By MARTIN SHERMAN
The entire issue of “Palestinian national identity” is a giant hoax, intended to be no more than a temporary ruse, until the Jewish hold on sovereignty in the Holy Land—any part of the Holy Land—is prised loose.
We do not have a “dispute,” but a war—and confronting us is an enemy – Elyakim Haetzni, Arutz 7, January 23, 2018.
Enemy: [a person or group] that is antagonistic to another; especially: one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent – Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberation…This is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive…. We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors — if there are any — the boats are ready to deport them– Ahmed Shukeiry, Yasser Arafat’s predecessor, in a premature flush of triumph, just days prior to the Arabs’ crushing defeat in June 1967, before Israel held a square inch of “occupied territory”.
The war between Arab and Jew for control over the Holy Land has dragged on for well over 100 years. For the last seven decades, the Arab effort has focused on an attempt to first thwart the establishment of a sovereign Jewish-nation state, and then, when that failed, to destroy it.
“…we shall enter Palestine with its soil saturated in blood”
Up until the early 1970s, the Arab war effort principally comprised an endeavor to obliterate the Jewish presence by means of conventional military might, involving frontal assault and invasion by regular armies of sovereign state-actors.
Indeed, this brutal credo is perhaps best illustrated by the late Gamal Abdel Nasser’s pre-war bravado, when he threatened the gory obliteration of Israel—within its 1948 frontiers: “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood” (March 8, 1965).
With their Judeocidal efforts repeatedly frustrated and after the failure of the coordinated surprise attack against the Jewish state in October 1973, it seems that the Arabs began to despair of this unvarnished and unabashed use of conventional martial force.
Gradually, a more multi-faceted strategy of aggression emerged, which no longer portrayed Israel as easy prey to be crushed by overwhelming Arab might. This time, the major emphasis was on the role of non-state actors (i.e. terror organizations) and offensive diplomacy, designed to isolate Israel in the international arena and portray her as an ogre-like oppressor, whose every action of self-defense to protect its civilian population is excoriated as an unjustified and disproportionate use of force.
Attrition not invasion
Thus, although the overriding objective remained the same, i.e. the eradication of the Jewish state, the method by which this was to be achieved shifted from cataclysmic destruction by Arab armies to a process of ongoing attrition by means of political, diplomatic and economic beleaguerment; and asymmetrical warfare launched by non-state-actors.
The former was aimed at discrediting and delegitimizing Israel internationally so as to curtail, even cripple, its ability to effectively employ it military prowess to confront the latter, which was aimed at weakening national resolve and undermining national morale.
The clear goal of this was to erode Israel’s national resolve and coerce her into accepting perilous concessions that would make her eventual demise easier to achieve in the future.
(For anyone tempted to believe that the Sunni Arabs have been significantly swayed from this long-term objective because of their fear of ascendant Shia power, I would suggest the astute analysis by the prominent scholar of Islam, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, who cautions against falling prey to this seductive illusion.)
In this ongoing endeavor of attrition, and in which Keidar warns that “For both religious and nationalist reasons, the Arabs…are incapable of accepting Israel as the Jewish State that it is”, a leading role has been assigned to the Palestinian-Arabs.
“Palestinian identity” as a temporary ruse
The notion of a distinct collective identity for the Arabs, whose origins trace (or allegedly trace) to mandatory Palestine (herein under “Palestinian-Arabs”) began to emerge in the mid-1960s. This, according to some senior East European intelligence sources, was the brain child of the now defunct Soviet spy agency, the KGB, with the express purpose of damaging US and Israeli interests. (For some reports on collaboration between the KGB and the PLO—Palestinian Liberation Organization—in Judeocidal terror operations, including the involvement of the previous and present PLO heads, Arafat and Abbas—see for example here, here, and here.)
But, of course, one does not necessarily have to lend credence to allegations of the KGB generated origins of the PLO to grasp that the whole issue of “Palestinian national identity” is a giant hoax, intended to be no more than a temporary ruse, until the Jewish hold on sovereignty in the Holy Land—any part of the Holy Land—is prised loose.
For that, all one needs to do is to examine the deeds, declarations and documents of the Palestinian-Arabs themselves.
Perhaps the most explicit – but certainly by no means, the only – articulation of Arab design was that of the oft-quoted, but ne’er-repudiated, Zuheir Muhsein, former head of the PLO’s Military Department and a member of its Executive Council.
