Tucker Carlson Accuses US Government of Ignoring Israeli Settler Violence Against Palestinian-Americans

Tucker Carlson Accuses US Government of Ignoring Israeli Settler Violence Against Palestinian-Americans

    Friday, October 30, 2026   No comments

 The growing violence perpetrated by extremist Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank has raised serious questions about accountability, law enforcement, and the willingness of the US government to protect its own citizens. A public dispute between conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has brought renewed attention to these concerns, following the release of footage showing a Palestinian-American man severely beaten by Israeli settlers in Turmus Ayya.

Carlson accused Huckabee and US diplomatic officials of ignoring the victim's requests for assistance despite formal outreach to the embassy on October 19.

"Ambassador Huckabee, this is unreleased video of an American who was beaten almost to death last week by Israeli settlers. You know his name because he came to you for help, but you blew him off. That’s disgraceful. Do your job," Carlson wrote.

Huckabee rejected the accusation, maintaining that consular officials had made repeated attempts to contact the victim and offer assistance through phone calls and emails. He attributed the difficulties to how communications were handled by the victim's son. These competing accounts have not been independently verified, leaving questions about the embassy's response unresolved.

Yet the controversy raises an issue that extends beyond a dispute between two prominent Americans: What protection can Palestinian-American citizens expect from their government when they are attacked by Israeli settlers, and what consequences follow when those responsible for the violence are not held accountable?

The problem is not limited to one victim or one incident. Another violent episode in the South Hebron Hills village of Umm al-Khair underscores the broader concerns. Israeli settlers reportedly assaulted US journalist Jasper Nathaniel and peace activists Andrey X and Adele Shoko while they were documenting a military gate restricting Palestinian communities' access to their land.

According to reports of the incident, Israeli occupation police responded by arresting the targeted activists while leaving the alleged perpetrators of the violence unpunished. The gate remained in place, continuing to restrict local Palestinians' access to their land.

If these accounts are accurate, the contrast is deeply troubling: Palestinians and those documenting or opposing the restrictions imposed on them face violence, arrest, and continuing barriers to their land, while those accused of carrying out the attacks appear to escape immediate consequences. Such a pattern demands independent investigation, not indifference.

The issue is larger than individual acts of violence. When settlers can intimidate Palestinian communities, attack residents and international observers, and obstruct access to land without facing meaningful consequences, violence becomes a means of enforcing dispossession and sustaining control over an occupied population. The absence of accountability does not merely fail to deter further attacks; it risks encouraging their repetition.

For Palestinians, the consequences are immediate and enduring: physical injuries, fear for personal safety, restrictions on movement, and the erosion of their ability to live on and cultivate their own land. For Palestinian-Americans, these dangers raise an additional question about whether US citizenship offers meaningful protection when violence occurs under Israeli occupation.

The US government should not treat attacks on Palestinian-Americans as isolated consular incidents. It should demand thorough and impartial investigations, press for the prosecution of those responsible, and insist that US citizens receive timely and effective consular assistance. More broadly, Washington should make clear that its relationship with Israel does not exempt Israeli authorities from their obligations to prevent violence, protect civilians, and ensure equal application of the law.

Ending settler violence requires more than statements of concern after another assault. It requires accountability for perpetrators, effective protection for threatened Palestinian communities, the removal of unlawful barriers that restrict access to land, and an end to the impunity that allows attacks to continue. Where Israeli authorities fail to provide that protection, the United States must use its diplomatic leverage to press for concrete action rather than offer excuses or remain silent.

The fundamental question is not whether Washington agrees with every accusation made against Israeli settlers. It is whether the United States will consistently defend the safety, rights, and dignity of its citizens and demand accountability for violence against Palestinians. If the same standards of justice are to apply to everyone, neither the identity of the victim nor the political power of the alleged perpetrator should determine whether an attack is investigated and punished.

Nine Americans Killed, No Accountability

The controversy surrounding the US Embassy's response to the beating of a Palestinian-American in Turmus Ayya comes amid mounting criticism of Washington's failure to secure justice for Americans killed in the occupied West Bank.

In July 2025, US Senator Chris Van Hollen led 28 Senate colleagues in demanding an independent American investigation into the death of Saifullah Kamel Musallet, a 20-year-old Palestinian-American who was beaten to death by Israeli settlers near Sinjil. The senators also demanded information about the investigations into six other Americans killed in the West Bank since January 2022. They warned that repeated failures to hold perpetrators accountable were fostering a culture of impunity.

The problem persisted. In February 2026, Nasrallah Abu Siyam, a 19-year-old Palestinian-American, was shot and killed by Israeli settlers during an attack on Palestinian farmers near Mukhmas. The following month, Van Hollen and 30 colleagues again pressed the Trump administration for an independent investigation and answers about the deaths of American citizens. By then, the senators had identified nine Americans killed in the West Bank since January 2022, with no one held accountable for their deaths.

In August, Van Hollen joined more than 40 Senate colleagues in urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to intervene against escalating settler violence, protect American citizens, and ensure that those responsible for attacks on Palestinians were held accountable. The senators called for transparent investigations and effective measures to prevent further violence.

The controversy escalated further in October, when The New York Times reported that David Milstein, a senior adviser to US Ambassador Mike Huckabee, had obstructed or altered embassy reporting on Israeli government actions. According to the newspaper, embassy staff had prepared a report on the investigations into the nine Americans' deaths that indicated no one had been held accountable. The report was allegedly blocked in favor of a response portraying Israel as appropriately handling the investigations.

On October 9, Van Hollen called for a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing into the reported obstruction, accusing Huckabee and his adviser of withholding essential information from Congress. He demanded the release of the original report and an accounting of what US officials knew about the killings. Huckabee has rejected the newspaper's account, and the allegations have not been established through a completed independent investigation.

These developments raise questions that cannot be dismissed as a partisan dispute or a disagreement over diplomatic messaging. When American citizens are killed, their government has a responsibility to pursue credible investigations and demand accountability. When Palestinians face the same violence without effective protection, the obligation to act is no less urgent.

The failure to secure justice for American victims also exposes a deeper problem: Palestinian communities cannot reasonably expect protection from violence if the authorities responsible for maintaining public order fail to prevent attacks or hold perpetrators accountable. Nor can the United States credibly champion the rule of law while tolerating a pattern in which attacks on Palestinians—including American citizens—produce repeated promises of investigation but no demonstrated accountability.

Ending settler violence requires more than diplomatic expressions of concern. It demands effective protection for Palestinian communities, impartial investigations, prosecution of those responsible, and an end to the impunity that enables further attacks. The United States should use its diplomatic leverage to insist on these measures consistently, rather than allowing the political sensitivity of its relationship with Israel to overshadow the lives and rights of those harmed.

