Balfour’s Shadow – A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel

A review of the book authored by David Cronin

By Jim Miles GlobalResearch,

July 01, 2017

The Balfour Declaration, currently accepted by many as the founding legal statement for the establishment of Israel is really nothing more than a letter. It was a letter of policy between government personnel and became a major part of foreign policy then, and its shadow effects have continued on rather effectively to now. Balfour’s Shadow is a well written outline of the history of events after the letter: the immediate short term effects on British policy after WW I; the medium range policies that continued until after WW II; up to Britain’s current policy of advocating for and dealing with Israel. It is not a pretty story.

The letter was not necessarily well intended. Balfour himself was anti-Semitic. Yet the letter offered support to the Zionists for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. Several factors accounted for this, one of them being this very anti-Semitism, as many British felt that Jews would never assimilate into their society.

Several other factors came into play: Jewish support in the war effort was considered necessary; the British wanted to protect the Suez Canal as the main route through to its then colonies of south Asia, mainly India; and natural resources, oil, became a major interest after oil was discovered in abundance in the Middle East. A colonial outpost would, Britain believed, help consolidate control of the region against Arab interests in an era when British racism ran rampant throughout its colonial networks.

From that beginning, Cronin highlights the major factors in the relationship between Zionists, Jews, and the British government. He deals specifically with events pertaining to the government, and does not detail all that transpired during Britain’s occupation via the Palestinian Mandate. But the general thread of the history is exposed throughout the work, accessible to both those with a strong background in the history and those just entering into the discovery process of Middle East history. For the latter, Balfour’s Shadow provides enough detail that a reader should be motivated to research more information through other works (of which there are many).

Author David Cronin

(Source: @dvcronin / Twitter)

In general, Cronin reveals that the methods used by the British to control the indigenous population of Palestine laid the foundation for the ethnic cleansing and later suppression of the Palestinian people. Much history has been written about the Haganah, Stern, and Irgun ‘gangs’ fighting against the British, but the general trend of British behaviour was to support the increasing settlement patterns, evictions, and land grabs of the Zionist settlers.

After the nakba, Britain continued to supply Israel with military support ranging from hundreds of tanks, many planes, up to and including nuclear systems, in particular the sale of heavy water through Norway. This period was a transition from British global power to U.S. global power: after the fake war for the Suez Canal and the later pre-emptive war of 1967, the U.S. had clearly taken the lead in supporting Israel. Britain however did not let go.

Indeed, Britain became one of the strongest voices in support of Israel as military trade and financial/corporate interests continued with mostly behind the scenes activities.

Additional information is provided showing how the British worked to sideline the PLO by effectively recruiting Arafat as leader of a recognized PLO ‘government’, leading to the false promises of the Oslo accords and the continued annexation, settlement, and dispossession of the Palestinians.

For contemporary events, Cronin highlights the bizarre career of Tony Blair. At this point in time Blair was truly a “loyal lieutenant” for the U.S., adopting and promulgating U.S. policy for Israel and the Middle East in general. Bringing the work up to current events, “Partners in Crime” outlines the corporate-military ties between Britain, Israel, and the U.S.. Most of the corporate interest is military procurement going both directions – hardware to Israel, spyware and security ware to Britain. As always, these corporations (Ferranti, Affinity, Elbit, Rafael, Rokar, Lockheed-Martin) changed British views – at least of the elites – from tentative support to solidarity. These friendly relations also helped tie Israel into the EU more strongly.

Today, official British policy remains as an ardent supporter of Israel, with a lasting pride in Israel’s founding. The British colonial heritage rages on in the Middle East.

This is an excellent work most specifically for its focus on British attitudes concerning the development of Zionism/Israel, a history of war crimes and apartheid. Kudos to Cronin for his extensive use of many personal diaries and notices and of official records from War and Colonial office files as well as Foreign and Commonwealth files for more recent materials. It is concise and direct, an accessible read that can serve as a prerequisite for Middle East studies/Zionist studies and as a general guide to British policy for Israel. [1]

***

Image result

Title: Balfour’s Shadow – A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel

Author: David Cronin

Publisher: Pluto Press, London

Click here to order.

Notes

[1] Many books cover the development of Zionism and the creation of Israel. For a more highly detailed development of the historical situation preceding and leading up to the Balfour letter itself, the best I have read is: The Balfour Declaration – The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Jonathan Schneer. Anchor (Random House), Canada. 2012.