Spearhead against Jewish sovereignty
Muhsein underscores, quite unequivocally and unabashedly, that the contrived collective identity of the Palestinian-Arabs as a “national entity” is little more than a flimsy and openly admitted pretext to advance the wider Arab cause of eradicating the “Zionist entity”. He openly confesses: “The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel…. It is only for political and tactical reasons that we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”
He then starkly elucidated the rationale for a staged Arab strategy, and the crucial role the fictitious construct of a “Palestinian identity” had to play in implementing it: “For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheba and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”
It is thus clear, that as a collective, the Palestinian-Arabs comprise the spearhead in the Arab struggle against Jewish sovereignty.
It would be a grave error to dismiss this as merely the opinion of a single, long-forgotten Palestinian leader. Indeed, it is a view that, over the years, has been expressed by many Arabs, Palestinian or otherwise, from Farouk Kaddoumi to King Hussein.
More recently, it was baldly and brazenly articulated by Mahmoud Abbas himself, in his January 14 tirade before the PLO’s Central Council, where he spewed: “Israel is a colonial project that has nothing to do with Jews”.
Palestinian identity as a temporary anti-Israel ruse
But more important, it is a sentiment that permeates the entire Palestinian National Charter. For example, in Article 22, we read: “Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods.” And of course: “Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement”.
Moreover, this primal enmity is immutable and immune to the passage of time and predates the 1967 “occupation”. Thus, in Article 19 we read: “The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time…”
But no less significant—and revealing—is the proviso, expressed in Article 12, regarding the transient nature of Palestinian-Arab collective identity: “The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity...”
What could be more revealing than that?
After all, what other nation declares that its national identity is merely a temporary ploy to be “safeguarded” and “developed” for the “present stage” alone? Does any other nation view their national identity as so ephemeral and instrumental? The Italians? The Brazilians? The Turks? The Greeks? The Japanese? Of course, none of them do.
Correctly conceptualizing the conflict
It was eminent social psychologist, Kurt Leven, who wisely observed that: “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” After all, action without comprehension is a little like swinging a hammer without knowing where the nails are—and just as hazardous and harmful. In this regard, good theory creates understanding of cause and effect and hence facilitates effective policy.
Accordingly, to devise effective policy to contend with abiding Arab enmity, Israel must correctly conceptualize the conflict over the issue Jewish sovereignty in Holy Land.
In this regard, it should painfully clear that the conflict is one between two irreconcilable collectives: A Jewish collective and an Arab collective—for which, today, the Palestinian-Arab collective is its operational spearhead.
They are irreconcilable because the raison d’etre of the one is the preservation of Jewish political sovereignty in the Holy Land, while the raison d’etre of the other is to annul Jewish political sovereignty in the Holy Land. Therefore, for one to prevail, the other must be prevailed upon. With antithetical and mutually exclusive core objectives, only one can emerge victorious, with the other vanquished.
As a clash of collectives, whose outcome will be determined by collective victory or defeat, it cannot be personalized. The fate of individual members of one collective cannot be a deciding determinant of the policy of the rival collective—and certainly not a consideration that impacts the probability of collective victory or defeat.
An implacable enemy, not a prospective peace partner
To underscore the crucial importance of this seemingly harsh assessment, I would invite any Israeli to consider the consequences of Jewish defeat and Arab victory. A cursory survey of the gory regional realities should suffice to drive home the significance of what would accompany such an outcome. Accordingly, only once a decisive Jewish collective victory has been achieved, can the issue of individual injustice and suffering in the Arab collective be addressed as a policy consideration.
Indeed, had the imperative of collective victory not been the overriding factor of the Allies’ strategy in WWII, despite horrendous civilian causalities that it inflicted on the opposing collective, the world might well have be living in slavery today.
In weighing the question of the fate of individual members of the opposing collective, it is imperative to keep in mind that, while there are doubtless many Palestinian-Arabs with fine personal qualities and who wish no-one any harm, the Palestinian-Arab collective is not the hapless victim of radical terror groups. Quite the opposite. It is, in fact, the societal crucible in which they were forged, and from which they emerged. Its leadership is a reflection of, not an imposition on, Palestinian-Arab society.
The conclusion is thus unavoidable: The Palestinian-Arab collective must be considered an implacable enemy—not a prospective peace partner…and it must treated as such.
Accordingly, the provision of all goods and services that sustain it must be phased out over a clearly defined period of time. After all, what is the morality of sustaining your enemy if that only sustains its ability to wage war against you—prolonging the suffering on both sides!
Recognizing enmity is realism, not racism
These are, of course, harsh policy prescriptions, but at the end of the day, they will be unavoidable. Elsewhere, I have set out the principles for extricating the non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs from the severe humanitarian predicament they are likely to precipitate—chiefly by means of generous grants for relocation/rehabilitation in third party countries, out of the “circle of violence”.
Of course, the crucial point to realize here is that even the most moral and democratic societies can have enemies.
Recognizing such enmity—and the policies required to repel it—is not racism. It is merely realism.
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies
This is very great news that scientists are taking an interest and are making strides in meat, but in essence this means war and it will be impossible under capitalism to advance this in the way that will save species, because Big capitalist agriculture with all its angles, machinery, illegal immigrants, profit, will with their governments block it…So species like the Iberian Lynx are truly doomed under this truly evil system…capitalism and that is the long and short of it.
@Felix Quigley:
FYI: Israel is further along than California in the lab grown meat market:
https://futurism.com/china-signed-a-300-million-lab-grown-meat-deal-with-israel/
http://www.businessinsider.com/hampton-creek-lab-grown-meat-2017-6
Now, if they could just add horns to the mix, just like a lab-grown Shmoo, your dinner could scare off terrorists before it you eat it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo
https://www.amazon.com/Short-Life-Happy-Times-Shmoo/dp/1585674621
And, once again, life imitates art (I remember this favorite book from my early childhood.)
Right, Art?
@Felix Quigley a.k.a. “Homo Marginalis” ( “Marginal Man):
I wasn’t serious about you teaming up with Robin. Still, you might double your potential membership, double digits are nothing to sneer at in this opportunistic world. Worth thinking about. Perhaps not for profit lab-grown longhorns.
I enclosed the link to that entire passage. he says:” ” the facts of every passing day demonstrate to us that Zionism is incapable of resolving the Jewish question.” in the very passage you cite, for starters.” And from that you conclude he was a Zionist?
Sebastien Zorn writes.. (This is a horrific cut and paste and patch together exercise by Zorn)
“disclaimer by Trotsky before he hands down his expert opinion from Sinai: (Wow, talk about Chutzpah!):
“Before trying to answer your questions I ought to warn you that unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to learn the Jewish language, which moreover has been developed only since I became an adult. I have not had, and I do not have the possibility of following the Jewish press, which prevents me from giving a precise opinion on the different aspects of so important and tragic a problem. I cannot therefore claim any special authority in replying to your questions. Nevertheless I am going to try and say what I think about it.”
“On Biro-bidjan I can give you no more than my personal evaluations. I am not acquainted with this region and still less with the conditions in which the Jews have settled there. In any case it can be no more than a very limited experience.”
“But that does not mean that I have the right to be blind to the Jewish problem which exists and demands a solution. ”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/jewish.htm
Dishonest response by Zorn…
Wow, what a guy! Such self-sacrifice! He’s gonna enlighten his groupies anyhow. I’m all teary-eyed. Pass the popcorn.
I can just imagine handing in a paper with these disclaimers. “I didn’t do my homework, teach, but I’m still gonna tell you what to think out of the goodness of my heart so I deserve an A+.” ”
But the url which Zorn provides actually points out that this is coming from an interview given to members of the “Jewish Press”. In other words Trotsky was contacted by The Jewish Press. The meeting had to take place in Mexico because this was the only country in the world which allowed Trotsky with a visa.
Zorn tears the preliminary remarks by Trotsky out of context and tries to laugh at it all. But it was not a laughing matter. Trotsky was in a life and death struggle for his life against especially capitalism, Fascism and Stalinism. To any serious political person who is struggling int he world of today having your life threatened for your political views is no laughing matter.
The words of Trotsky come from 1937. It probably was mere months since Trotsky and his wife had arrived.
This places into context his remarks that Zorn laughs at.
On the other hand it also can be seen as kind of politeness. Saying perhaps this is my stab at an answer but it is by no means the last word. It was not arrogance but the opposite. Really a polite way into the discussion. Why the hatred and rudeness from Zorn is a mystery to me?
Having eased himself into the discussion and showing some tact and with the opposite of condescension on the part of Trotsky to Jews, not his members or friends, but the Jewish Press, not his groupies as Zorn says which is insulting in any case, but doubly so here in that Zorn fails to read his own provided article…There then follows three quite illuminating paragraphs in any persons language…but not in the language that Zorn speaks, because Zorn completely leaves them out (cuts them out) How sad and treacherous an approach to this difficult subject of politics.
The three paragraphs are…
“During my youth I rather leaned toward the prognosis that the Jews of different countries would be assimilated and that the Jewish question would thus disappear in a quasi-automatic fashion. The historical development of the last quarter of a century has not confirmed this perspective. Decaying capitalism has everywhere swung over to an exacerbated nationalism, one part of which is anti-semitism. The Jewish question has loomed largest in the most highly developed capitalist country of Europe, in Germany.
On the other hand the Jews of different countries have created their press and developed the Yiddish language as an instrument adapted to modern-culture. One must therefore reckon with the fact that the Jewish nation will maintain itself for an entire epoch to come. Now the nation cannot normally exist without a common territory. Zionism springs from this very idea. But the facts of every passing day demonstrate to us that Zionism is incapable of resolving the Jewish question. The conflict between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine acquires a more and more tragic and more and more menacing character. I do not at all believe that the Jewish question can be resolved within the framework of rotting capitalism and under the control of British imperialism.
And how, you ask me, can socialism solve this question? On this point I can but offer hypotheses. Once socialism has become master of our planet or at least of its most important sections, it will have unimaginable resources in all domains. Human history has witnessed the epoch of great migrations on the basis of barbarism. Socialism will open the possibility of great migrations on the basis of the most developed technique and culture. It goes without saying that what is here involved is not compulsory displacements, that is, the creation of new ghettos for certain nationalities, but displacements freely consented to, or rather demanded by certain nationalities or parts of nationalities. The dispersed Jews who would want to be reassembled in the same community will find a sufficiently extensive and rich spot under the sun. The same possibility will be opened for the Arabs, as for all other scattered nations. National topography will become a part of the planned economy . This is the grand historical perspective that I envisage. To work for international socialism means also to work for the solution of the Jewish question.”
This represents a complete break with the old policy, really since Marx, so a very long time, of assimilation of Jews.
Trotsky is here pointing the way, in 1937, clearly to Israel (the founding of the Jewish Homeland) although as the great biographer Joseph Nedava pointed out he was not destined to see it.
In that sense I have always maintained, now for many years, as did Nedava too in his own perspective, that Trotsky was a “Zionist” but a Zionist in a very special way…He was a Zionist from the standpoint of being a Marxist, Communist, Socialist.
Like Trotsky I am imbued with the feeling that capitalism is unable to solve the basic needs of humanity, and not being species driven, of life in general.
In that way I am a Zionist not from a religious viewpoint, as many Jews indeed also are the same, but from a standpoint based on the science of Marxism.
The last paragraph in this triplet of paragraphs, few words, very succinct, refers to how we as socialists do hold the banner of socialism as being the answer to the deep problems we are facing. It is of very general application. But SAYING that is not the end of the matter. It has to be fought for.
I have said enough here but I suspect that Zorn will ignore all of that in order to splice some more, some poor unsuspecting sentence out of context…but what can you do?
Her mentions Robin. In fact I made it clear that I was opposed to his project of long horn cattle because it was aimed at profit, and also that I asked him did it mean growing the cattle in order to kill them. I thereby opposed above all else on that basis. In California man has learned to create real meat without animals. I fight for that future not the future of Robin. Plus he did not answer my question!
Having answered these childish attempts at distortion of truth by Sebastien Zorn I will probably leave the matter to rest.
@ Bear Klein:
I am in complete agreement.
@ Felix Quigley:
Can’t think of a context that would justify those quotes. Care to supply one?
This form of tearing of quotes out of their context is just being very silly. Nobody wins. It is these kinds of untruths that have done great harm to the whole narrative. There is need for a really thorough examination of this period, even though it is long ago the memory of it today is still full of meaning. It is not Sebastien. He is a very tiny part of the wholesale lies against Trotsky from left and right and all of it militates against the truth. But setting the record straight is no small task!
Disclaimer by Trotsky before he hands down his expert opinion from Sinai: (Wow, talk about Chutzpah!):
“Before trying to answer your questions I ought to warn you that unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to learn the Jewish language, which moreover has been developed only since I became an adult. I have not had, and I do not have the possibility of following the Jewish press, which prevents me from giving a precise opinion on the different aspects of so important and tragic a problem. I cannot therefore claim any special authority in replying to your questions. Nevertheless I am going to try and say what I think about it.”
“On Biro-bidjan I can give you no more than my personal evaluations. I am not acquainted with this region and still less with the conditions in which the Jews have settled there. In any case it can be no more than a very limited experience.”
“But that does not mean that I have the right to be blind to the Jewish problem which exists and demands a solution. ”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/jewish.htm
Wow, what a guy! Such self-sacrifice! He’s gonna enlighten his groupies anyhow. I’m all teary-eyed. Pass the popcorn.
I can just imagine handing in a paper with these disclaimers. “I didn’t do my homework, teach, but I’m still gonna tell you what to think out of the goodness of my heart so I deserve an A+.”
@Michael S.
I am, though, reminded of the Hopi Changee prophecies.
Felix Quigley Said:
If you get together with Robin and starting promoting the idea of raising Longhorn cattle, you could go from 1 to to 2 to 6 and maybe even 12 people in no time! He could be your Lysenko.
