The whole concept of a “Palestinian State” can only bring even more deaths and hardships to Jews and Arabs. There are many reasons why this is so but the main one is that the Arabs never wanted to make peace with the Jews BECAUSE THAT GOES AGAINST THE JIHAD OF ISLAM AND THE ISLAMIC KORAN OF MOHAMMED. That is the main reason. But there are others. Many people have shown by the use of maps that a Palestinian Arab state based on what they call the West Bank but is really Judea and Samaria cuts Israel almost in two and places that Palestinian State within miles of key Israeli installations including the main airport for Israeli travel – Ben Gurion airport. “Palestinian” Arabs following on the terrorism of the Irish Republicanism has always been ready to attack such places. This is leaving aside the fact that where they plan to put this Palestinian state sits on the most sacred land of the Jews – the land where the Jewish ancestors came to first about 2500 years before an Arab was Heard of. The Word “Palestinian” is as recent as post-1967. is a new site although still exists but we add one other reason for no Palestinian Arab state which is that we take the long and overall international view. Jews must be safe from Antisemitism. Therefore Jews must have a place on earth where they can live alone, others as guests willingly because they recognise that very Antisemitism, and that means no Palestinian Arab state threatening and also a new concept of those who live in Israel. Palestinian Arabs must be there as guests and willing Friends of Israel in order to ensure the security of the Jews. We are Marxists and non-Jews and that makes our position stronger not weaker.

This is also more or less what the great analyst Martin Sherman writes and we are united in a struggle to defend the Jews in this new dangerous period:

Its inherent implausibility was aptly albeit belatedly articulated by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council, who in 2009 correctly observed: “… the maximum that any government of Israel will be ready to offer the Palestinians…

is much less than the minimum that any Palestinian leader can accept.”

Detailed studies of Israel’s minimum security requirements, buttressed by precedent and prudent evaluation of the significance of recent developments in the Arab world, lead to one clear conclusion: Maintenance of Israel’s minimum security needs is incompatible with the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

Which brings us to the ethical level: Continued pursuit of this fundamentally and fatally flawed formula will result in further failure, bringing more trauma and tragedy to both Jew and Arab.

It is precisely for this reason that further adherence to the two-state idea, as per the insistent behest of the Obama administration, is devoid of any moral value.

It is precisely for this reason that it must be resolutely resisted.

Endorsing Muslim-majority tyranny

Proponents of a the two-state principle can no longer claim, in good faith, the moral high ground. For we have seen what their preferred prescription has precipitated in the past; and we have a fair idea of what it will produce in the future.

They have no moral merits on their side. There is no moral merit in establishing what, almost certainly, will become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, within mortar range of Ben-Gurion Airport and within tunnel reach of the Trans-Israel Highway (Route 6).

There is no moral merit in endorsing the creation of what, almost certainly, will rapidly become (yet another) Muslim-majority tyranny, the utter negation of the very values its advocates invoke for its establishment gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, oppression of political dissidents.

There is no moral merit in supporting a policy that, almost certainly, will expose thousands of kindergartens in the Coastal Plain to the dangers that southern towns, villages and farms experience repeatedly due to the failed attempt to confer self-rule on the Palestinian-Arabs in Gaza.

There is no moral merit in promoting a policy that, almost certainly, would subject the Palestinian-Arab civilian population to the ravages of repeated retaliatory action the IDF would be compelled to take in response to the attacks against Israel’s civilian population/installations from the Palestinian-administrated territory as the Gaza precedent clearly foretells.

The moral imperative

A keen awareness of the futility and moral bankruptcy of the two-state paradigm has led me to propose what I call the “Humanitarian Paradigm” for the resolution (or rather dissolution) of the conflict with the Palestinian- Arabs, involving the generous funding of their voluntary relocation and rehabilitation in third-party countries.