How Israel’s Recent Elections Expose the Apartheid Reality of its "Democracy"

How Israel’s Recent Elections Expose the Apartheid Reality of its "Democracy"

    Wednesday, October 28, 2026   No comments

 The Ballot and the Barrier

As the dust settles on the late October 2026 Israeli elections, the political maneuvering and frantic rhetoric of the past few weeks have laid bare a profound and uncomfortable truth. Israel continues to project itself to the international community as the "only democracy in the Middle East." Yet, the recent electoral cycle has stripped away this veneer, exposing a political structure and a societal schizophrenia that fundamentally contradict democratic principles. The reality is stark: when the indigenous Palestinian citizens of Israel—those living within the 1948 borders—exercise their democratic right to vote, their participation is not celebrated as a triumph of democracy. Instead, it is criminalized, demonized, and ultimately excluded from the levers of power.

This paradox was perfectly encapsulated by US ambassador to Israel, who casually posted that "Arabs vote same as Israelis." While intended as a compliment to the electoral process, the statement inadvertently highlighted the deep cognitive dissonance at the heart of the Israeli project. The state demands the international legitimacy of a liberal democracy while enforcing the demographic and political control of an ethnocracy.

Nowhere was this schizophrenia more evident than in the reactions to the historic surge in Palestinian voter turnout. In the Bedouin community of Atawna, for instance, voter turnout skyrocketed from 41% in the previous election to 64% just halfway through the polling day. Rather than viewing this as a healthy civic engagement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to X (formerly Twitter) in sheer panic: "EMERGENCY: THEY ARE TRYING TO STEAL THE ELECTION FROM US!" He baselessly claimed that "Muslim brotherhood supporters are raiding polling stations and stealing the election!" and even accused senior financial officials of the Ra’am party of carrying envelopes of cash to bribe voters.

To the Israeli right, the democratic participation of Arab citizens is not a civic duty; it is an existential threat.

This reactionary panic is driven by a simple mathematical reality that the Israeli political establishment is desperate to ignore. With the final counts placing Netanyahu’s bloc at 54 seats, the opposition led by Gadi Eisenkot at 48, and Arab parties securing a historic 18 seats, the opposition holds a potential 66-seat majority. However, this majority only exists if the Arab parties are counted.

Instead of embracing this democratic mandate, the political establishment has drawn a hard red line. Netanyahu declared that "the Zionist majority must come to its senses" and insisted, "We must not form a government that relies on anti-Zionist Arab parties." Eisenkot, positioning himself as the secular, security-minded alternative, also categorically ruled out governing with Arab parties during the campaign.

The hypocrisy of this exclusion is staggering when contrasted with who these leaders are willing to partner with. Israeli leaders have no moral or political qualms about forming governments with extremist settler parties. Figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, whose racist and hateful rhetoric has led to them being sanctioned by several European governments, are welcomed as legitimate coalition partners. Yet, Arab citizens who participate in the democratic process, run for office, and win seats are deemed "anti-Zionist" and unfit to govern.

Former deputy foreign minister Sharren Haskel perfectly articulated this toxic consensus. Blaming Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for driving up Palestinian turnout, she explicitly called for a broad national unity government composed exclusively of Jewish factions: "Without the Arabs!" Even Yair Golan, leader of the so-called "Democratic Party," who bravely called for a government in partnership with Arab parties and condemned the distinction between Jewish and Arab votes as racist, had to point out the glaring hypocrisy of the system. Golan noted that Netanyahu’s bloc includes 16 ultra-Orthodox MKs who are arguably "non-Zionist" and dodge military draft exemptions, yet their votes are counted as legitimate, while the votes of Palestinian citizens in Tayibe are treated as suspect.

This dynamic, coming in the bloody aftermath of the war on Gaza, exposes the true nature of the Israeli leadership's identity project. In the wake of the devastation in Gaza, Israeli leaders have aggressively forged a national identity strictly on security grounds—one that inherently excludes non-Jews. But this security-obsessed identity is built on a demographic house of cards.

Even if Israel manages to permanently exclude the Palestinians in the occupied territories through walls, checkpoints, and annexation, its leaders have no viable plan to address the internal demographic issue. The Arab population within the 1948 borders continues to rise naturally. Concurrently, there is a growing trend of reverse migration, with many Israelis who originally emigrated from Europe and North America choosing to leave the country. The "demographic threat" that keeps right-wing politicians awake at night cannot be solved merely by occupying the West Bank; it is breathing, voting, and living inside Israel’s recognized borders.

The refusal to form a government with Arab representatives is not merely a tactical political dispute; it is the logical endpoint of the state's foundational ideology. The real danger Israel will continue to face is one created on the foundation of Zionism itself. Built on a framework of narrow ethnic nationalism, Zionism, by definition, requires the exclusion and subjugation of non-Jews to maintain its character as a "Jewish state."

As long as Israel prioritizes its ethnic demographic majority over the democratic rights of all its citizens, it will remain trapped in this schizophrenic loop. It will continue to claim the mantle of democracy while treating its indigenous Arab citizens as a demographic enemy to be managed rather than a populace to be represented. The recent elections did not just determine the composition of the Knesset; they served as a glaring indictment of an apartheid state that fears the very ballot box it claims to revere.

Israeli Commander’s Warning on Settler Violence Mirrors the Fatal Contradictions of White Minority Rule

Israeli Commander’s Warning on Settler Violence Mirrors the Fatal Contradictions of White Minority Rule

    Monday, July 20, 2026   No comments

 Echoes of Apartheid

In a rare moment of candid internal critique, a senior Israeli military official has sounded the alarm on the surging violence committed by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank, explicitly labeling the phenomenon "Jewish terrorism." The admission, made by Central Command chief Avi Blot during a closed conference, highlights a deep fracturing within the Israeli security apparatus. Beyond the immediate tactical concerns, Blot’s warnings illuminate a grim historical parallel: the structural and ideological similarities between this unchecked settler violence and the white vigilante violence that ultimately consumed the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

According to reports from the public broadcaster KAN, Blot did not mince words, stating unequivocally that "Jewish terrorism threatens everyone’s security." He sharply criticized settler youth who reject the rule of law and disregard state institutions, noting that the establishment of illegal outposts and the broader rise in nationalist crime are placing immense strain on the military. The violence, he warned, consumes the time and resources of commanders while actively eroding Israel’s "international legitimacy."

While Blot did not oppose the broader concept of settlements—merely suggesting they be restricted to Area C—his confession underscores a reality long documented by human rights organizations: the Israeli military is increasingly bogged down not just by Palestinian resistance, but by the rogue, state-tolerated violence of its own civilian settlers.

This dynamic bears a striking resemblance to the fatal contradictions of white minority rule in South Africa during the Apartheid era.

The Parallels of State-Sanctioned Vigilantism

During the height of Apartheid, the South African state relied on a complex web of formal security forces and informal white vigilante groups to enforce racial subjugation and seize Black land. Much like the Israeli settlers in the West Bank today, white extremist groups in South Africa often operated with a profound sense of impunity. They carried out extrajudicial violence, forced removals, and intimidation against Black South Africans, frequently with the tacit approval or willful blindness of the state.

However, the Apartheid state eventually realized that this decentralized, vigilante violence was a double-edged sword. Just as Blot notes that settler violence "actively consumes the time and resources" of the Israeli military, the South African security forces found themselves stretched to the breaking point, forced to manage the chaos generated by their own ideological extremists. The white vigilantes, while sharing the state's overarching goal of territorial and racial dominance, ultimately undermined the state's monopoly on violence, creating internal instability that accelerated the regime's collapse.

The Hypocrisy of the "Rule of Law"

Blot’s criticism of settlers who "reject the rule of law" highlights a profound hypocrisy that is central to both the Israeli occupation and the Apartheid regime. In South Africa, the "rule of law" was a facade—a rigid, draconian framework used to criminalize the existence and movement of Black South Africans, while white citizens who committed violent crimes against Black people were rarely prosecuted by the white justice system.

Today, a similar dual legal system exists in the West Bank. Palestinians are subjected to military courts, administrative detention, and strict civil controls, while settler violence against them is overwhelmingly ignored by Israeli law enforcement. Blot’s frustration with settlers ignoring state authority mirrors the late-stage Apartheid dilemma: a state that builds its foundation on systemic lawlessness and oppression eventually finds that its own citizens no longer respect the law either. When the law is used merely as a tool of subjugation rather than justice, it loses all moral and practical authority.

Settlers Violence to Erase Palestinian Identity

Israeli settlers storm Sebastia archaeological site during Palestine's UNESCO bid. Israeli settlers stormed the archaeological site in the town of Sebastia, northwest of Nablus, on 20 July, raiding the grounds in several vehicles under heavy Israeli military protection, WAFA reported.

The incursion came as Muslim, Christian, and Samaritan religious leaders were gathered at the site in a show of support for Palestine's urgent request to add Sebastia to the UNESCO World Heritage List, submitted at the World Heritage Committee's 48th session underway in Busan, South Korea.

Settlers and occupation forces regularly raid Sebastia, particularly its archaeological area, in a sustained campaign to seize control of the historical site and erase its Palestinian identity.

Land Grabs, Overextension, and International Isolation

Blot highlighted the establishment of illegal outposts in areas designated under Palestinian civil or security control as a major point of friction. This mirrors the Apartheid regime’s endless attempts to redraw borders, consolidate white-controlled land, and push Black South Africans into fragmented "Bantustans." In both contexts, the relentless drive for territorial expansion requires a massive, ongoing deployment of security forces to protect the settlers, draining the military and creating endless flashpoints for violence.

The human cost of this expansion is staggering. Official Palestinian records indicate that since October 2023, the combined actions of the Israeli military and Jewish settler violence have resulted in 1,181 Palestinian deaths and nearly 13,000 injuries.

It is this exact brand of relentless, unchecked violence that led to the international isolation of Apartheid South Africa. Blot’s explicit concern that settler violence is eroding Israel’s "international legitimacy" is a direct nod to this historical trajectory. The Apartheid regime fell largely because the global community refused to tolerate the brutal, legalized violence inflicted upon Black South Africans, leading to crippling sanctions and diplomatic pariah status. Blot’s warning suggests that Israel’s military leadership recognizes they are walking the exact same path.

A System Consuming Itself

Avi Blot’s unprecedented admission is a stark acknowledgment that the occupation is mutating. The Israeli military, tasked with securing the state, is increasingly finding itself in the role of managing a rogue settler population whose "Jewish terrorism" threatens the very security and global standing of the state they claim to defend.

The parallels to Apartheid South Africa are structural and systemic. When a state empowers a privileged class of settlers to dispossess and violently subjugate an indigenous population, it unleashes forces it can eventually no longer control. The white violence against Black South Africans was the rot that hollowed out the Apartheid state from within. As Blot’s warning makes clear, the unchecked violence of Israeli settlers in the West Bank is proving to be the exact same fatal contradiction for the state of Israel.

Israeli minister Ben Gvir demands Gaza style destruction across occupied West Bank

Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has publicly called for applying the catastrophic military devastation inflicted on Gaza to Palestinian towns and villages throughout the occupied West Bank.

Is Israel preparing for war on Sunni Axis?

Is Israel preparing for war on Sunni Axis?

    Sunday, April 12, 2026   No comments

Dramatic exchanges unfolded on Saturday, when Turkish prosecutors filed indictments against 35 senior Israeli officials over Israel’s interception of a Gaza-bound flotilla on 1 October, 2025, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Sunday in a speech, "Just as we entered Libya and Karabakh, we can enter Israel. There is no reason not to do it ... It will require strength and unity."

"Had Pakistan not been mediating between the US and Iran, we would have shown Israel its place," he said, adding that "Netanyahu is blinded by blood and hatred."

Erdogan's comments prompted a sharp response from Israeli officials. Katz said, “[Erdogan] who did not respond to missile fire from Iran into Turkish territory and was revealed to be a paper tiger, is now retreating into the realms of antisemitism and declaring show trials in [Turkiye] against Israel’s political and military leadership.”

"What an absurdity. A man of the Muslim Brotherhood, who slaughtered the Kurds, accuses Israel—defending itself against his Hamas partners—of genocide," Katz continued. "Israel will continue to defend itself with strength and determination, and he would do well to sit quietly and remain silent."

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who was also among the 35 Israelis targeted by the Turkish indictment, stated, “Erdogan, do you understand English? F*ck you.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday criticized Erdogan after Turkish prosecutors sought to have him jailed, saying that “Israel under my leadership will continue to fight Iran’s terror regime and its proxies, unlike Erdogan who accommodates them and massacred his own Kurdish citizens."

Netanyahu's remarks prompted Turkiye’s Foreign Ministry to respond yesterday, saying that “Everyone knows he has no moral values or legitimacy to preach to anyone,” also calling Netanyahu “the Hitler of our time” in a separate statement.

Erdogan continued his attacks, nonetheless. 'Isn't this a form of apartheid?' - Erdogan criticizes new Israel death penalty for Palestinians. The Head of Communications at the Turkish Presidency, Burhanettin Duran, added:

◾️ Netanyahu has committed genocide in Gaza, is launching attacks on seven countries in the region, and—out of desperation—has even dared to target President Erdoğan.

◾️ Netanyahu is a criminal against whom arrest warrants have been issued and who no longer has any friends. He is pushing the region toward chaos and conflict as a strategy for political survival.

◾️ Turkey, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, will continue its struggle against oppressors for a world characterized by greater justice, peace, and security.

This is happening at the same time when Pakistan is also increasingly pulled into the politics of the Middle East, feeding into the new Israeli narrative about a threat from a "Sunni axis".

Summary of events:

Recent diplomatic tensions between Turkey and Israel have intensified following provocative statements from an Israeli security expert, prompting a sharp rebuttal from Turkish officials. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, Yoni Ben Menachem, a researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, has accused Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of pursuing a covert strategic agenda. Ben Menachem alleges that Erdoğan's public rhetoric masks a deliberate effort to construct a new Sunni-led axis in the Middle East, designed to fill the potential power vacuum should Iran's regional influence diminish or its regime collapse. In his assessment, Turkey is emerging as "an increasing strategic threat to Israel," going so far as to label Ankara "the new Iran."

These claims have not gone unchallenged. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan swiftly dismissed the allegations, framing them as part of a calculated Israeli narrative. Fidan accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of actively seeking to designate Turkey as Israel's "new enemy" now that Iran occupies the primary adversarial role in Israeli strategic discourse. "Israel cannot live without an enemy after Iran," Fidan remarked, suggesting that Netanyahu's government relies on external threats to sustain its political positioning. He further cautioned that the deepening security cooperation among Greece, Israel, and Cyprus—often viewed by Ankara as a containment strategy—does not promote regional confidence but rather exacerbates mistrust and raises the risk of confrontation.

This exchange underscores a broader realignment of alliances and anxieties in the Eastern Mediterranean and the wider Middle East. As regional powers recalibrate their strategies amid uncertainty over Iran's future trajectory, Turkey's ambitious foreign policy under Erdoğan continues to provoke concern among some Israeli security circles. Conversely, Turkey perceives Israeli efforts to strengthen ties with its regional rivals as provocative and destabilizing. While neither side has indicated an imminent escalation toward direct conflict, the war of words reflects a fragile diplomatic environment in which perception, narrative, and strategic posturing play increasingly decisive roles. The situation warrants close observation, as miscalculations or hardened rhetoric could transform verbal sparring into tangible geopolitical friction.

China among 80 nations and NGOs to Condemn Israel's West Bank Expansion as Assault on Palestinian Self-Determination

China among 80 nations and NGOs to Condemn Israel's West Bank Expansion as Assault on Palestinian Self-Determination

    Tuesday, February 17, 2026   No comments

In a significant display of diplomatic unity, a coalition of 80 countries and international organizations has issued a scathing condemnation of Israel's recent unilateral moves to expand its control over the occupied West Bank. The statement, delivered at a press conference in New York by Palestinian Permanent Representative Riyad Mansour, frames the Israeli actions not merely as policy shifts, but as a flagrant violation of international law that systematically denies the Palestinian people their fundamental right to self-determination.

The diverse coalition, which includes China, European nations, and Arab and Islamic states, declared its "categorical opposition to any form of annexation." The joint statement underscores a growing global consensus that Israel's entrenchment in the territories occupied since 1967 is not only illegal but poses an existential threat to the possibility of a just and lasting peace.

At the heart of the condemnation is the recognition that Israel's expansionist policies constitute a form of systemic oppression. By altering the demographic composition and legal status of the land, Israel is actively dismantling the geographic contiguity required for a viable Palestinian state. The statement explicitly rejected all measures aimed at changing the character of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, labeling them as actions that "undermine ongoing efforts to achieve peace and stability."

The injustice lies in the asymmetry of power and the erosion of Palestinian agency. For decades, the international community has recognized the right of the Palestinian people to determine their own political future. However, the relentless growth of settlements and the imposition of Israeli civil law over Palestinian areas effectively preempt this right, imposing a reality of permanent subjugation rather than temporary occupation.

The diplomatic rebuke was triggered by a set of decisions approved by the Israeli government on February 8. These measures aim to fundamentally alter the legal and civil reality in the West Bank by expanding Israeli enforcement authority into areas nominally under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

Under the guise of addressing "unlicensed building," water usage, and environmental concerns, Israel is extending its bureaucratic and military grip over Palestinian daily life. Critics argue this is a mechanism of de facto annexation, bypassing negotiations and imposing Israeli sovereignty by force. The 80-nation coalition warned that such steps contradict Israel's obligations under international law and demanded their immediate reversal.

While diplomatic statements outline the legal breaches, the human cost on the ground paints a grim picture of the oppression faced by Palestinians. Since the escalation of the war on Gaza began on October 8, 2023, violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has intensified dramatically.

According to data cited in the report, the surge in military and settler violence has resulted in the martyrdom of more than 1,115 Palestinians in the West Bank alone. Approximately 11,500 others have been injured, and a staggering 22,000 have been detained. These figures highlight a strategy of collective punishment and fear, where civilians face the constant threat of displacement, arrest, or death.

Palestinians view these actions as a coordinated effort to "impose new facts on the ground," rendering the prospect of a future state increasingly impossible. The expansion of settlements, such as Kiryat Arba near Hebron, continues to carve up the land, isolating Palestinian communities and strangling their economic and social development.

The coalition's statement drew significant weight from the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 19, 2024. The group reaffirmed its commitment to the "New York Declaration," pledging to take concrete measures in accordance with international law to help realize the Palestinian right to self-determination.

"This is not just about borders; it is about dignity and freedom," the statement implied. By emphasizing the illegality of settlements and the threat of forced displacement, the nations highlighted that the denial of self-determination is the root cause of the conflict. The statement stressed that a just and permanent peace can only be achieved by ending the occupation that began in 1967.

Despite the deepening crisis, the coalition reiterated that the two-state solution remains the only viable path to security and stability for both peoples. The vision outlined is clear: two democratic states, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders based on the 1967 lines, including East Jerusalem.

However, the statement served as a stark warning. Continued settlement expansion and unilateral annexation threaten to kill the two-state solution entirely. The 80 nations called for adherence to UN resolutions, the Madrid Terms of Reference, and the Arab Peace Initiative, urging the international community to move beyond rhetoric and enforce accountability.

As the diplomatic pressure mounts, the message from the global community is unequivocal: the oppression of the Palestinian people and the denial of their sovereignty are not sustainable. Without an immediate halt to illegal expansion and a genuine commitment to ending the occupation, the cycle of violence and injustice will continue to destabilize the region and betray the principles of international law.

The West’s Lack of Seriousness About the Two-State Solution

The West’s Lack of Seriousness About the Two-State Solution

    Tuesday, July 29, 2025   No comments

For over three decades, the international community has paid lip service to the idea of a two-state solution as the path to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Yet, since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993—which were supposed to pave the way for Palestinian statehood—the West, particularly the United States and its allies, has failed to take meaningful steps toward realizing this goal. Instead, Israel has continued expanding settlements in the occupied territories, undermining any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. The recent announcements by France and the UK to recognize Palestine—met with immediate condemnation by Israel and the U.S.—only highlight how political, rather than principled, the West’s stance has been. If the international community had enforced the Oslo framework and recognized Palestine years ago, the cycle of violence, including the October 7 attack and the current war in Gaza, might have been avoided.

Three Decades of Empty Promises

The Oslo Accords were meant to be the foundation for Palestinian self-governance, with a five-year interim period leading to final-status negotiations on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and security. Yet, thirty years later, Israel has not withdrawn from the occupied territories, and illegal settlements have only expanded. The West, while rhetorically supporting a two-state solution, has done little to pressure Israel into compliance. Instead, the U.S. and European powers have shielded Israel from accountability, vetoing or blocking UN resolutions condemning settlement expansions and military actions in Palestinian territories.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened Israel’s far-right government, which has openly rejected Palestinian statehood. Just yesterday, Israel announced plans to fully reoccupy Gaza and accelerate annexation in the West Bank—actions that directly contradict the two-state solution. If the West were serious about peace, it would have taken concrete measures long ago, such as recognizing Palestine, halting military aid to Israel until it complies with international law, or imposing sanctions for settlement expansions. Instead, the U.S. and its allies have allowed Israel to dictate terms, ensuring that Palestinian statehood remains out of reach.