Talk about change?
Sorry, buddy, I can’t spare it.
Felix Quigley Said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX0FQkeTs4Q
Felix Quigley Said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY
Gee, I can’t understand why there’s no Trot party in Israel either.
Can anybody explain it to me?
Korea, of course, has many Trot fans. Tradition.
https://www.viki.com/tv/23611c-trot-lovers?locale=en
Guys a sense of humour is a good thing indeed and keeps us sane but unfortunately it is not going to effect any changes. I just by the way refuse to read anything which is a single sentence…context is everything my dear boy context.
You can take it from me that this is a very complicated story when you go into the positions of these old socialists.
The problem is that this story needs to be tackled in a very systematic manner. So I have learned and will not start here. But it will return.
The problem is that Martin does not have a party. There must be a party even of six people.
But the question is raised immediately on what to base that party. I am thinking here in terms of Jewish nationalism and not of Trotskyism hope that is understood. But indeed I am building the Trotskyist leadership.
I think what Martin stands for is the direct opposite of Bennett. Bennett is the antithesis of Martin. Bennett is for the integration of Muslim Arabs that is Palestinians into the single state of Israel.
I think Martin is much closer to a party like Britain First and so am I.
But they are called “fascist” and I answer that is fake news.
I see a real party of Jewish nationalism being along those Britain First lines. the thing is that in order to put that programme, the programme in the general line of Martins articles, that it is necessary to gain the power of the state of Israel. Above all Bennett must be defeated.
the concept of the integration of Arabs into the State is the worst possible concept.
But the thing is only with a party and the stated programme of a party, can that be achieved.
I would take part in such a party because a central quality of such a party would be that there would be totally free discussion. In such a situation the ideas of Trotskyism would be on a winner because the ideas of Trotskyism are an aspect of the truth in every situation. And just imagine if there was a proper history taught in such a party about Jews in the Russian Revolution. Why did they join in huge numbers and one of the answers can be found in the numbers of Whites who defeated in the Civil War 1918 to 1922 aprox. went on to Germany to link up with Hitler and in many ways form the backbone of Nazism to create the Holocaust of the Jews in a couple of decades.
My answer is form a party and create an education programme in its membership with full freedom of discussion. And I can only hint at what the content of education would be.
@ Michael S:
Niagara Falls? Answer: Trotsky
I realize you’ve got your own mania but does any of this sound even sane especially after all that has passed?
Trotsky On the Jewish Question (1937-40)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/jewish.htm
@ Felix Quigley:
Felix,
Since I was alluded to in your post, I acknowledge that I have read it. As usual, your comment is”
“Trotsky is the answer to [Name a question, any question].
Poverty? Answer: Trotsky
Phlebitis? Answer: Trotsky
Depression, anxiety? Answer: Trotsky
Palestinian madness? Answer: Trotsky
I think I have the drift.
Felix Quigley Said:
“I am, it is understood, opposed to Zionism and all such forms of self-isolation on the part of the Jewish workers. I call upon the Jewish workers of France to better acquaint themselves with the problems of French life and of the French working class.” – Leon Trotsky
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/xx/jewish.htm
How’s your French, Felix?
Oh, or should we not take Trotsky at his word, either, maybe?
How should we take you?
@ Felix Quigley:
So, what’s your useful contribution? Have you identified the mechanism for change? Please share it with us lowly plebes.
Dear Martin…Look very closely at the three responses above this on Israpundit and you will see the depths of this problem. Look at them the three stooges repeating tired old cliches…such as
“Martin, is very correct they are the enemy and as a whole they want to destroy Israel if they had the chance.
The conflict is a zero sum conflict and Israel needs the will power to win the conflict.”
(First response to weighty Sherman article by somebody named Bear Klein)
Well I will be dammed who would ever have guessed…you waste of space and time…ever since Israpundit was set up all those years ago…must be 15 years…that was totally and completely well known and totally accepted…you tired old things you!
Complete and utter waste of space.
Say something useful for a change such as how are you going to change the situation in favour of Israel?
There is something very deeply missing in this missive from Martin and that is the need and absence of the Trotskyist Party in Israel.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
[These words are also inscribed upon his grave]”
? Karl Marx, Eleven Theses on Feuerbach
There is no mechanism for change in Martin because he relies on…well nothing really…for change.
Yes, exactly.
I agree, Bear. The Pals are enemies. They aren’t “peace partners”, any more than Hitler was.
Martin, is very correct they are the enemy and as a whole they want to destroy Israel if they had the chance.
The conflict is a zero sum conflict and Israel needs the will power to win the conflict.