I have been excoriated for daring to raise such a “monstrously unethical” initiative. But in light of the forgoing discussion, who really has the moral high ground? Those who promote the establishment of (yet another) Muslim-majority tyranny, with all the attendant detriments and dangers described above? Or those who advocate providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals the opportunity to build a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the cycles of death, destruction and destitution that have been brought down on them by the cruel, corrupt cliques that have them astray for decades.

After all, if proponents of the two-state principle find no moral blemish in advocating the funded evacuation of Jews to facilitate the establishment of an entity that would, in all likelihood, become a bastion of radical Islamist terrorism, what moral principle would cause them to shrink in horror at the suggestion of funded evacuation of Arabs from their homes, to obviate the establishment of such an entity? I leave the readers to ponder the question.

Martin Sherman ( is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (




There was NO Palestinian Arab nationalist consciousness at all.


Sha’o ben-Tekoa (Phantom Nation Inventing the Palestinians as the Obstacle to Peace) shows this very conclusively and he uses the writings of Khalidi to do so. The fact that he can use him is most telling.


Sha’o ben-Tekoa goes on to document the two occasions which are of note. It was the founding of newspapers.


The first was a newspaper called “el Karmil” in 1908. Rashidi called it the first “Palestinian” paper.


The name of that newspaper does not refer to any nation. Sha’o ben-Tekoa claims it is the name of a hill!!!


Sha’o ben-Tekoa also points out this was 45 years after the first Zionist paper. But more important than that is that no Arabs were calling themselves “Palestinians” (period we talk about here is the run up to World War 1) so how can Rashidi call it the first “Palestinian” consciousness. This is magic making.


In this book Sha’o ben-Tekoa is quite relentless in exposing this word “Palestinian” or “Palestinians”. This is only a sample. I feel this is needed and is a guide to the way forward.


There is often much talk about “Hasbara”. But Hasbara is very difficult for people, like Netanyahu, who have compromised their principles and accepted the “Palestinian” Arab State idea.


This in turn points to the type of leadership that needs to be built in Israel to lead in the coming battles, the present leaders in the Gaza War having proved totally useless.


Back to Sha’o ben-Tekoa … It looks to me that the Jews were building their country, building their “Palestine”


The Arabs were reacting to this.


Can we pause and internalise that word…Reacting…Not an authentic deep rooted nationalism.


They began to organise but against this building of the Zionist “Palestine”, or any country (name being immaterial) (At the same time immigrants flocking in to follow the industry and jobs created plus higher standard of living)


After that first newspaper…Three years later “Falastin” was launched but not by Muslims by Christians, that is Christian Arabs.


They were copying the Zionists, the Christian West and the Jews, who were alone using the name Palestine. Falastine is the Arab corruption of the name.


The whole book and life work by Sha’o ben-Tekoa is a bit of a jewel for those who are fighting to prick the balloon of this phenomenon, a “tall story” repeated millions of times. There is another major “tall story” and that is the Srebrenica “Massacre”.


These are the new Fascist Media centres sharpening their teeth.


There is no leadership whatsoever in Israel. There are all kinds of groups and individuals. But explore their politics and they are massively unprepared.


Look at some of them: Over this weekend Frontpagemag is lining up against the Russian Ukrainian anti-Fascists and by the way lining up with the Obama US and EU pro-Fascists.


Look also at Steven Plaut. Plaut has put forward 40 or so points and they have been liked. But Plaut is an explicit hater of Trotskyism, meaning me and us, that is everything on this blog 4international.


These are hardly small issues. How can there be a leadership that can lead in the stress of revolutionary and counter revolutionary events.


I stress it is not possible.


4international is a big fan of this book by Sha’o ben-Tekoa (Phantom Nation). I am not saying that we agree on political programme. I am saying that his research on this issue has got a lot of valuable things to contemplate.


The way to deal with George Galloway, an old and bankrupt political person, is not to smack his jaw, but to challenge the ideology, not as an individual initiative but in the course of training a new leadership.


That is the way we work. It is political struggle first and foremost, a political awakening.