This review was first published in Palestine Chronicle, June 29, 2017.

Featured image from Book Depository

Palestinians Are Seeking Justice in Jerusalem – Not an Abusive Life-Long Mate

JUNE 27, 2017

Several articles have been published about the “legal limbo” in which Palestinian Jerusalemites exist and proposals as to what Israel ought to do about this 50-year old travesty, among them being righting “the wrong” of denying Palestinian Arabs in East Jerusalem Israeli citizenship.

In my view, such articles both define the injustice done to Palestinians deceptively and are meant simply to normalize the idea of Palestinian Jerusalemites becoming Israeli citizens, in the same way I might normalize the poll that American Jews are increasingly losing their connection to Israel by writing about it, especially if I were to headline my article “Breaking Taboo”, as Maayan Lubell does, or make the title echo a classified ad for the lovelorn, or question “Jewish identity” by “layering it with complexity” – i.e., by tying it to Israel.

Lubell’s article (Haaretz, Aug 5, 2015) is titled “Breaking Taboo, East Jerusalem Palestinians Seek Israeli Citizenship: In East Jerusalem, which Israel captured during the 1967 war, issues of Palestinian identity are layered with complexity.” It begins with this:

“I declare I will be a loyal citizen of the state of Israel,” reads the oath that must be sworn by all naturalized Israeli citizens. Increasingly, they are words being uttered by Palestinians. In East Jerusalem, which Israel captured from Jordan during the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed, a move not recognized internationally, issues of Palestinian identity are layered with complexity.

While Israel regards the east of the city as part of Israel, the estimated 300,000 Palestinians that live there do not. They are not Israeli citizens, instead holding Israeli-issued blue IDs that grant them permanent resident status. While they can seek citizenship if they wish, the vast majority reject it, not wanting to renounce their own history or be seen to buy into Israel’s 48-year occupation. And yet over the past decade, an increasing number of East Jerusalem Palestinians have gone through the lengthy process of becoming Israeli citizens, researchers and lawyers say.

So what is the reader to conclude from the “and yet” at the end of the quotation above? One way of looking at it is to see “the increasing number” of Palestinian Jerusalemites seeking Israeli citizenship as finally surrendering to the imperative of power and brutal facts on the ground, impelled by an otherwise unlivable life.

Another is to regard these Palestinians as traitors to the Palestinian cause, normalizing and legitimizing their enemy’s power, as there is often the implication in references to Palestinians seeking Israeli citizenship that Jerusalemites, through their applications for such citizenship, are signaling approval for the Israeli state, when in fact they seem to be doing it for practical reasons- so they can acquire some basic rights that Israel otherwise denies them.

A third is to see it from the point of view of Palestinian cartographer Khalil Tafakji – as yet another defeat for the Palestinian Authority in the context of Oslo’s so-called “peace process”.

Tafakji is quoted in this Haaretz report as saying,

“If this continues, what will the Palestinians negotiate about? They want to negotiate on the land – they have already lost the land. They want to negotiate for the population and the population is being lost.”

In other words the Palestinian view that Tafakji expresses is a lose/lose situation, not the win/win one espoused by another Haaretz article on the subject like the following.

Nir Hasson’s article (Haaretz, June 20, 2017) also has clues as to the function of such articles in the Israeli “liberal” media and co-dependent publications like the New York Times. These are often embedded right in the title or subheading – in this case:

“50 Years After Six-Day War, East Jerusalem’s Palestinians Remain Prisoners in Their City: Study shows how ambivalent Israeli policies and denial of the problem have created a status that doesn’t exist anywhere else on earth: Native-born residents who are not citizens of the state in whose capital they live.”

One glance at the word “capital” in the subheading frames it all for us, hasbara style. What may lull the suspicions of the unwary reader is that the piece does, in fact, highlight the severe problems created for Palestinians by Israeli policies of judaization in the expanded municipality of Jerusalem. But in the end, this kind of article is Israeli “self-criticism” of the worst kind, meant to play games with one’s head.

