If you’re going to shout slogans, at least know what you’re talking about. Because peddling lies helps no one, least of all the people you claim to support.
It only takes a passing knowledge of Latin or Romance languages to recognize that the construction of the name “Palestine” is Roman. Not Arabic. They can’t even pronounce “Palestine”.
Chaos is a ladder and at the top of the ladder you'll find Qatar and the Al-thanis who have bought and paid their way to sow fear confusion and...chaos.
Thank you so much for your brilliant and accurate essay......of course didn't started October 7th, 2023, the worst part is that lots of people sided with terrorists murderers, rapists, kidnnappers.....and after 600+ days still holding the hostages!!!!......
The Israel haters believe a complete false reality in which Israel is a monstrous aggressive evil occupying power and the Arabs are helpless victims. It's the exact opposite of reality and they are not interested in the truth. I include all mainstream media in this from the BBC to CNN to the NY Times to Sky News. All of them print the lies of the enemy wholesale because they believe them.
Thank you for this clear breakdown of the myths surrounding Israel and the Jewish people. In an era when emotion often overshadows history, this kind of clarity is essential.
I write a Substack that looks at how our education system, particularly the way we teach critical thinking, has shaped the current moment. Much of the reactivity we’re seeing today, I think is the result of inadequate instruction and reinforcement.
Excellent! This is a great piece. It’s for us to share with those who are on our side but may not have all the info they need to voice their support, and it’s for those who are not yet completely lost to the dark side. It could even bring back to reality some of those who’ve been tricked by “good is now evil, and evil is now good.”
Good one. I want to bring attention to the constant occurrence of rape during many of these massacres, as mentioned here. I can't find the words; I only know that every time I read it, I cringe. These are barbarians.
We continue to try to reason with the opposition without any positive result. They obviously don’t know and don’t care. The only solution is to ignore what they think and do what’s right for Israel, which is, to throw out the Arabs from Gaza and the West Bank and send them to Jordan. Then declare the entire area the greater Eretz Israel. Dare Jordan and the rest of the world to challenge this. There isn’t a military in the region that can touch Israel. Jews have been historically weak. It’s about time to show the world that Jews are strong and could care less what the rest of the world thinks. Fuck them all.
The arguments presented here suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of historical complexity and legal realities, and they lean heavily on misleading simplifications that do little to advance genuine discourse.
First, the invocation of ancient antisemitic tropes under the guise of “debunking” does not absolve the author from perpetuating other problematic narratives. Claiming that Israel “stole” land is said to be false because Jews “bought land legally” ignores the broader context of displacement, dispossession, and systemic inequities that accompanied these transactions—inequities that cannot be dismissed as mere market dynamics.
Second, the portrayal of Jewish and Arab populations as having had parallel migration patterns and shared identities oversimplifies the nuanced demographic and political realities of Mandatory Palestine. The claim that “Jews never left” and are indigenous to the land, while historically accurate in some respects, is weaponized here to dismiss Palestinian claims to self-determination, which are grounded in continuous residence and cultural presence.
Third, the use of casualty statistics as a “moral compass” is not merely insensitive; it is a gross distortion of justice. Minimizing Palestinian suffering by emphasizing Israel’s defense measures disregards the disproportionate use of force, collective punishment, and violations of international law that have repeatedly been documented by independent observers.
Fourth, the dismissal of occupation as a questionable term ignores the established principles of international humanitarian law. The West Bank and Gaza, irrespective of historical administrative control, have been subject to Israeli military occupation since 1967, a status recognized by the international community. The rejection of Palestinian statehood offers is likewise misrepresented. The failure of negotiations cannot be reduced to Palestinian refusal alone; it reflects a broader context of asymmetrical power, ongoing settlement expansion, and systemic barriers to sovereignty.
Finally, the reduction of a deeply entrenched political conflict into binary “you’re either with us or against us” rhetoric is itself part of the problem. It forecloses dialogue and ignores the legitimate grievances and aspirations on all sides. Complex conflicts demand nuanced understanding, not simplistic narratives that fuel polarization.
If we are to genuinely pursue peace and justice, the international community must move beyond propagandistic claims and confront the realities of occupation, displacement, and human suffering with honesty and impartiality.
Of course, the post presents a particular perspective (as most political writing does) to counter a more mainstream narrative. It can’t cover every layer of nuance in a limited word count. The points respond to common claims online that lack nuance. But that doesn’t mean the post is devoid of historical or moral complexity.
First, the point about Jews legally buying land is not the only rebuttal to the claim that Israel “stole” land. The post also notes that Arab leaders rejected several partition offers and even full control over the Mandate territory, on the condition they’d accept a permanent Jewish presence. Their refusal wasn’t due to opposition to statehood alone. Arab states initiated the 1948 war, which they lost, leading to much of the displacement often blamed solely on Zionist actions. Winning a defensive war without British support is not the same as stealing land. It’s a tragic but not uncommon consequence of conflict. The India-Pakistan partition and resulting war and displacement in the same year far exceed what happened in Israel, yet global focus remains fixated on Israel.
