Ah the spin of revisionist socialist 'historians' with an axe to grind.

My favorite bit of rubbish?
"It was followed by a second humanitarian disaster in 1967 when Israel seized the whole of Jerusalem and the entirety of historic Palestine"

Of course, no mention of the entire Arab world trying to wipe Israel off the face of the map in 1967 nor that there was also a 'historic Israel'.

This article has so many flaws in it that it almost impossible to list them.
It is so amazingly one-eyed that surely no sensible person would give credence to it.

I had a Palestinian colleague at work, a great guy as far as I could learn, and I intend no disrespect to him or his family.

BUT if the Arab governments had not maintained the Palestinians as tame victims and proxies in their affronted feelings since 1948, the Palestinians would not have been displaced in the first place. If the Palestinians had declared peace and got on with winning politically and economically instead of engaging in mass murder against civilians and trying to create Palestinian civilian deaths for propaganda value, the Palestinian people would now be a million times better off. Indtead they have to maintain a face as appalling death-cultists to even live in Gaza, and not be killed by their Hamas mobsters.

Now how to reconcile that with my workmate? In my opinion, the moral posturing of the West and of the Arab states has armed and encouraged the worst possible outcome for Palestinian Arabs, who could have got land, freedom and economic success if they had waged peace.

The only challenge that this article poses is why the authors have a readership. Why they selectively focus on certain historical moments, and not others, is not due to any inherent bias, or agenda, but due to an exclusive claim on the "Truth". The obvious question, is why they choose to only focus upon Israel - but we won't accuse them of antisemitism because their morality is cleary a pure morality? While free speech demands that the authors declare their perspective on life, the credibility of their speech is only as cheap as the ideological lenses through which they blindly interpret select moments of a very subjective history to prove a point they blindly believe, with an inability to think critically about their own internal agendas and bias. Using their brilliance, there is no nation state on earth that is not a terrorist state. There again, they never articulate any criteria for distinguishing a terrorist state from a legitimate state. I can think of many comments from Australian leaders rejecting Aboriginal claims to land, desiring the eradication of the aboriginal population etc. I guess, Australia was also created out of terrorism. And the Americas. And Saudi Arabia. The Roman Empire. India. New Zealand. South Africa. And not to mention those Socialist places - USSR, China, etc etc etc. Out of context quotes from leaders, random "facts" and chronologies -- I still don't understand why such an article is permitted to be part of an intelligent conversation.

The article appeared in "The Socialist Worker" organ of The Socialist Workers Party (SWP). SWP is the largest far left political party in Britain. Internationally, it leads the Trotskyist organisation, the International Socialist Tendency.

It continues a conflict among Jews lasting over a hundred years. The Jewish population of czarist Russia was oppressed. Some kept their heads down and endured. Some emigrated. Some Zionist Jews saw liberation in a Jewish homeland. Some Marxist Jews saw liberation as part of a general liberation. Many of the latter saw their Jewish identity as not important and identified with other communists.

In 1897 the Bund, a Jewish Socialist party, was founded in Vilna. The Bund was anti-Zionist, promoted Yiddish and supported Jewish national rights as part of the new society they envisioned. Remnants are still active. However, the part of the Bund in the Soviet Union was destroyed. The USSR had no room for an independent Jewish group. The Marxist left still continues the struggle against Zionism.

The article treats Zionism as a colonial enterprise disregarding the rights of non-Jews. From early in the movement there were Zionists who were extremely concerned with the rights of non-Jews. Dizengoff who wrote the following was the first mayor of Tel Aviv. Ben Gurion proclaimed independence from his house.

"How can Jews, who demand emancipation in Russia, rob rights and act selfishly toward other workers upon coming to Eretz Israel? If it is possible for many a people to hide fairness and justice behind cannon smoke, how and behind what shall we hide fairness and justice? We should absolutely not deceive ourselves with terrible visions. We shall never possess cannons, even if the goyim shall bear arms against one another for ever. Therefore, we cannot but settle in our land fairly and justly, to live and let live. (Meir Dizengoff (writing as "Dromi") "The Workers Question," Hatzvi, September 21, 22, 1909)

The article is a Marxist polemic demonising Jews who don't follow their vision. Trotsky, inspiration for the SWP, helped create a Nakba for the Russian people in which an estimated 20,000,000 died.

I think this is what is missing in the Jewish experience;
All the great utterances of Isaiah point to a world united under one God and living in righteousness and at peace. But sadly, not all the prophetic books of the Bible preach to such ends. The result is a modern day Israel with a siege mentality.