The subtext you may miss is that, similar to the past and ongoing judaization of Israel proper, the goal behind Israel’s policies in Jerusalem is to create, expand and preserve the Zionist Jewish state.
Hasson describes Israeli policy in 1967 in East Jerusalem, when the population was 60,000, as follows:

The [Israeli] ministers assumed that, as in 1948, when a large number of Arabs likewise didn’t get automatic citizenship, over time the East Jerusalemites would request citizenship – an option granted only to them and not to other West Bank residents – and integrate into Israeli society. The ministers did not take into account the strong ties these Arabs had to the West Bank and Jordan, and the unwillingness of Israeli society to absorb a large Palestinian population …. After the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel recognized the ties East Jerusalemites had to the West Bank and allowed them to vote for the Palestinian parliament in Ramallah. This made their legal status even more complicated: permanent residents of the State of Israel with Jordanian travel papers and the right to vote in Palestinian Authority elections.

Notice the telling phrase in the above that is the blind spot of Zionism: “The ministers did not take into account the strong ties these Arabs had to the West Bank and Jordan.” It totally disregards the strong ties of Palestinian Arabs to an Arab Jerusalem, to an Arab Palestine, ties Israel has not succeeded in breaking seventy years after its establishment on a territory of Palestine as a settler-colonial Zionist Jewish state against the wishes of its native inhabitants.

Hasson goes on to say:

Another expression of the relatively enlightened policy of the early years was a law, finally passed in 1973, that enabled East Jerusalemites to be compensated for property they abandoned in western Jerusalem during the 1948 War of Independence, similar to the rights of Jews to get back the property they had to abandon in East Jerusalem during that same war. In the end, the compensation offered was paltry and very few Palestinians tried to claim it. But the debates on the law at least demonstrated an effort to right the wrong…. In recent years there has been considerable talk about the “Israelization” of East Jerusalemites, as reflected in the labor market, the desire to study the Israeli curriculum, and the increased number of requests to get full Israeli citizenship.

Again, notice the Israeli-centric formulation and framing. Palestinians are described as having “abandoned” their property in West Jerusalem, when, in fact, they were denied their right of return to their property by Israel.
Palestinians “abandoned” their property; but the reference to Jews is a reference to their “rights.”

Palestinians turned down “compensation” for no other reason than its paltry size, when, in fact, the Palestinian view on this issue is as Canadian professor Michael Lynk describes it in The Right to Compensation in International Law and the Displaced Palestinians”

“Palestinians advance the compensation issue as a right recognized in international law that would obligate Israel to return, or pay for, the refugee properties expropriated or destroyed in 1948 and afterwards. As well, they argue that Israel must pay damages for pain and suffering, and for its use of Palestinian properties over the past five decades

The dominance of Jewish companies in the labor market in East Jerusalem where many Palestinians are employed (See The Palestinian Economy in East Jerusalem: Enduring annexation, isolation and disintegration), the agonizing choice some Palestinians make in accepting a school curriculum for their children that denies Palestinian heritage and identity but allows them to get ahead at Israeli universities, and the application for Israeli citizenship (mostly denied by Israel) of a minority of Palestinians are all deceptively framed as “a desire” for “Izraelization” and a path to “correcting the injustice”.

Quoting Amnon Ramon of the Jerusalem Institute for Israeli [not for Palestinian] Studies, Hasson’s article also details the problems that Israel faces as a result of the “limbo” residency arrangement imposed on Palestinian Arabs by the Israeli Government – a “hollow sovereignty”, contributing to “instability and violent outbursts, as well as the international community’s refusal to recognize Israel’s legitimacy in Jerusalem.”

But ostensibly, the article is concerned with Israel “righting a wrong” by removing the “legal limbo” under which Palestinian Jerusalemites live, claiming that such a path, will not only relieve Israel’s problems, but is also a path to “justice” – justice as defined by Israel, the oppressor, not by the Palestinians themselves, Israel’s victims.

This brings us to the immediate present. On June 25, 2017, the New York Times published a piece by Isabel Kershner titled “50 Years After War, East Jerusalem Palestinians Confront a Life Divided.”

Again, we have to ask: What is Kershner’s point in this one? Is it really a concern for Palestinians whose lives have been “divided” by Israel or is it another deflection from the illegitimate existence of Israel as a Zionist Jewish entity in Palestine?

Even as Israelis mark the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem in the June 1967 war, the Palestinians and most of the world consider the eastern half under occupation, and the city remains deeply divided. But after five decades, dealing with Israel has become unavoidable for residents of East Jerusalem.

The deflection in the quotation above is blatant. Dealing with Israel did not “become unavoidable after five decades.” For Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem and all other Palestinian Arabs who want to visit or do business there and for Palestinian Arabs denied return to their property there, or those whose property was seized and/or demolished, dealing with Israel became unavoidable the minute Israel occupied and annexed East Jerusalem.