Second, I haven’t dismissed Palestinian claims to self-determination. I’ve stated clearly that Palestinians live in the land and have the right to self-determination like any other group. But their leadership has repeatedly derailed it through rejection of negotiated settlements, prioritising maximalist demands, and in Hamas’s case, openly genocidal rhetoric. These choices have prolonged the conflict and blocked viable statehood. Israel has been the only party to offer tangible steps toward Palestinian sovereignty through Oslo in the West Bank and the Gaza withdrawal in 2005. Egypt and Jordan never did so during their control of those areas, but no one seems to care. And every Palestinian leader since before 1948 seems passionately disinterested in statehood, despite the story put out publicly.
Third, casualty statistics should never be used to diminish suffering, and I haven’t done so. But they also shouldn’t be stripped of context. There’s a clear moral and legal distinction between deliberately targeting civilians, as Hamas does, and causing civilian casualties while fighting an enemy embedded among civilians. Israel’s military actions, while tragic, are judged by a double standard. Few ask what any other country would do under similar threat from a neighbor committed to its destruction whose self-declared goal is to inflate civilian casualties. I personally find this disgusting, even moreso that it’s defended or denied and not widely condemned in pro-Palestine circles. There are Palestinian activists like Ahmed Fouad Alkhati or Hamas Howidy who criticise Hamas’ tactics resulting in civilian deaths, but they are few and far between.
Fourth, the term “occupation” is treated as a settled case, but it’s far more complex. The West Bank was under Jordanian control, Gaza under Egyptian control and neither recognized a Palestinian state. No such state existed prior to 1967, and Israel took those territories in a defensive war. The post mentions Israel then offered land for peace, which was met with rejection (the three no’s). This is likely the only case where a country is condemned for “occupying” land that was never part of a sovereign state. Any other country would have just absorbed them, but Israel has offered withdrawal for peace multiple times, including Camp David in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, and each time was met with escalation. If occupation is so morally obvious, why wasn’t Jordan or Egypt held to the same standard? And why does the world ignore clear occupations that have gone on longer like China in Tibet?
Finally, pointing out double standards or defending Israel’s right to exist is not binary thinking but a call for consistent moral reasoning. The demand for nuance cannot be one-sided. That nuance includes understanding why many Israelis, including Holocaust survivors and refugees from Arab lands, are deeply skeptical of peace plans that ignore historical realities. It also includes recognising that no other country’s right to exist is so frequently questioned over individual or systemic wrongs. War crimes occur in every war, yet international law is invoked almost exclusively in Israel’s case. That’s a legitimate concern.
I’m only one paragraph in and already noticing significant issues in how the historical context is framed. Jumping in at the 1947 UN Partition Plan skips over crucial developments that explain why that moment unfolded as it did. For example, in the decade leading up to the plan, Arab leadership rejected the idea of an Arab-majority state that would tolerate any permanent Jewish presence. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, explicitly stated that Jews would need to be “removed” from Palestine, and actively incited violence against Jewish communities throughout the 1930s and 1940s.
You also omit the 1937 Peel Commission proposal, which recommended partition after years of escalating Arab violence against both Jews and the British. That plan offered Arabs approximately 80% of the remaining territory—this is after 70% of the original British Mandate had already been carved out in 1922 to create Transjordan and handed to the Hashemite monarchy, outsiders to Palestine. That was already a massive concession. Had these previous offers and developments not occurred, your critique of the 1947 plan might carry more weight. But the historical record makes clear that the core issue wasn’t just the partition’s terms; it was the rejection of any form of Jewish self-determination, regardless of size or location.
Claiming that the 1947 partition was unfair because Jews only made up 36% of the population and owned less than 7% of the land misses that much of the land allocated to the Jewish state was arid, sparsely populated desert. Moreover, the plan envisioned a Jewish state that would include a substantial Arab minority with full civil rights—something not reciprocated in the proposed Arab state, which would have been expected to be judenrein. That asymmetry matters. You also skip over that a large portion (around 50%) of the Arab “Palestinians” in the year 1947 had only arrived in the prior two decades.
Also missing is the violent rhetoric coming from Arab leadership at the time. In 1947, the Arab Higher Committee distributed materials stating, “The Arabs have taken the Final Solution to the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will soon be driven out.” Haj Amin al-Husseini was actively collaborating with Nazi Germany and had met with Hitler, seeking support for bringing the Holocaust to the Middle East. That history should not be erased when discussing the roots of mistrust and conflict.
