what you think it does” – no, liar. It means you ignored a post again listing your lies in detail. Listing your clueless nonsense in detail.
            “why would I not ignore it?” – apparently coming to terms with the fact that you’re a clueless liar who has no idea what he’s talking about is not very pleasant.
            “Now, exactly what non-trivial proposition did you “prove”” – It’s insane that I need to repeat this for a 4th time. A promise by the British for the re-establishment of the Jewish state in the region called Palestine, the historic homeland of the Jewish nation. As I recall a nation you claimed doesn’t exist, see the list of your more clueless nonsense in the links above.

            “mere fact of the Balfour Declaration “proves” nothing” – yes, the actual promise of the British to re-create Israel has nothing to do with the promise of the British to recreate Israel. This is twilight zone lunacy. I love it.
            “I have been correct all along” – I have no idea why you would think lying again about this does anything besides showing how you’re a joke. Especially when I linked quite a few posts above showing in great detail how you repeatedly lie, make easily to prove mistakes and generally have very little grasp of what is discussed.
            All backed by evidence, lots of it, that you didn’t refute. Which you repeatedly ignore.
            “You basically stated as “fact” that “the Jews accepted the loss of Transjordan” – I provided evidence that what I said regarding the promise of the British, the re-establishment of Israel, is 100% correct. Evidence you for some reason can’t seem to grasp or understand.
            Just like I provided evidence that you’re a clueless liar which you now ignored for a 5th time.
            ” ‘Duh’ reminds you that it was the Zionists, not “the Jews”” – As I recall the ‘Zionists’ were Jews and they represented the Jewish people in Palestine and the country in question was the Jewish country, built on the historic homeland of the Jewish people. If this is confusing to you I’ll be more specific.
            It’s not a distortion, liar. You knew exactly what I meant.
            “and that to say they “accepted” this is a kind of distortion” – no it isn’t, liar. In fact the Partition Plan was accepted as well on a smaller scale. Guess who rejected it and tried to genocide the other side ?
            ““facts taken in meaningless isolation, about which unwarranted” – again: which ones ? prove it. I listed all your clueless lying nonsense in great detail, why are you ignoring it ? why is this so difficult for you ?

            “Case closed.” – as always I like it when you close a post with a great joke. The evidence filled links pointing exactly where you lied, where you had no idea what you’re talking about, where you showed how clueless you are are right there for you to respond to.
            Why do you ignore it over and over again ?

            Reply to Comment
          • duh

            It’s comical to say the Zionists (not “the Jews”) accepted the loss of Transjordan. Britain could’ve confined the “Jewish national home” to the city-state of Tel-Aviv and Weizmann, et. al would still have no choice but to kiss their butts.

            Reply to Comment
          • mig

            “Mig, never said it wasn’t nor is it relevant to my post.” Don’t know what you are talking about. “The Balfour Declaration is also pre-Mandate (1917).” Indeed. “I provided it and the Partition Plan as facts proving my point, please explain how this is “propaganda”.” I could but you wouldn’t understand it.
            “Why are you ignoring this ? why did you use a misleading edited quote ?” Of what? “why did you ignore the rest of my post ?” Tired reading same nonsense year after year. “how the Jews approved the White Paper of 1922” Nonsense. “even though it took away land that was previously promised to them” Never was promised in official documents. How can someone who doesn’t have ownership to the land give it to someone else. “while the Arabs rejected it.” Yeah, anyone would have done the same. Someone comes to your country and demand half of it, and would give it away without resistance. Ido, give your brain a chance.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Mig: “Don’t know what you are talking about” – I said the British did something and provided evidence for it. Also mentioned the actual resolution to re-created a country for the Jewish people in Palestine, the Partition Plan.
            “I could but you wouldn’t understand it” – of course you could. Please by all means, go right ahead.
            “Of what?” – not only did I point which quote that was, I posted the full unedited quote and its source. I have no idea why are you playing dumb.
            “Tired reading same nonsense year after year” – I bet. The cognitive dissonance of knowing evidence based facts are contradicting your nonsense must be exhausting.
            “Nonsense” – so you had no idea the Zionist leadership accepted the 1922 White Paper ?
            Like I said, educate yourself: from the book ‘Dictionary Of Modern Arab History’ by Robin Bidwell page 116, regarding the 1922 White Paper:
            “The Zionists accepted the White Paper, the Arab leaders rejected it”. He also provided quotes and historic evidence.
            “How can someone who doesn’t have ownership to the land give it to someone else” – they can if they are the official ruling body of said land and they have the backing support of the international community which lead to the Partition Plan which was based on actual land ownership and population allocation.
            You are aware Jews lived there as well and owned land, right ?
            “Someone comes to your country and demand half of it” – there was no “Palestinian country”, this is a historic fabrication. The region was under the control of the British Mandate. Since 1917 Palestine had been under the control of Britain, which supported the creation of a Jewish state.
            Jews lived on land they owned, most of the so called arab “Palestinians” were relatively newcomers to the region and you can easily see this today based on their tribal surnames, indicating their tribal origin.
            Just like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan were created by the similarly ruling Mandates of The British and the French.
            The partition plan was based on the existing demographics, the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly had strong support in Western nations as well as the Soviet Union and it was based on a very legitimate concept: areas that were majority Jewish were to be part of Israel and have a Jewish government.
            Areas that were majority Arab were to be a second Arab state in Palestine (after Jordan) with an Arab government.

            Reply to Comment
    3. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter