Palestinians have a State, it’s Jordan. Since its war they wish for, go there and wage the eternal Holy war among their own kind.
But it’s not land they really wish for is it.

This author is either totally stupid or a straight out liar and pushing Jihadist propaganda; I’ll take the latter.

Denying Palestine statehood. Why do these anti-Israel activists keep denying that statehood has been offered several times, and actually rejected. They must think the rest of us are as stupid as they are.

People who are not anti-Semitic/anti-Israel/ignorant know that terrorists/Palestinians/Arabs, whatever, want Israel and Jews wiped of the map. There is no interest in a two state 'solution' that doesn't exist and never will exist.

Pity the Suez Canal isn't a little further NE !

.

Dear Alon (the author),

.

You wrote :

« Hamas' horrific October 7 attack and Israel's massive retaliatory war have fundamentally changed the dynamic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Returning to the status quo that existed before October 7 will be impossible. »
.

It will, indeed, Alon, because there was no “status quo”, per se, before 7th October 2023.

The Israeli Netanyahu right-wing government had been methodically and illegally colonising Palestinian territory, in complete impunity, constantly fuelling the smouldering embers of fury and revolt of Hamas and the Palestinians for 57 years, since it (Israel) conquered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.

It was a determined, evolutive political strategy, aimed at annexation of all Palestine territory and complete domination of the country.

Muslim countries blamed Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories as the root cause of the attack. Hamas said it was in response to the continued Israeli occupation, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, rising Israeli settler violence, and recent escalations.

As a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU, teaching international negotiations and Middle Eastern studies, you can’t possibly ignore the fact that the British White Paper of June 1922 – the first document that officially clarified the interpretation of the Mandate’s text – explained that the Balfour Declaration does “not contemplate that Palestine as a whole, should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded ‘in Palestine’”.

Furthermore, it stressed – and this is perhaps the most relevant aspect – that the “Zionist congress” that took place in Carlsbad in September 1921 had officially accepted “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development”.

.

(Continued …).

.

.

(Continued …).

.

It is only in light of these clarifications that the preamble as well as Article 2 of the Mandate text can and should be understood. It is noteworthy that Zionist consent to such interpretation was requested, and received, before the Mandate was confirmed in July 1922.

In Chaim Weizmann’s words (the Zionist leader and first president of Israel) : “It was made clear to us that confirmation of the Mandate would be conditional on our acceptance of the policy as interpreted in the White Paper [of 1922], and my colleagues and I therefore had to accept it, which we did, though not without some qualms”. »

I must say I am surprised, Alon, that such major historical facts, indispensable for comprehending the tragic events that were to follow, are conspicuously absent from your article.

Naturally, comprehension is not inferential of justification or acceptance.

.