Missed Opportunities, Manufactured Conflicts

Israel has had countless opportunities to accept a Palestinian state, which would have provided it with a clearer moral and legal high ground. Once Palestine was recognized, any future attacks from Palestinian territories would be seen as aggression from one state against another, legitimizing Israel’s right to self-defense under international law. Yet Israel has consistently chosen expansionism over coexistence. Just this week, the Israeli government has signaled plans not only to reoccupy Gaza fully but also to assert control over the West Bank—making clear that the goal is not peace, but dominance.

The Abraham Accords, which normalized ties between Israel and certain Arab states, were framed as a diplomatic success. But in reality, they were a workaround—a means to ignore the core issue of Palestinian statehood. Without addressing the root cause, no agreement can bring lasting peace. Recognition of Palestine, not its erasure, is the only path to stability.

If the West genuinely seeks peace in the Middle East, it must move beyond rhetoric. Recognition of the Palestinian state must happen now, and it must be followed by concrete measures to ensure that state’s sovereignty. That includes sanctions against Israel should it unilaterally attack or reoccupy Palestinian territory without provocation. Anything less enables the status quo of violence, displacement, and injustice.

The continued delay in recognition only emboldens the Israeli government to seize more land and entrench a system of apartheid. Western inaction is not neutrality—it is complicity. A principled stance would align with the international consensus and uphold the same values of self-determination and human rights that the West claims to champion.

Global Recognition vs. Western Obstruction

More than 140 out of 193 UN member states already recognize Palestine as a sovereign state. The fact that most of the holdouts are Western nations—primarily the U.S., Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe—demonstrates that their position is driven by geopolitical allegiance to Israel rather than a genuine commitment to peace. When France recently announced its intention to recognize Palestine, only the U.S. and Israel objected. Similarly, when the UK indicated it would recognize Palestine in September, Israel immediately lashed out. These reactions prove that Israel’s government has no intention of allowing Palestinian statehood, and the West’s reluctance to act independently only enables this obstruction.

Had Palestine been recognized as a state under the Oslo framework at any point in the past 30 years, the current crisis could have been averted. A sovereign Palestine would have had diplomatic and legal means to address grievances, reducing the need for armed resistance. There would have been no need for the Abraham Accords—which bypassed Palestinian rights in favor of Arab-Israeli normalization—and no Houthi attacks in the Red Sea in solidarity with Gaza. The West’s failure to act has perpetuated the conflict, not resolved it.

The Path to Peace: Recognition and Accountability

If the West truly wants peace, it must take immediate action:

• Recognize Palestine – The UK and France’s steps are positive, but all Western nations must follow. Recognition would force Israel to negotiate in good faith rather than indefinitely delaying statehood.
• Impose Consequences on Israel – If Israel continues annexation or attacks Palestinian territories without provocation, the West must impose sanctions, halt arms sales, and support ICC investigations.
• Enforce International Law – The U.S. must stop vetoing UN Security Council resolutions that hold Israel accountable for violations.

The longer the West delays, the more land Israel takes, and the more violence escalates. The two-state solution is not dead because Palestinians or the international community abandoned it—it is dying because Israel and its Western backers have systematically undermined it. If the West does not act now, the alternative is endless war. The choice is clear: recognize Palestine or bear responsibility for the bloodshed that follows.

If the West fails to act now, the two-state solution will soon become obsolete, leaving only two grim alternatives: perpetual apartheid or a catastrophic, single-state conflict. Israel’s relentless settlement expansion, its stated intent to annex the West Bank, and its ongoing destruction of Gaza demonstrate that it has no interest in allowing Palestinian sovereignty. Meanwhile, the West’s inaction—masked by empty diplomatic statements—has only emboldened Israel’s extremist government to accelerate its colonization of Palestinian land. The consequences of this failure are already unfolding: the October 7 attack, the brutal war on Gaza, and the rising tensions across the region prove that oppression breeds resistance, and resistance begets further violence. Without urgent Western intervention to enforce a political solution, the cycle will only grow bloodier. The next uprising will be more violent, the next Israeli retaliation more devastating, and the next generation more radicalized. The window for a two-state solution is closing rapidly; if the West continues to prioritize Israeli impunity over justice and peace, it will bear responsibility for the explosion of violence that follows.

"Israel Is Meant to Be Jewish and Democratic; It Cannot Be Both"

"Israel Is Meant to Be Jewish and Democratic; It Cannot Be Both"

    Monday, January 27, 2025   No comments

There is no enduring end to cyclical violence without a political solution to the fate of the Palestinians. No one is seriously talking about the day after another Gaza war, unless they talk about political settlement, not security arrangement. The New York Times borrowed a line from John Kerry  who argued that "Israel Is Meant to Be Jewish and Democratic. It Cannot Be Both." The NYT article  interpreted that statement by invoking another maxim: "States Don’t Have a Right to Exist. People Do." Here are some excerpts from the article, referenced by similar views published in global media outlets.

  

Nika Soon-Shiong said LA Times endorsement was blocked over Gaza war support

Nika Soon-Shiong said LA Times endorsement was blocked over Gaza war support

    Sunday, October 27, 2024   No comments

CNN and other media outlets reported that "the daughter of Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong suggested on Saturday that herfather’s decision to block the newspaper’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris was made over Harris’ support for Israel’s war in Gaza.

Nika Soon-Shiong, a 31-year-old activist who has no official role at the newspaper but has previously been accused of meddling in its coverage, told The New York Times that she and her father made the decision not to endorse Harris. Nika Soon-Shiong reportedly said:

“Our family made the joint decision not to endorse a Presidential candidate. This was the first and only time I have been involved in the process... As a citizen of a country openly financing genocide, and as a family that experienced South African Apartheid, the endorsement was an opportunity to repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children.”

Before Biden dropped out, it was argued that Gaza Genocide will be for Biden what Covid-19 was for Trump. Harris, not making a clear shift in Biden's policies and approach made her inherit his legacy and that will likely sink her bid for the presidency. Young Americans, especially, are not willing to look past the atrocities in Gaza and now Lebanon happening under Biden's watch and by his support.

Media review: What does CBS's handling of Ta-Nehisi Coates' interview tell us about US media when it comes to telling the story of Palestininas?

Media review: What does CBS's handling of Ta-Nehisi Coates' interview tell us about US media when it comes to telling the story of Palestininas?

    Wednesday, October 09, 2024   No comments

News stories about Palestine cannot be covered by news media like any other news subject. That is the main point of the recent controversy surrounding CBS's interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Coates response to the challenge tells the full story: Dokoupil accusing Coates of leaving some information out is not the real issue. The real issue is that Western media outlets have already set the standard for the plight of Palestinians: They should not be given any space, not an equal space, not enough space... they should be given any space at all. And that is the main point in Coates' response. 

The story of Palestinians is not told enough, and when it is, those attempting to tell it, are accused of "supporting terrorism" and of being anti-Semitic. Even Semitic persons--Jews who survived (or who are children of survivors of) the European crime against humanity inflicted on Jews, who object to a genocide committed in their name or the name of their religion or their identity, are attacked as sympathizers with terrorists.

So Dokoupil was not interested in pushing back against unbalanced "reporting", he pushed back because Coates was telling a story that no one is willing to tell for the reasons that were playing out before him live and where he was living the true experience of doing so. There is no record of Mr. Dokoupil pushing back against those who come to tell the Israeli point of view, telling them that they left out the story of Palestinians being subjected to apartheid system, the stories of Palestinians' rights to self-determination being denied by Israel for more than 75 years...

“Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it?” Dokoupil asked. “Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it?”

“There is no shortage of that perspective in American media,” Coates replied. “I am most concerned, always, with those who don’t have a voice.”

This exchange says it all.

The Problem is not Netanyahu, it is Israel's next generation of leaders like Bezalel Smotrich

The Problem is not Netanyahu, it is Israel's next generation of leaders like Bezalel Smotrich

    Monday, September 09, 2024   No comments

Hundreds of thousands protest weekly in Israel these days, wanting to bring down Netanyahu and his government, accusing the former of being an obstacle to making a deal that would end the war in Gaza, and saying that he is doing so for purely personal reasons--fear of being charged and convicted with crimes. If that is true, that would make him less dangerous to the region than other members of his government who are against any deals, not for personal reasons, but for ideological and religious reasons. And the future of Israel will be in the hands of people like Bezalel Smotrich, who hold the belief that Israel will be secure only when Palestinians are erased.

“I believe that the village of Hawara should be wiped out, and I believe that the State of Israel should do it, and not, God forbid, private individuals.” These words escaped the lips of Bezalel Smotrich, Minister of Finance and Minister of Civil Affairs in the Ministry of Defense in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, during a conference organized in Tel Aviv in March 2023 by the Israeli economic newspaper The Marker. 

The minister, who heads the “Religious Zionism” party and is known to be a licensed lawyer and carefully calculates his words, did not expect, in the context of his comment on the settlers’ barbaric campaign against homes and property in the village of Hawara, south of Nablus, (in revenge for the killing of settlers by Palestinians), that this statement would bring upon him the wrath of the US State Department, whose officials called for a boycott of him. The US ambassador to Tel Aviv, Tom Nides, went on to call Smotrich “stupid,” prompting the latter to try to minimize the damage during a televised news program, saying, “Whoever can attribute to me the intention of wiping out the village, that is up to their obsessive mind. The intention is to be more proactive and aggressive in the war against terrorism, because people are being killed here… Perhaps this was said during a fit of emotion… I stumbled over my tongue.” 

But "the cat's out of the bag", and Smotrich’s words and actions, past and present, have come under scrutiny, given that he has been the third pillar of the ruling coalition in Israel since December 2022, after Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant, and the guardian of settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, in its new form.

Smotrich is not an outlier who represents no one in Israel, he has been elected consistently for years. Smotrich entered the Israeli political arena after being elected to the Knesset in March 2015, and was re-elected for five subsequent terms. With the formation of Netanyahu’s sixth government at the end of 2022, Smotrich was given the Finance Minister portfolio, which was previously held by Avigdor Lieberman, controlling the budgets of ministries and state institutions, including the army, in addition to controlling the movement of funds received by the Palestinian Authority under the 1994 Paris Agreement, especially the tax funds that must be handed over to the Authority, known as the clearance revenue, which is considered the backbone of public revenues in Palestine. In addition to this important and sensitive portfolio, another portfolio was added, the Ministry of Civil Affairs within the Ministry of Defense. In addition to the two portfolios, the leader of the Religious Zionism Party, Orit Struck, was appointed Minister of Settlement.

Smotrich first ran for the 18th Knesset in 2009, coming in ninth place on the National Union list. According to the Knesset Elections Law, he was exempted from serving in the IDF for three months, after which he returned to complete his service. At first, Smotrich opposed entering politics, but he did so on the instructions of his elders - headed by Rabbi Haim Druckman - who decided that this was a necessary step.

On June 23, 2019, he was appointed Minister of Transportation and a member of the Political-Security Cabinet in the transitional government.

Ahead of the 24th Knesset elections, he split from the Yamina list, according to him, against the backdrop of Naftali Bennett's willingness to enter the government in cooperation with left-wing parties. Smotrich ran as head of the "Religious Zionism" list in the technical bloc of the National Union parties: "Takuma", "Otzma Yehudit" and "Noam". The list won 6 seats in the elections, 4 of which went to Smotrich's party.

Where did this settler, haunted by the doctrine of "religious Zionism", come from?

His biography published on social media platforms says that he was born in 1980 in the settlement of "Haspin", built on the ruins of the village of "Khasfin" in the southern occupied Syrian Golan, to a Ukrainian family of religious nationalist zealots. In the settlement of "Beit El" north of Ramallah, he grew up in schools that combine the Jewish religion and Zionist thought.

Smotrich is the son of a settlement rabbi. He was born in one settlement, raised in another, married and lived in a third, from the Golan Heights to Hebron in Kiryat Arba, and then to Kedumim near Nablus. When he was 28, Smotrich volunteered in the Israeli army, and served for a year and a half in the central square in the operations department of the General Staff, a special period of service for religious people.

A leader for the future who is putting roots settlements he is determined to expand

Although he holds a bachelor’s degree in law and is licensed to practice law, Smotrich does not believe in international law, peace agreements with neighboring countries, or any Israeli laws that contradict the “Greater Israel” doctrine that aims to impose sovereignty over all of the Palestinian territories and parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

The man currently lives with his settler wife and seven children in the Kedumim settlement, built on Nablus land in the northern West Bank, after he seized private Palestinian land and built his home on it without a permit even from the occupation authorities.

The Israeli investigative website "Shomrim" revealed some features of the doctrine of "religious Zionism" and its impact on Smotrich's statements and speeches, in a report published by the Arabic version of the "Madar" website on September 4, 2023.

The report says: Regarding the conflict with the Palestinians, Smotrich often repeats phrases: There is no such thing as "two states for two peoples" and "The land of Israel is ours, and what is ours cannot be stolen," and another refrain that clearly reflects his quest for a single state or the implementation of a transfer. In 2015, he said in a speech he gave before the Knesset General Assembly: "There is only one state here, a Jewish state, and there will never be a Palestinian state alongside it. Whoever wants to live with us is welcome, but whoever does not want to either leave or we will see him in the crosshairs" (rifle aim). A year later, Smotrich wrote on Twitter (then X now): “All that remains now is to move from words to deeds: turn off the lights in the Palestinian Authority, impose sovereignty, and do everything that any self-respecting independent state would do.” As for the idea of ​​voluntary transfer, Smotrich calls it “encouraging immigration,” explaining that “those who do not want or cannot put aside their national aspirations will receive assistance from us to immigrate to an Arab country or to any other destination in the world.” This is not immigration on rickety boats, but rather the modern phenomenon of immigration on a plane to an organized future. 

Smotrich: My life’s mission is to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state

Smotrich has declared just this week that his life mission is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Smotrich, leader of the Religious Zionism party, made these remarks via social media, further emphasizing his commitment to expanding Israeli control over the occupied West Bank.

Smotrich stated, “My life’s mission is to build the Land of Israel and thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger the State of Israel.” He framed this goal as not merely political but “national and existential,” highlighting the deep ideological commitment that drives his agenda.

Smotrich also highlighted his policies to entrench Israeli control in the occupied West Bank. “This is why, in addition to my role as Finance Minister, I took on the responsibility for civilian affairs in Judea and Samaria (the Israeli biblical name for the West Bank),” he added, reinforcing his intent to expand and support illegal settlements.

Smotrich’s rhetoric, which explicitly rejects Palestinian statehood, further highlights the ongoing challenges Palestinians face under Israeli occupation. His pledge to protect the “half a million settlers on the frontline, under fire,” is seen as a direct message to Palestinians threatening of subjecting them to ethnic cleansing.

Recently, Israeli settlers in the West Bank have escalated their violent attacks on native Palestinians, emboldened by Israeli leaders like Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.

Senior Israeli military officials have even accused Smotrich and Ben Gvir of fueling unrest and “provoking a regional war.” According to reports in Israeli media, their extreme policies are seen as the “direct cause” of what is described as an increase in Palestinian resistance across the West Bank.

Smotrich also said that while the Israeli political leadership aims to control the aid entering Gaza, the Israeli military refuses to take responsibility for managing it.

The minister’s insistence on Israeli control over aid comes at a time when the besieged Gaza Strip is suffering from an Israeli-made famine and humanitarian crisis.

 Smotrich's Messianic "Revolution"

“A few weeks ago, I met with one of the settler leaders in the West Bank, a Likudman. I asked him what grade he would give Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. The man said, ‘I’m disappointed with Ben-Gvir. He talks more than he does. I’m very satisfied with Smotrich,’” Yedioth Ahronoth political analyst Nahum Barnea wrote in his report on the radical changes that Finance Minister and Defense Minister Smotrich have brought about in the West Bank. Although the report did not provide anything new in this regard, it explained, in some detail, how the extremist minister, founder of the Regavim movement, was able to bring about a qualitative shift in the settlement project in the West Bank towards actually annexing the latter to Israel, which enabled him to obtain the “mark” he deserved. 

According to Israeli law, the army is the supreme authority or sovereign in the West Bank, “but in reality, Israel’s sovereignty in Judea and Samaria was handed over to a closed, extremist political sect, which obeys the command of one person and advances according to one messianic plan,” according to Barnea, who adds that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “supports that sect or does not obstruct it. What it currently lacks is completed by the government revolution within the Green Line, with weak opposition from the army.” 

The writer explains that Smotrich took control of the West Bank using a pincer tactic, the first jaw of which is represented by his position as Minister of Finance, and the second by his powers derived from his position as Minister of Defense, adding that “the goal he set in the decisive plan he published in 2017 has not changed: to cause the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and present the seven million Arabs living between the Jordan River and the sea with one of these options: death in battle, emigrate abroad, or remain second-class citizens forever.” In this context, Smotrich froze or delayed the transfer of clearance revenues that Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority from customs and taxes, in order to pay the salaries of its employees. 

Not only that, but he also activated “Article B of the Terror Victims Compensation Law,” which was approved last June at the behest of Justice Minister Yariv Levin and the chairman of the Constitution and Law Committee, Simcha Rothman. It stipulates that “any person injured in a terrorist act who sustains a permanent disability is entitled to compensation of up to five million shekels,” which is the money that Israel deducts from the clearance revenues, and is equivalent to the allocations that the Palestinian Authority pays to the families of Palestinian martyrs and prisoners. 

According to the new law, Israel can deduct it twice. Also, since October 7, the issuance of work permits within the Green Line has been suspended; Barnea points out here that “the Shin Bet, which feared the consequences of the economic crisis and its impact on the escalation of resistance operations, prepared a plan for the supervised entry of a portion of the workers into permanent workplaces,” while “the army supported this plan, but Smotrich and his colleagues exerted pressure that led to its rejection, and the Palestinian population was left with no choice but to rely on foreign aid, including money sent by Iran to the Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements.”

The second arm of the “Smotrich empire” is Hillel Rot from the Yitzhar settlement, who, after being appointed deputy head of the Civil Administration for Civil Affairs by Smotrich, became the de facto governor of the West Bank. In this context, Barnea quotes Professor Dan Turner, a settler in the Kfar Adumim settlement on the Jerusalem-Jericho road, as saying that “all the powers of the head of the Civil Administration were given to Rot, who is subordinate to the Settlement Administration, a political body in Smotrich’s ministry in the Ministry of Defense.” 

Among these powers is the appointment of department heads in the Civil Administration; Rot “appoints activists in the Religious Zionism Party to it, and thus an engineer from the Revava settlement was recently appointed director of the planning office in the Civil Administration, which is the highest authority in the field of planning and construction (in the West Bank).” The “Smotrich revolution” also affected the “legal advisor for Judea and Samaria,” who is subordinate to the military prosecution; He was fired and his department was closed, while “Smotrich appointed more than 20 lawyers whose mission is to quickly change the regulations to allow the development of the area for Jews only,” according to Turner, who explains that “everything is managed by civilian officials, politicians. Civilizing services is one of Smotrich’s means of freeing himself from the control of the army and implementing de facto annexation.” 

He explains that “over the past year and a half, there has been no planning for the 300,000 Palestinians living in Area C, and they have not been granted a single building permit, while demolitions, including the demolition of water wells and schools, have become routine.” In contrast, the declaration of lands as “state land” has quadrupled, as have building permits, and the establishment of unauthorized outposts has accelerated. According to Turner, “There are more than 100 small outposts and farms on Palestinian pastures. 

Unauthorized construction by Jews is not enforced, with Smotrich’s encouragement.” For its part, the “Judea and Samaria Police are acting in accordance with the policy of (National Security Minister Itamar) Ben-Gvir; they refrain from stopping Jewish violence and terrorism. If a settler is arrested, he is immediately released.” In fact, all of the above “will not help us in the court hearings against us in The Hague,” according to Turner, which intersects with what Barnea reported from Israeli security officials, who expressed their fear of “the impact of Kahanist measures (terrorism derived from the doctrine of Rav Meir Kahane, founder of the terrorist Kach movement) in the West Bank on the escalation of terrorism (resistance operations), and of a ruling that may be issued by the two international courts in The Hague.” 

According to Barnea, what is happening in the West Bank “seems to be a convenient pretext for issuing arrest warrants for government ministers, including its prime minister,” and “the American administration is concerned about the changes taking place in the West Bank, no less than it is concerned about the stagnation in Gaza. What happens in the West Bank does not stay in the West Bank.” Yesterday, Smotrich renewed his defense of what he is doing in the West Bank in a post on X, saying that “my life’s mission is to build the Land of Israel and thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger the State of Israel. 

This is not political, but rather national and existential. That is why I have taken upon myself, in addition to my position as Minister of Finance, responsibility for civil affairs in Judea and Samaria.” He added, “(I) will continue to work with all my might so that the half a million settlers living on the front lines and under fire enjoy the rights of every citizen of Israel, and to establish facts that prevent the establishment of a Palestinian terrorist state, which will be (…) an Iranian forward base for the next massacre in Kfar Saba, Raanana and the entire center of the country.”