It is true Palestinian culture and day-to-day life has been under severe assault by Israel for a long time – since 1948 to be exact. The 50-year anniversary of Israel’s brutal occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem (see Living Under Israeli Policies of Colonization in Jerusalem) is an occasion to extol and marvel at Palestinian resilience and sumoud (an Arabic word meaning “steadfastness” that has entered the English language, just as the word “intifada” has). It is not an occasion to normalize and indirectly extol “the reunification of Jerusalem,” whose Palestinian Arab population now accounts for 18% of the Palestinian Arab population of Israel.

More articles by:

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

فتح/ حماس… الجمهوريون/ الديمقراطيون… وكذبة الديمقراطية

MAY 19, 2017

عادل سمارة

فتح/ حماس… الجمهوريون/ الديمقراطيون… وكذبة الديمقراطية:

حين قرّرت معظم الفصائل الفلسطينية التهام «ديمقراطية» أوسلو وبسماح أميركا بذلك حيث أرسلت رئيسها السابق جيمي كارتر ليشرف/ يبارك انتخابات أوسلو-ستان… عجيب والله عجيب وهو الذي وضع عقيدة كارتر لاحتلال الجزيرة العربية علانية، وحصل. وحصلت الانتخابات وتمّ التفاخر بشفافيتها، وهي تحت الاحتلال! لكن نفس أميركا وتوابعها العرب أوقفوا الحقن المالية/ الريع غضباً لفوز حماس. أيّ خرقت أميركا غشاء البكارة الديمقراطية التي صنعتها!!

واليوم في أميركا نفسها لا يطيق الحزب الديمقراطي فقدان السلطة فيلجأ إلى أخطر تهمة باعتبار الرئيس «مخبراً»! ويعملون على عزله. والطبقة الحاكمة/ المالكة الأميركية أقدر الناس على صنع الأسباب من لا أسباب.

انقسم الفلسطينيون ومضى عقد من الزمن على تبادل التهم بين الطرفين. وحتى حين وضعت حماس «وليدتها/ وثيقتها… أوسلو القداسة» ومع ذلك لم يتمّ التقدّم بوصة واحدة باتجاه مغادرة الانقسام.

لن أذهب بعيداً للقول بأنّ الأميركيين كسكان أكبر مستوطنة رأسمالية عنصرية بيضاء سوف ينقسمون قريباً، هذا رغم انّ عدة ولايات تطمح بالانفصال، بل ترى أنها أُرغمت على الانضمام لواشنطن مثل كاليفورنيا وتكساس وأريزونا ومعظم الأجزاء المكسيكية الأخرى المغتصبة.

لكن المهم ان نرى بأنّ أكذوبة الديمقراطية تكشف عورتها بأصابعها هي. لعلّ هذا يكشف للبسطاء العرب بأنّ العرب الذين يتلطون بالديمقراطية ويخونون بلدهم كما في سورية بزعم غياب الديمقراطية أنّ هذه «الديمقراطية» كذبة كبيرة كعاهرة تاريخية.

الأساس هي الحرية. والحرية لا تأتي من أية سلطة بل ينتزعها الناس. ولا ينتزعونها دون وعي وقوة سياسية طبقية حقيقية تناضل من أجل ذلك وحين يتمّ تحصيل الحرية تصبح الديمقراطية تحصيل حاصل وليست مساحيق ولا مكياجاً على وجه عاهرة تخلى عنها جمالها. مثلاً، الأساس جمال العين وليس الكحلة أو تزجيج الحواجب.

الحرية في العمل والإنتاج هي الأساس، والتطوّر الصناعي هو الذي يجبر الحكومات الرأسمالية على توفير ديمقراطية سياسية كي لا يتمّ الإضراب الذي يقطع خط الإنتاج ايّ يوقف الربح والكسب.

وهنا يبرز السؤال المحرج لي أنا قبلكم أيها القراء الأعزاء: لأنّ الخليج يعيش على الريع النفطي، والإنتاج غير النفطي لا يكاد يكون شيئاً يُذكر سوى الجانب البيولوجي أيّ التكاثر السكاني، وحتى هذا لم يصل عدده إلى عدد العمال المستجلبين من الخارج، وطبعاً يخشون تشغيل شباب اليمن!! ولأنّ الحاكم يأخذ حصة من ريع النفط تتركها له الشركات الغربية الكبرى التي تلتهم البلاد، فهو ايّ الحاكم المحكوم يُنفق بعض الريع على من لا يشتغلون شغلاً إنتاجياً، لذا يقول: شو بدكم في الديمقراطية!