You also mention the Nakba without acknowledging that in the same period, nearly 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries across the Middle East and North Africa, where many had lived for over a thousand years, long before Islam emerged. These Jewish refugees were absorbed by the nascent Israeli state. The Palestinian refugees, by contrast, were intentionally kept stateless and in camps by surrounding Arab countries, used as political pawns rather than integrated into their societies. That was a choice made by Arab states to perpetuate the conflict.
There is no denying the suffering involved on all sides. But presenting this history as a one-sided story of dispossession erases too much complexity. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to respond point-by-point to the rest of your article, but this first paragraph alone illustrates a pattern I can see throughout: selective framing and a disregard for the ideological and military rejectionism that also shaped this conflict from the start.
Thanks for your perspective. Historical complexities go both ways. Simplifying the conflict to one-sided rejectionism ignores the layers of colonial legacy, competing nationalisms, and ongoing realities on the ground. Broad claims need nuance and context, not selective framing. If we want peace and justice, we must reckon honestly with all facts, not just convenient narratives.
I agree more nuance is always needed. But I’m not sure Substack let alone Instagram, TikTok, or X are the places we should expect highly nuanced takes. I used to lean more toward the pro-Palestinian side myself and was familiar with many of the core arguments. But after doing more research and digging into the historical layers, my perspective shifted, so what I write now may sound more “pro-Israel,” when really, I’m trying to offer balance to a narrative that’s dominant in many circles.
I would never claim Israel is above criticism or has done no wrong. But I do take issue with the “colonial legacy” framing.
Yes some early Zionist leaders used the term “colonisation,” but in the 19th and early 20th centuries, that language was more about settling or rebuilding than imperial conquest. The Jewish Colonisation Association, for example, also helped Jews settle in Argentina and Canada, always as refugees fleeing persecution, not as agents of empire. Unlike classic colonialism (think Britain in India or France in Algeria) there was no mother country, no empire, no exploitation, no resource extraction. Just survival and return to a land with historical, spiritual, and legal ties for Jews.
Even Fayez Sayegh, the Arab intellectual who introduced the “settler-colonial” framing of Zionism, acknowledged that Zionism was unlike every other example of colonisation in history.
I also find it inconsistent to focus on alleged Zionist “colonialism” without mentioning the broader history of Arab colonialism that surrounds Israel, which spans 22 modern states (and over 50 Muslim majority states). Looking at a map, it’s hard to argue that Zionism was a colonial project when Israel has repeatedly given up land (eg. the entire Sinai Peninsula).
No, but Britain did. Jews were able to establish themselves in Palestine “peacefully“ because Britain had established control of the country by force. Jewish bayonets were not needed because the Jews could rely on British bayonets.
And the early Zionists openly described themselves as colonists and European colonists at that.
First, Jews didn’t “establish themselves” in Palestine thanks to British military force. The British took control of the region from the Ottomans after WWI, through a League of Nations mandate, not by “invading” on behalf of Jews. In fact, Britain actively restricted Jewish immigration (see the 1939 White Paper), and during the 1948 war, they backed Arab forces with training, arms, and intelligence, while Jews were largely unarmed and facing embargoes.
Second, calling Zionism a colonial movement misunderstands both its goals and its demographics. Less than one-third of Israeli Jews today are of European descent; the majority are descendants of Jews expelled from Arab and Muslim countries after 1948, places where they had lived for centuries. They were not colonisers but refugees.
Yes, some early Zionist leaders used the word “colonisation,” but in the 19th/early 20th-century context, this referred to settling and rebuilding a historic homeland, literally moving from point A to point B, not imperial conquest. The Jewish Colonisation Association also settled Jews in Argentina, Canada, and elsewhere, always fleeing persecution, not establishing empires.
Finally, singling out the Jewish return to their ancestral homeland as “colonialism” while ignoring the far more sweeping Arab-Islamic conquests that spread across 22 countries and erased countless indigenous identities reveals a clear double standard.
Zionists were prepared to accept an Arab minority in Palestine provided that Arabs accepted a Jewish majority, which they were obviously not going to accept. You say yourself that “major Arab leadership figures rejected any Jewish presence!” Please note that your quote from Ben Gurion was made before the holocaust. The Holocaust made creating a Jewish majority in Palestine with European Jews impossible. Expulsion therefore became more necessary.
Zionism was unquestionably a project of replacement. It was about replacing an Arab society with a demographically Jewish and culturally European one. The only way that could be done was through force and that is how it was done.
It’s inaccurate to claim that Zionism was a project of “replacement.” The term Zionism comes from an event that happened in 539BCE called the “return to Zion”, the longing of Jews to live in their indigenous homeland which spans over 2500 years. From its origins Zionism was a nationalist movement driven by the urgent need for Jewish self-determination in the face of relentless persecution, long before the Holocaust. Zionist leaders, including Ben-Gurion, repeatedly stated their willingness to live alongside an Arab minority and alongside an Arab state. The 1947 UN Partition Plan even envisioned a Jewish state with a large Arab minority (around 45%), which the Jewish leadership accepted and the Arab leadership rejected. They got an Arab majority state in 70% of Palestine where Jews were expelled from, it’s called Jordan. Again, many Mizrahi Jews from Arab countries were central to building the state, undermining the claim that Zionism aimed to create a “European” society.
The idea that the Holocaust made Jewish majority-building impossible and thus necessitated expulsion is misleading. The Holocaust made the need for a Jewish refuge more urgent, but it did not fundamentally alter Zionist goals. Population displacement occurred during the 1948 war (a war the Jews did not initiate), as it tragically has in many nation-building conflicts. But to claim that expulsion was always the intent ignores both the historical record and the many offers for peaceful coexistence that Arab leaders rejected. Again, Zionism was about survival, not supremacy. I think we’ve probably reached an impasse here. I feel I’m starting to repeat myself and I’m not sure we’re moving the conversation forward. Happy to leave it there.
The British did not take control of the region through a League of Nations Mandate. They took control of the region by invading and conquering it in 1917. The League of Nations Mandate was a consequence of that invasion, not the other way round. I never said they invaded on behalf of the Jews. Don’t put words in my mouth.
British policy after 1939 is irrelevant. By that time, the demographics of Palestine had changed sufficiently to allow the Jews to win the 1948 war.
I know Israelis don’t want to accept the role that Britain played in the founding of their country. They prefer to believe fantasy that Israel was built through the efforts of Jews alone returning to their homeland. But the fact is that without British rule in Palestine, there would be no Israel today.
The demographics of Israel today are irrelevant. The state was founded by Europeans.
So colonisation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries just meant moving from A to B, did it? 😂😂😂 The goal of Zionism was always clear. It was to replace the existing Arab society with a demographically Jewish and culturally European society. This could only be done by force.
The reason I “singled out” Zionist colonialism is because that is what your post was about, obviously.
It’s simply incorrect to say the goal was to replace Arab society.
-David Ben-Gurion, in 1937, wrote: “We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places… All our aspirations are built on the assumption… that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.” (Letter to his son Amos)
-And again in 1947: “In our state there will be non-Jews as well, and all of them will be equal citizens… the state will be their state as well.” (Proof of this today is that there are millions of Arabs living in Israel, yet almost no Jews in Arab lands)
-The Israeli Declaration of Independence (1948) reinforced this: “The State of Israel… will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex… We extend our hand to all neighbouring states… in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness.”
-Chaim Weizmann, a founding Zionist and Israel’s first president, stated: “There is enough room in Palestine for both [Jews and Arabs]. The country is large enough and its resources rich enough for both peoples to live in peace and prosperity.”
These weren’t fringe views but core to the mainstream Zionist movement. Zionism wasn’t a project of domination; it was a movement of return and survival, especially for a people facing persecution across Europe and the Middle East.
Meanwhile, major Arab leadership figures rejected any Jewish presence. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, said in 1930’s that Jews would have to be “removed”, even if a state was fully Arab. Then the Jews accepted accepted a state alongside an Arab state, but the Arabs rejected it.
Let’s not forget that without British and French rule in the post-Ottoman era, most of today’s Middle Eastern states wouldn’t exist in their current form. The entire region was shaped by foreign powers, not just Palestine.
Yes Britain conquered Palestine militarily in 1917, but it was part of World War I against the Ottomans, not to create a Jewish state. The League of Nations Mandate in 1922 came later and formalised British control. It also included a commitment to establishing a Jewish national home, but this was a policy document, not an invitation to colonise. And despite that, Britain frequently obstructed Jewish immigration, especially during the Holocaust, and actively opposed Zionist efforts in the 1940s.
By the early 1950s, Jews from Arab and Muslim countries, who had been expelled or fled violence, made up the majority of the Jewish population in Israel. In fact, many Mizrahi Jews, those from the Middle East and North Africa, were at the forefront of Zionism and played a central role in building Israel from the ground up, often arriving with little and contributing to every part of society, from agriculture and defense to culture and politics.
So no, Zionism wasn’t a project of replacement or supremacy. It was at its core a response to centuries of persecution and a movement for survival. The tragedy is that both peoples could have had states in 1947, but only one side accepted that idea.
You say you “singled out” Zionist colonialism because that’s what my post was about, but ignoring the more expansive history (and still continuing to this day) of Arab and Islamic conquest which spread across the Middle East and North Africa, often erasing indigenous cultures and languages while focusing solely on Jewish self-determination suggests your concern is more about Jews than it is about colonialism.
This could be a good theme for a game show.
As for your point one ‘Israel stole Palestinian land.’ I love asking a simple question: What is the origin of the word Palestine? Hint: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/398384
Then point out, who lived there when the name change occurred?
It only takes a passing knowledge of Latin or Romance languages to recognize that the construction of the name “Palestine” is Roman. Not Arabic. They can’t even pronounce “Palestine”.
Chaos is a ladder and at the top of the ladder you'll find Qatar and the Al-thanis who have bought and paid their way to sow fear confusion and...chaos.
Thank you so much for your brilliant and accurate essay......of course didn't started October 7th, 2023, the worst part is that lots of people sided with terrorists murderers, rapists, kidnnappers.....and after 600+ days still holding the hostages!!!!......
The Israel haters believe a complete false reality in which Israel is a monstrous aggressive evil occupying power and the Arabs are helpless victims. It's the exact opposite of reality and they are not interested in the truth. I include all mainstream media in this from the BBC to CNN to the NY Times to Sky News. All of them print the lies of the enemy wholesale because they believe them.
Thorough explanations! History illuminates the truth.
Thank you for this clear breakdown of the myths surrounding Israel and the Jewish people. In an era when emotion often overshadows history, this kind of clarity is essential.
I write a Substack that looks at how our education system, particularly the way we teach critical thinking, has shaped the current moment. Much of the reactivity we’re seeing today, I think is the result of inadequate instruction and reinforcement.
The work you are doing is so so important!
Excellent! This is a great piece. It’s for us to share with those who are on our side but may not have all the info they need to voice their support, and it’s for those who are not yet completely lost to the dark side. It could even bring back to reality some of those who’ve been tricked by “good is now evil, and evil is now good.”
Good one. I want to bring attention to the constant occurrence of rape during many of these massacres, as mentioned here. I can't find the words; I only know that every time I read it, I cringe. These are barbarians.
We continue to try to reason with the opposition without any positive result. They obviously don’t know and don’t care. The only solution is to ignore what they think and do what’s right for Israel, which is, to throw out the Arabs from Gaza and the West Bank and send them to Jordan. Then declare the entire area the greater Eretz Israel. Dare Jordan and the rest of the world to challenge this. There isn’t a military in the region that can touch Israel. Jews have been historically weak. It’s about time to show the world that Jews are strong and could care less what the rest of the world thinks. Fuck them all.
The arguments presented here suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of historical complexity and legal realities, and they lean heavily on misleading simplifications that do little to advance genuine discourse.
First, the invocation of ancient antisemitic tropes under the guise of “debunking” does not absolve the author from perpetuating other problematic narratives. Claiming that Israel “stole” land is said to be false because Jews “bought land legally” ignores the broader context of displacement, dispossession, and systemic inequities that accompanied these transactions—inequities that cannot be dismissed as mere market dynamics.
Second, the portrayal of Jewish and Arab populations as having had parallel migration patterns and shared identities oversimplifies the nuanced demographic and political realities of Mandatory Palestine. The claim that “Jews never left” and are indigenous to the land, while historically accurate in some respects, is weaponized here to dismiss Palestinian claims to self-determination, which are grounded in continuous residence and cultural presence.
Third, the use of casualty statistics as a “moral compass” is not merely insensitive; it is a gross distortion of justice. Minimizing Palestinian suffering by emphasizing Israel’s defense measures disregards the disproportionate use of force, collective punishment, and violations of international law that have repeatedly been documented by independent observers.
Fourth, the dismissal of occupation as a questionable term ignores the established principles of international humanitarian law. The West Bank and Gaza, irrespective of historical administrative control, have been subject to Israeli military occupation since 1967, a status recognized by the international community. The rejection of Palestinian statehood offers is likewise misrepresented. The failure of negotiations cannot be reduced to Palestinian refusal alone; it reflects a broader context of asymmetrical power, ongoing settlement expansion, and systemic barriers to sovereignty.
Finally, the reduction of a deeply entrenched political conflict into binary “you’re either with us or against us” rhetoric is itself part of the problem. It forecloses dialogue and ignores the legitimate grievances and aspirations on all sides. Complex conflicts demand nuanced understanding, not simplistic narratives that fuel polarization.
If we are to genuinely pursue peace and justice, the international community must move beyond propagandistic claims and confront the realities of occupation, displacement, and human suffering with honesty and impartiality.
Of course, the post presents a particular perspective (as most political writing does) to counter a more mainstream narrative. It can’t cover every layer of nuance in a limited word count. The points respond to common claims online that lack nuance. But that doesn’t mean the post is devoid of historical or moral complexity.
First, the point about Jews legally buying land is not the only rebuttal to the claim that Israel “stole” land. The post also notes that Arab leaders rejected several partition offers and even full control over the Mandate territory, on the condition they’d accept a permanent Jewish presence. Their refusal wasn’t due to opposition to statehood alone. Arab states initiated the 1948 war, which they lost, leading to much of the displacement often blamed solely on Zionist actions. Winning a defensive war without British support is not the same as stealing land. It’s a tragic but not uncommon consequence of conflict. The India-Pakistan partition and resulting war and displacement in the same year far exceed what happened in Israel, yet global focus remains fixated on Israel.
Second, I haven’t dismissed Palestinian claims to self-determination. I’ve stated clearly that Palestinians live in the land and have the right to self-determination like any other group. But their leadership has repeatedly derailed it through rejection of negotiated settlements, prioritising maximalist demands, and in Hamas’s case, openly genocidal rhetoric. These choices have prolonged the conflict and blocked viable statehood. Israel has been the only party to offer tangible steps toward Palestinian sovereignty through Oslo in the West Bank and the Gaza withdrawal in 2005. Egypt and Jordan never did so during their control of those areas, but no one seems to care. And every Palestinian leader since before 1948 seems passionately disinterested in statehood, despite the story put out publicly.
Third, casualty statistics should never be used to diminish suffering, and I haven’t done so. But they also shouldn’t be stripped of context. There’s a clear moral and legal distinction between deliberately targeting civilians, as Hamas does, and causing civilian casualties while fighting an enemy embedded among civilians. Israel’s military actions, while tragic, are judged by a double standard. Few ask what any other country would do under similar threat from a neighbor committed to its destruction whose self-declared goal is to inflate civilian casualties. I personally find this disgusting, even moreso that it’s defended or denied and not widely condemned in pro-Palestine circles. There are Palestinian activists like Ahmed Fouad Alkhati or Hamas Howidy who criticise Hamas’ tactics resulting in civilian deaths, but they are few and far between.
Fourth, the term “occupation” is treated as a settled case, but it’s far more complex. The West Bank was under Jordanian control, Gaza under Egyptian control and neither recognized a Palestinian state. No such state existed prior to 1967, and Israel took those territories in a defensive war. The post mentions Israel then offered land for peace, which was met with rejection (the three no’s). This is likely the only case where a country is condemned for “occupying” land that was never part of a sovereign state. Any other country would have just absorbed them, but Israel has offered withdrawal for peace multiple times, including Camp David in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, and each time was met with escalation. If occupation is so morally obvious, why wasn’t Jordan or Egypt held to the same standard? And why does the world ignore clear occupations that have gone on longer like China in Tibet?
Finally, pointing out double standards or defending Israel’s right to exist is not binary thinking but a call for consistent moral reasoning. The demand for nuance cannot be one-sided. That nuance includes understanding why many Israelis, including Holocaust survivors and refugees from Arab lands, are deeply skeptical of peace plans that ignore historical realities. It also includes recognising that no other country’s right to exist is so frequently questioned over individual or systemic wrongs. War crimes occur in every war, yet international law is invoked almost exclusively in Israel’s case. That’s a legitimate concern.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jussurcollective/p/after-the-deadlock?r=4u6wej&utm_medium=ios
I’m only one paragraph in and already noticing significant issues in how the historical context is framed. Jumping in at the 1947 UN Partition Plan skips over crucial developments that explain why that moment unfolded as it did. For example, in the decade leading up to the plan, Arab leadership rejected the idea of an Arab-majority state that would tolerate any permanent Jewish presence. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, explicitly stated that Jews would need to be “removed” from Palestine, and actively incited violence against Jewish communities throughout the 1930s and 1940s.
You also omit the 1937 Peel Commission proposal, which recommended partition after years of escalating Arab violence against both Jews and the British. That plan offered Arabs approximately 80% of the remaining territory—this is after 70% of the original British Mandate had already been carved out in 1922 to create Transjordan and handed to the Hashemite monarchy, outsiders to Palestine. That was already a massive concession. Had these previous offers and developments not occurred, your critique of the 1947 plan might carry more weight. But the historical record makes clear that the core issue wasn’t just the partition’s terms; it was the rejection of any form of Jewish self-determination, regardless of size or location.
Claiming that the 1947 partition was unfair because Jews only made up 36% of the population and owned less than 7% of the land misses that much of the land allocated to the Jewish state was arid, sparsely populated desert. Moreover, the plan envisioned a Jewish state that would include a substantial Arab minority with full civil rights—something not reciprocated in the proposed Arab state, which would have been expected to be judenrein. That asymmetry matters. You also skip over that a large portion (around 50%) of the Arab “Palestinians” in the year 1947 had only arrived in the prior two decades.
Also missing is the violent rhetoric coming from Arab leadership at the time. In 1947, the Arab Higher Committee distributed materials stating, “The Arabs have taken the Final Solution to the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will soon be driven out.” Haj Amin al-Husseini was actively collaborating with Nazi Germany and had met with Hitler, seeking support for bringing the Holocaust to the Middle East. That history should not be erased when discussing the roots of mistrust and conflict.
You also mention the Nakba without acknowledging that in the same period, nearly 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries across the Middle East and North Africa, where many had lived for over a thousand years, long before Islam emerged. These Jewish refugees were absorbed by the nascent Israeli state. The Palestinian refugees, by contrast, were intentionally kept stateless and in camps by surrounding Arab countries, used as political pawns rather than integrated into their societies. That was a choice made by Arab states to perpetuate the conflict.
There is no denying the suffering involved on all sides. But presenting this history as a one-sided story of dispossession erases too much complexity. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to respond point-by-point to the rest of your article, but this first paragraph alone illustrates a pattern I can see throughout: selective framing and a disregard for the ideological and military rejectionism that also shaped this conflict from the start.
Thanks for your perspective. Historical complexities go both ways. Simplifying the conflict to one-sided rejectionism ignores the layers of colonial legacy, competing nationalisms, and ongoing realities on the ground. Broad claims need nuance and context, not selective framing. If we want peace and justice, we must reckon honestly with all facts, not just convenient narratives.
I agree more nuance is always needed. But I’m not sure Substack let alone Instagram, TikTok, or X are the places we should expect highly nuanced takes. I used to lean more toward the pro-Palestinian side myself and was familiar with many of the core arguments. But after doing more research and digging into the historical layers, my perspective shifted, so what I write now may sound more “pro-Israel,” when really, I’m trying to offer balance to a narrative that’s dominant in many circles.
I would never claim Israel is above criticism or has done no wrong. But I do take issue with the “colonial legacy” framing.
Yes some early Zionist leaders used the term “colonisation,” but in the 19th and early 20th centuries, that language was more about settling or rebuilding than imperial conquest. The Jewish Colonisation Association, for example, also helped Jews settle in Argentina and Canada, always as refugees fleeing persecution, not as agents of empire. Unlike classic colonialism (think Britain in India or France in Algeria) there was no mother country, no empire, no exploitation, no resource extraction. Just survival and return to a land with historical, spiritual, and legal ties for Jews.
Even Fayez Sayegh, the Arab intellectual who introduced the “settler-colonial” framing of Zionism, acknowledged that Zionism was unlike every other example of colonisation in history.
I also find it inconsistent to focus on alleged Zionist “colonialism” without mentioning the broader history of Arab colonialism that surrounds Israel, which spans 22 modern states (and over 50 Muslim majority states). Looking at a map, it’s hard to argue that Zionism was a colonial project when Israel has repeatedly given up land (eg. the entire Sinai Peninsula).
True nuance comes not from deflecting history but from facing its consequences with courage and honesty.
“Jews didn’t invade.“
No, but Britain did. Jews were able to establish themselves in Palestine “peacefully“ because Britain had established control of the country by force. Jewish bayonets were not needed because the Jews could rely on British bayonets.
And the early Zionists openly described themselves as colonists and European colonists at that.
This is historically inaccurate.
First, Jews didn’t “establish themselves” in Palestine thanks to British military force. The British took control of the region from the Ottomans after WWI, through a League of Nations mandate, not by “invading” on behalf of Jews. In fact, Britain actively restricted Jewish immigration (see the 1939 White Paper), and during the 1948 war, they backed Arab forces with training, arms, and intelligence, while Jews were largely unarmed and facing embargoes.
Second, calling Zionism a colonial movement misunderstands both its goals and its demographics. Less than one-third of Israeli Jews today are of European descent; the majority are descendants of Jews expelled from Arab and Muslim countries after 1948, places where they had lived for centuries. They were not colonisers but refugees.
Yes, some early Zionist leaders used the word “colonisation,” but in the 19th/early 20th-century context, this referred to settling and rebuilding a historic homeland, literally moving from point A to point B, not imperial conquest. The Jewish Colonisation Association also settled Jews in Argentina, Canada, and elsewhere, always fleeing persecution, not establishing empires.
Finally, singling out the Jewish return to their ancestral homeland as “colonialism” while ignoring the far more sweeping Arab-Islamic conquests that spread across 22 countries and erased countless indigenous identities reveals a clear double standard.
Sounds like AI to me.
It’s not AI. That’s just the tone of my profound boredom at having to repeat the same historical facts over and over.
Zionists were prepared to accept an Arab minority in Palestine provided that Arabs accepted a Jewish majority, which they were obviously not going to accept. You say yourself that “major Arab leadership figures rejected any Jewish presence!” Please note that your quote from Ben Gurion was made before the holocaust. The Holocaust made creating a Jewish majority in Palestine with European Jews impossible. Expulsion therefore became more necessary.
Zionism was unquestionably a project of replacement. It was about replacing an Arab society with a demographically Jewish and culturally European one. The only way that could be done was through force and that is how it was done.
It’s inaccurate to claim that Zionism was a project of “replacement.” The term Zionism comes from an event that happened in 539BCE called the “return to Zion”, the longing of Jews to live in their indigenous homeland which spans over 2500 years. From its origins Zionism was a nationalist movement driven by the urgent need for Jewish self-determination in the face of relentless persecution, long before the Holocaust. Zionist leaders, including Ben-Gurion, repeatedly stated their willingness to live alongside an Arab minority and alongside an Arab state. The 1947 UN Partition Plan even envisioned a Jewish state with a large Arab minority (around 45%), which the Jewish leadership accepted and the Arab leadership rejected. They got an Arab majority state in 70% of Palestine where Jews were expelled from, it’s called Jordan. Again, many Mizrahi Jews from Arab countries were central to building the state, undermining the claim that Zionism aimed to create a “European” society.
The idea that the Holocaust made Jewish majority-building impossible and thus necessitated expulsion is misleading. The Holocaust made the need for a Jewish refuge more urgent, but it did not fundamentally alter Zionist goals. Population displacement occurred during the 1948 war (a war the Jews did not initiate), as it tragically has in many nation-building conflicts. But to claim that expulsion was always the intent ignores both the historical record and the many offers for peaceful coexistence that Arab leaders rejected. Again, Zionism was about survival, not supremacy. I think we’ve probably reached an impasse here. I feel I’m starting to repeat myself and I’m not sure we’re moving the conversation forward. Happy to leave it there.
The British did not take control of the region through a League of Nations Mandate. They took control of the region by invading and conquering it in 1917. The League of Nations Mandate was a consequence of that invasion, not the other way round. I never said they invaded on behalf of the Jews. Don’t put words in my mouth.
British policy after 1939 is irrelevant. By that time, the demographics of Palestine had changed sufficiently to allow the Jews to win the 1948 war.
I know Israelis don’t want to accept the role that Britain played in the founding of their country. They prefer to believe fantasy that Israel was built through the efforts of Jews alone returning to their homeland. But the fact is that without British rule in Palestine, there would be no Israel today.
The demographics of Israel today are irrelevant. The state was founded by Europeans.
So colonisation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries just meant moving from A to B, did it? 😂😂😂 The goal of Zionism was always clear. It was to replace the existing Arab society with a demographically Jewish and culturally European society. This could only be done by force.
The reason I “singled out” Zionist colonialism is because that is what your post was about, obviously.
It’s simply incorrect to say the goal was to replace Arab society.
-David Ben-Gurion, in 1937, wrote: “We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places… All our aspirations are built on the assumption… that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.” (Letter to his son Amos)
-And again in 1947: “In our state there will be non-Jews as well, and all of them will be equal citizens… the state will be their state as well.” (Proof of this today is that there are millions of Arabs living in Israel, yet almost no Jews in Arab lands)
-The Israeli Declaration of Independence (1948) reinforced this: “The State of Israel… will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex… We extend our hand to all neighbouring states… in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness.”
-Chaim Weizmann, a founding Zionist and Israel’s first president, stated: “There is enough room in Palestine for both [Jews and Arabs]. The country is large enough and its resources rich enough for both peoples to live in peace and prosperity.”
These weren’t fringe views but core to the mainstream Zionist movement. Zionism wasn’t a project of domination; it was a movement of return and survival, especially for a people facing persecution across Europe and the Middle East.
Meanwhile, major Arab leadership figures rejected any Jewish presence. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, said in 1930’s that Jews would have to be “removed”, even if a state was fully Arab. Then the Jews accepted accepted a state alongside an Arab state, but the Arabs rejected it.
Let’s not forget that without British and French rule in the post-Ottoman era, most of today’s Middle Eastern states wouldn’t exist in their current form. The entire region was shaped by foreign powers, not just Palestine.
Yes Britain conquered Palestine militarily in 1917, but it was part of World War I against the Ottomans, not to create a Jewish state. The League of Nations Mandate in 1922 came later and formalised British control. It also included a commitment to establishing a Jewish national home, but this was a policy document, not an invitation to colonise. And despite that, Britain frequently obstructed Jewish immigration, especially during the Holocaust, and actively opposed Zionist efforts in the 1940s.
By the early 1950s, Jews from Arab and Muslim countries, who had been expelled or fled violence, made up the majority of the Jewish population in Israel. In fact, many Mizrahi Jews, those from the Middle East and North Africa, were at the forefront of Zionism and played a central role in building Israel from the ground up, often arriving with little and contributing to every part of society, from agriculture and defense to culture and politics.
So no, Zionism wasn’t a project of replacement or supremacy. It was at its core a response to centuries of persecution and a movement for survival. The tragedy is that both peoples could have had states in 1947, but only one side accepted that idea.
You say you “singled out” Zionist colonialism because that’s what my post was about, but ignoring the more expansive history (and still continuing to this day) of Arab and Islamic conquest which spread across the Middle East and North Africa, often erasing indigenous cultures and languages while focusing solely on Jewish self-determination suggests your concern is more about Jews than it is about colonialism.