...

  These are not the views of an outlier, Israel's leaders are elected, and Bezalel Smotrich was not elected once or twice, he was elected many times and he, like leaders of other Zionist parties, represent a majority of the Israeli society, which means it represents the popular view of Israel. When Western governments, and Arab leaders address the place of Hamas and other religious groups in Palestinian societies, they often say, Hamas does not represent the Palestinians. The problem for Western leaders, is, what do you say about the Israeli Hamas-like, based on Western reasoning, like the groups that elect Bezalel Smotrich, who represent the majority of society, and are calling for genocide, forced population transfer, and ethnic cleansing? Does their being elected make them less subject to the principles of justice upon which the Palestinian claim to statehood is based?

  

Media review, compiled by Ali Hafez, B. Hamoud et al.

Should European nation-states be praised for finally recognizing a Palestinian state?

Should European nation-states be praised for finally recognizing a Palestinian state?

    Wednesday, May 29, 2024   No comments

 Given that 147 out of the 193 UN member states already recognize Palestine, European governments should not receive praise simply for now considering recognition. In fact, those European states that still do not recognize the State of Palestine share responsibility for the decades of violence and oppression faced by Palestinians.

When the French President urges President Mahmoud Abbas to “initiate vital reforms” in the Palestinian Authority in preparation for “recognition of a Palestinian state,” this shifts blame away from France’s own historical support of colonialism and its role in denying Palestinians their right to self-determination. It implicitly holds Palestinians responsible for their own emancipation, while glossing over external conditions and external responsibility.

Countries that recognize the State of Palestine (green) and countries that don't:

Norman Finkelstein: Israel is facing an existential crisis and South Africa offers a model for a one-state

Norman Finkelstein: Israel is facing an existential crisis and South Africa offers a model for a one-state

    Sunday, March 31, 2024   No comments

The American Jewish historian, Norman Finkelstein, argues that “Israel” is facing an existential crisis for the first time since its establishment, and suggests that South Africa offers a model for a one-state solution for one people of different backgrounds.

The American Jewish thinker and historian who opposes the Israeli occupation policy, Norman Finkelstein, said that “Israel” has obstructed all political solutions in its war on the Gaza Strip. In a symposium held with students at Princeton University, Finkelstein said: “At the current stage at least, we have reached the end of any kind of diplomacy to resolve the conflict,” adding that “talk about a two-state solution seems absolutely ridiculous, and there is no diplomatic solution.” appears in the horizon".

 He pointed out that "Israel is determined to impose a military victory and will not back down from that goal."  Finkelstein explained, “On the other hand, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah said it explicitly, that he will not accept a military defeat for Hamas, and that this will not happen,” adding that “these two goals are not reconcilable, either victorious or defeated.”

Finkelstein believed that "at the level of the Arab and Islamic worlds, a conclusion has been reached that living with Israel is impossible," adding that according to the Arab and Islamic worlds, it is "moronic and must go. For this reason, there is no political solution on the horizon in the short term."

 He pointed out that "Israel is facing, for the first time in its history, a crisis of existence and legitimacy," pointing out that "its main opponent in this regard is South Africa, the country that is confronting it at the International Court of Justice and presenting itself as a model for a one-state solution for one people."

 As for the United States, “the American Democratic Party is facing a crisis with its broad popular base that objects to Israel’s crimes, and the party’s leadership can no longer ignore that base,” according to Finkelstein.

 He continued by saying: "I was shocked and astonished by US Senator Chuck Schumer's speech last week. Senator Schumer has always been fanatical about Israel, and he was the one who called for the economic strangling of Gaza."

 The American writer pointed out that “Senator Schumer, along with New Jersey Senator Menendez, were at the forefront of those opposing the deal with Iran,” explaining that “he served as the official spokesman for the Israeli government in our country.”

 He considered that "Schumer's statements critical of Israel are beyond expectations."

Finkelstein's talk and comments were published on YouTube.

It must be noted that the two-state solution is promoted as the only solution, which is now becoming very hard to realize, when other examples from around the world point to other alternatives. One of these examples mentioned here is the South Africa example. For years the apartheid regime created systems that dehumanized the people of South Africa. The oppression was built in part on the false idea that Africans are incapable of building and running a democracy. All that was proved wrong: Africans overthrew the racist regime but did not purge South Africa of white people. The preserved South Africa as one country for all.

Other examples of single-state solutions to conflict zones are in the Middle East region and they were in part promoted and engineered by Western governments and their regional allies. The Lebanese example is just on the other side of the border: After 15 years of civil war, Christians and Muslims settled to live, still in tension, but in peace, thanks to a power-sharing system that allows Christians, Shia Muslims, and Sunni Muslims to create a calibrated power sharing system to preserve the national unity of Lebanon.

After the US invaded Iraq, the constitution and institutions that were produced under the authority of the occupying forces of the United States, produced a power sharing structure that allows the Kurdish people, the Sunni Muslims, and the Shia majority to live in relative peace. It is worth noting that the current president, then a senator, Biden, promoted the idea of breaking up Iraq—a tri-state solution if you will.

If the South African, Lebanese, and Iraq models of a single-state solution whereby different peoples, separated by religion or ethnicity, can coexist and govern through power sharing structures, why would a single-state solution that would allow Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live in peace through some sort of power-sharing formular be impractical? And how would a two-state solution solve the problem of the non-Jews, nearly 30% of the population who are Christian and Muslim, who would end up in Israel under any border configuration, should the two state-solution come into existence?

As the world community is forced to address this 75-year old conflict, there is much to be learned not only from the moral force that compelled South Africa to stand against genocide, but to offer a practical example of many peoples in one nation living in relative peace despite the cruelty of the past.

Netanyahu: We will not stop the war nor will we withdraw our forces from Gaza, Oslo Accords were a grave mistake that must not be repeated

Netanyahu: We will not stop the war nor will we withdraw our forces from Gaza, Oslo Accords were a grave mistake that must not be repeated

    Sunday, December 17, 2023   No comments

Netanyahu restates Israel's rejection of the two state solution and sets course for a long war.

We will not stop the war, nor will we withdraw our forces from Gaza, as Hamas demands, before achieving our goals and returning the detainees.

We eliminated many of the terrorists and their leaders in Gaza and weakened their fighting capabilities. 

Netanyahu: "It is important to tell the truth - after the destruction of Hamas, the Gaza Strip will be under the control of civilian Israeli security forces, and there will be no elements there to threaten us."

We seek to achieve deterrence against Hezbollah in the north, either through a political process or other means.

We will not discuss the details of the negotiations, but we support our position in confronting the enemy with more blood and fire.

The Oslo Accords were a grave mistake that must not be repeated

I informed President Biden that the Palestinians cannot be granted full sovereignty that threatens the lives of Israelis

We cannot abandon the security checks for aid trucks entering Gaza

We have strong criticism of Qatar, but we are now trying to complete the hostage recovery process.

Netanyahu on Northern Border Status: "It is clear that when we finish eliminating Hamas, we cannot leave the northern borders as they are. We cannot end the war like this. We told the Americans: This case must be solved politically or militarily, or we will solve it."