(Visited 36 times, 36 visits today)

A MUST SEE: Father Mmanuel Musallam SPEAKING OUT on Nakba Day Plus ‘Peace” Photo Story

الاب منويل مسلم في ذكرى نكبة فلسطين هذا الخطاب القاه في المنتدى العربي الناصري

Treason’s Photo Story

==================

The Long Way to OSLO

Alan Hart the Linkman Between Perea And Arafat

Arafat: a Political Biography by Alan Hart

Old Posts 

Alan Hart and the Assasination of ABU JIHAD, ABU IYAD, ABU ALHOUL Paved the way to OSLO

=========================

Zionist Treaty with the King of Treason

Clinton with Arab Traitors

=====================

ABBAS and HAMAS

Palestine shall never die

Related Videos

Related Articles

Haniya Elected New Head of Hamas – Islamic Jihad Rejects Palestine State within 1967 Borders

Ismail Haniya Elected New Head of Hamas

May 6, 2017

Hamas said its former chief in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, was elected overall head of the Palestinian resistance group on Saturday, succeeding Khaled Meshaal.

Haniya is expected to remain in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian enclave run by Hamas since 2007, unlike Meshaal who lives in exile in Doha and has completed the maximum two terms in office.

“The Hamas Shura Council on Saturday elected Ismail Haniya as head of the movement’s political bureau,” the group’s official website announced.

He beat contenders Moussa Abu Marzuk and Mohamed Nazzal in a videoconference vote of the ruling council’s members in Gaza, the West Bank and outside the Palestinian territories.

On Monday, Hamas unveiled a new policy document, announcing it accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, east Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and Gaza, the territories occupied by the Zionist entity in the Six-Day War of 1967.

It also says its struggle is not against Jews because of their religion but against the Zionist entity as an occupier.

The original 1988 charter will not be dropped, just supplemented, the movement said.

Hamas officials said the revised document in no way amounts to recognition of the Zionist entity as a state.

Source: AFP

Islamic Jihad Rejects Palestine State within 1967 Borders

May 6, 2017

Islamic Jihad's deputy leader, Ziad al-Nakhala

Palestinian resistance group Islamic Jihad reiterated its stance on a Palestinian state limited to the 1967 borders.

The announcement comes few days after other Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas unveiled a new policy document, announcing it accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, east Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and Gaza, the territories occupied by the Zionist entity in the Six-Day War of 1967.

Islamic Jihad’s deputy leader, Ziad al-Nakhala said his movement rejects what he described as Hamas’s new policy of easing its stand on the Zionist entity.

“As partners with our Hamas brothers in the struggle for liberation, we feel concern over the document” which the main Islamist movement that rules Gaza adopted on Monday, said Islamic Jihad’s deputy leader, Ziad al-Nakhala.

“We are opposed to Hamas’s acceptance of a state within the 1967 borders and we think this is a concession which damages our aims,” he said on Islamic Jihad’s website.

Nakhala said the new Hamas policy formally accepting the idea of a state in the territories occupied by the Zionist entity in the 1967 Six-Day War would “lead to deadlock and can only produce half-solutions”.

Related Articles

 

Trump to meet Palestinian ‘double agent’

 

US president Donald Trump, a Judas Goat, has invited US Viceroy in the occupied West bank, Mahmoud Abbas, to visit the White House on May 3, 2017.

Abbas will visit Washington on May 3 and will meet with Trump to discuss possibilities to achieve peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said during Wednesday’s news briefing.

Mahmoud Abbas in an interview he gave to Japanese newspaper Ashai Shimbun on Wednesday, said:

President Trump knows that we are committed to a Middle East that lives in peace, justice and dignity, based on a two-state solution, international legitimacy and Arab Peace Initiative (2002).”

Trump, who met with Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year, said he could live with either a one-state or two-state solution. Trump also said that his Jew son-in-law, senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, whose family funds illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, would take the lead in the effort to broker peace in the Middle East.

Though projected as President of Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas lost that title in January 2009, when his PA mandate expired. He is kept in that position by the US, EU and UN to grab more Palestinian land which they have failed to secure from Gaza-ruling Islamic resistance Hamas. Gaza has second largest Palestinian population (1.7 million) outside Israel after Jordan (3.3 million). Hamas doesn’t recognize Mahmoud Abbas as representative of Gaza people or chairman of PA.

In 2014, Mahmoud Abbas said that Hamas doesn’t need to recognize Israel or any of PA-Israel peace agreements.

Jewish-controlled media is in habit of speculating a Fatah-Hamas unity government which has not materialized for the last 10 years.

Abbas is a known western stooge among the majority of the nine million Palestinian people living under Zionist rule, in Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and around the world.

Donald Trump’s senior foreign policy adviser Jason Dov Greenblatt, whose brother Joseph Greenblatt is living in a jail on taxpayers’ money over investment fraud, visited Israel last month to discuss with the Zionist regime how to boost Abbas miserable ratings among Palestinians. During his meeting with Netanyahu, Greenblatt avoided condemning the new illegal Jewish settlements.

Trump’s one-sided support for the Zionist entity and his administration’s contempt for Palestinian rights proves Trump’s proposal to resolve Palestinian conflict will be written by Israelis.

On September 30, 2009, American political scientist and analyst James Gundun posted on his blog The Trench that the Jewish army cannot defeat Hamas.

Unless called to order by the Trump administration, Netanyahu, who faces no imminent electoral threat, is likely to continue his one-state/two-state tightrope act for the foreseeable future, while his government expands settlements, approves laws and implements other measures that lead Israel ever further down the path toward an undemocratic one-state future,” says Ron Skolnik, associate editor of Jewish Currents, April 12, 20017.

The Palestinians and the “State” Delusion

By: Rashid Shahin

After over 20 years of the futile “negotiations” the whole world (including the Palestinians) agrees that it has been fruitless.  It was aimless negotiations but a waste of time during which the occupation state of Israel has succeeded to shuffle the occupied land upside down and create deep demographic changes through accelerating the settlement that has never been done before.

Despite all the facts on the ground, some still hope to believe in that mirage and works to revive life in the dead body of the Oslo Accord. Still, some Palestinians are looking for an exit of some sort that would save them some self respect, or what has remained from their self respect, to prove that they can get something from a process that has resulted in nothing but more land grab, building settlements for more settlers obsessed with Talmudic heresies.

When talking of negotiations between enemies, it should be agreed upon from the beginning that there is a possibility for each party to recognize the other which  doesn’t exist in the Palestinian-zionist case. The Zionist party and since the very beginning of the struggle doesn’t recognize the existence of the Palestinian people, in the first place which was very clear from their deceptive slogan that was created in the early twentieth century of “a land without people to a people without land”.

bloody

Accordingly, the Palestinian leadership should take this in consideration and understand the fact that the Oslo process will never lead to a durable or comprehensive peace with the Zionists, with a state that was created initially by terrorist groups who committed heinous crimes in documented massacres against the Palestinian people to establish their atrocious states built on Talmudic heresies, on the rubble of the Palestinian people.

Gambling to reach to any peaceful agreement, even at the minimum level, with the Zionist state of gangsters (especially at the deteriorating Arab situation) is more futile than it was at the beginning of the Oslo process in Madrid Peace Conferencesupported by the first Intifada which was continued secretly later on in the suspicious Oslo Agreement.

Trying to copy the Iranian style (of negotiating) and identifying with it can’t work in the Palestinian case and dragging the situation into the Syrian case is a leap into the unknown.

Working at going back to the same futile negotiations again is nothing but a fruitless game that should be stopped especially after the facts on the ground imposed by the Zionist occupation, which is very clear not only to the Palestinian people in the street but also to all the world leaders.

Finally, we think that the status cue is a thousand times better than pursuing the mirage of the endless negotiations, especially it is clearer now (which is a fact that we should admit) that the Zionist occupation state is not intending to reach to a peaceful settlement for the struggle, and it is not ready ( as it has never been  before) to agree that the Palestinians get an independent state with Jerusalem its capital, and needless to mention the Palestinian refugees and the Right of Return.

The utmost reconciliation that the Zionist state might be willing to is to give the Palestinians an “expanded” autonomy, or a state with two different statuses, one to include the West Bank with annexing some of the bordering Palestinian towns that the Zionists want to get rid of, which is a typical racist style. OR, full occupation and annexing the West Bank. Accordingly we call to stop those futile negotiations with the Zionists that will end into nothing for the Palestinians.

 

%d bloggers like this: