Greater Israel Means The End Of The Jewish State

The Israeli government is in the news again. Benjamin Netanyahu, the current prime minister of the jewish state, is angry at the Obama administration. Before christmas, the US government refused to veto a UN resolution which condemned the continuing building of jewish settlements in the occupied territories. In addition to that, US Secretary of State John Kerry gave a long speech outlining a peace strategy for the long and complicated conflict, which did not seem to be in line with what Bibi and his government had planned.

Netanyahu accused Kerry’s speech to be ‘skewed against Israel’ and called the UN resolution ‘hostile and imbalanced’. He even went so far to call it a declaration of war. As a reaction, the Israeli government summoned the US ambassador for a complained on Sunday, christmas day. But if you think the US got a particularly harsh treatment, think again. Others did not just get a complaint. Israel temporarily limited diplomatic ties to 12 of the 14 countries who voted in favour of the UN resolution.

One wonders what exactly was in the resolution and Kerry’s speech that provoked such a seemingly hysterical reaction. Astoundingly the answer is, not much really. The UN resolution, which is not even binding, simply reminds Israel that it is breaking international law with its support for the settlements in the occupied territories. According to the geneva convention, which Israel has signed, it is illegal for a state to transfer its own citizens into territories that were conquered in a war. This is not new, it has been international law since 1949.

The outrage over John Kerry’s speech is even more bizarre. Kerry simply emphasised his support for a two state solution to the conflict, in which there would be a Palestinian state next to a Jewish one. Again, this is everything but new. In fact, it has so far been the official position of the Israeli government that it is committed to such a solution. So one wonders, why is the Israeli government so angry at a proposal, that has essentially been at the heart of peace negotiations for decades?

The only plausible answer is that Bibi and his followers are not working towards creating a Palestinian state. Critiques of Israel have long pointed out that the behaviour of the government does not match its commitment towards a two state peace solution. But these critiques have, for the most part, been attacked as conspiracy theorists, often with the additional label of being anti-semites.

However, the reaction of Netanyahu to the Obama administration makes it very clear now that these critiques were right all along. Israel has long given up on the idea of giving the Palestinians a state of their own. The real plan seems to be to create a Greater Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river. The settlements are there to create facts on the ground, so that there is no land left on which Palestinians could form a state.

With this, zionism, which is just a word for Jewish nationalism, is following the typical path of most nationalist movements. Time and time again, throughout history, we have seen these movements using force to expend or at least ethnically cleans territories in favour of their favoured people, suppressing and banishing unwanted ethnicities in the process. So it should be no surprise that zionism behaves like so many of its sister movements all over the planet. Nationalism proves once again to be an inherently statist and illiberal ideology.

But it looks to me like the Israeli government is overplaying its cards by aiming for a Greater Israel. There are still millions of Palestinians living in these territories. The plan of the government seems to be to make their lives as miserable as possible so that they will hopefully leave ‘voluntarily’. This however does not seem to work very well. Where would millions of these people go anyway? There are still millions of Palestinians in refugees camps who were banished during the so called Israeli war of independence. And that was almost 70 years ago. Realistically, the Palestinians in the occupied territories will not go anywhere. But if they are staying where they are, then what is the Israeli government trying to achieve? What is the end game here? Let us have a look at the options.

The worst option is to commit an outright genocide on the Palestinian population. Technically this would be no problem. The Palestinians at this point are essentially completely crushed and defenceless. And Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world. But a genocide would obviously strip away any kind of legitimacy that Israel pretends to have. It hopefully also won’t go down easily with the majority of Israelis.

A more realistic option is to create an apartheid state, in which only Jews enjoy the full rights of citizens. This has essentially been the de facto reality in the occupied territories for decades anyway. Jewish settlers enjoy the full rights of Israeli citizens, while Palestinians live under military law. The difference is that, if a Palestinian state is off the agenda, then Palestinians will only have one other option left, which is to demand full citizenship. And history tells us that once this narrative is pushed, it will eventually succeed.

Which brings us to the last option, and most likely longterm outcome, which is a multi-ethnic state. It would mean that Israel stops being jewish. What is not to like? There are plenty of good example of such states. Israel essentially just joins the western world, which, for good reasons but with some drawbacks, since WW2 has moved away from ethnic nationalism towards multiculturalism.

Under normal circumstances there would indeed not be a problem. But nothing is normal in the middle east. These two ethnic groups clearly do not get along very well. It would take a long time to forget all the hardship of the past few decades. And on neither side I see a lot of willingness to play soft ball. Opinions within Israel seem to more and more turn to hardcore nationalism and racism. Liberal voices, pointing out the craziness of current policies, still exists, but they seem to shrink by the day. And on the Palestinian side you have lots of groups that are very open about their desire to finish what the Nazis started. Neither side has a strong Mandela like leadership figure in place that could lead a peaceful transition.

But the Jews would have a bigger problem in this multicultural solution. The Palestinians would outnumber them, which in a democracy means that they would be in charge. Given the hostilities, this would be really dangerous for the jewish population. It is this fact in particular that makes the behaviour of the Israeli government hard to understand. In the long run, their best chance of surviving this crazy statist zionist project is to do everything to create a Palestinian state and move away from explicitly calling Israel jewish. In other words, it is in their own interest to start fighting nationalism.

Unfortunately, as always in wars, statist radicals seem to be the big winners. The extreme nationalists have taken over politics in Israel and steering the ship towards an inevitable disaster. Israel will most likely go down the way of South Africa, but with a more violent ending.

At this point the question may be asked, why would anyone in England care about this. Israel is a far away country and it is just one of many screwed up conflicts, heading for a violent endgame. So why single it out. True, best advise, as always in these kind of conflicts is to stay out of the madhouse. If two groups cannot help but fight each other over some stupid ideologies, let them do it. But don’t get involved and therefore spread the conflict further and further.

The problem is that our governments have decided that Israel is an ally that deserves our help. And my greatest fear is that they will drag us right into this violent endgame. We are already the target of a lot of hate for our government’s support of this state. The sad reality is that Kerry had to wait until the end of the Obama administration in order to make a very moderate speech. That is how deeply the US government is already involved in the conflict.

This policy of support needs to end. There is nothing to win from it. In fact, the support of the US government is strengthening the hard-liners in Israel. They feel that, with such a big brother holding their hands, not much bad can happen to them anyway. It makes it difficult for them to see that they are heading for a disaster. There is almost no chance that this conflict will find a good ending. A real solution would need a correct analysis first. But such an analysis would entail an admittance that the statist zionist project was a mistake from the start.

Instead of reverting to nationalism as the solution for their very real security problems in Europe, Jews should have supported liberalism and fight nationalism. By embracing nationalism with the zionist project, they were trying to fix a problem, which was european nationalism, within the system that caused it. Since World War 2, Europe has more and more moved away from nationalism with great results. At the same time that Europe has given up on nationalism, the Middle East started to embrace it. And that has a lot to do with zionism.

A Palestinian nationalism was unimaginable before Israel. There simply was no group of people called Palestinians that would define themselves as a nation. This is the same with the Jewish nation. Prior to European nationalism, Judaism was a religion and not a nation. Now, both Jews and Palestinians have started to see themselves and nations. Interestingly, Palestinians, like Jews, have chosen religion, to be an essential part of this new nationalism. Previously, islamism was not a big problem in that particular part of the Arab world. A large number of Palestinians were christians and they got along with the jews, who always were present, just fine. Nationalism breads more nationalism which breads more violent conflicts. There can be no peace within this ideology. The only solution is to overcome it.


  1. Jerusalem is not “occupied” – it is the Capital of Israel. But the resolution that the Obama and Kerry really created (using New Zealand others as their front) pretends that it is “occupied”. By the way there is no such place as “East Jerusalem” – and if there were it would contain the Wailing Wall.

    As for the Cease First lines of 1948 – they were not international borders so to talk of “international law” is false. Nor was there peace between 1948 and 1967 – there was shelling every day from Syria (which controlled the hill positions at the time) and there were often terrorist attacks – for example the PLO was founded (by a person who was born and brought up in Egypt) in 1964, and there were many groups active before this (although the word “Palestinian” was not often used before the 1960s.).

    The Jews who lived in what became the “West Bank” (much of which is actually closer to the sea than the Jordan river) in 1948 were mostly exterminated or driven out – ditto with the Jews all over the Middle East, who had lived in these “Islamic countries” long before there was any such thing as Islam.

    The Christian populations of “Palestinian” areas have also largely been driven out – apart from a few pet Christians who the P.A. (“Palestinian Authority”) trots out to condemn the Jews – even though it is not the Jews who are driving them out. Meanwhile in areas the Jews are in control of (such as the city of Haifa) the Christian population is expanding.

    As for the Islamic population of the “West Bank” ( much of which, I repeat, is closer to the sea than the Jordan river – Israel could be cut in half in a couple of hours by an attack at the narrow point) – they turned down Israeli citizenship ages ago. Too late for them to change their minds now.

    Would leaving the “West Bank” produce peace? Of course not – no more than leaving Gaza (which was made entirely “Jew free” years ago) produced peace. The forces of Islam would continue to attack (just as they do from Gaza) and peace treaties do not bind Islamic forces in relation to infidels. Muhammed/Mohammed made this clear with his policy of pledging peace to various groups (including Jewish tribes) and then launching surprise attacks upon them.

    Anyone who knows the Islamic forces (their media, their education system) knows their aim in the area is “liberation” “from the river to the sea” – claims that they would “settle for the West Bank” are false.

    Private land.

    Of course it should be respected – but there is little privately owned land in the area. The British Mandate could have changed the policy of state ownership of most land that the Ottomans followed – but it did not.

    Why did the British not change the Ottoman policy? Simple – the British Mandate feared that privately owned land would be “sold to Jews” , which half of the limited amount of privately owned land that there was, was sold to Jews.

    There is no mention of military borders in the piece by Nico – he does not give a thought to borders that can be defended. Have you been “on the ground” Nico? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I have been there – and I am telling you that the 1948 Ceasefire lines are not suitable as a border.

    As for the idea that “Zionism was a mistake” – well at least Nico is being honest, no pretense that he does not want Israel to be wiped out. Actually Mr Obama and Mr Kerry agree with Nico – but they pretend they do not (that is why they deserve to be hated – not just because they are enemies, but because they pretend to be friends).

    As for “staiist Zionism” being a mistake – non “statist” Zionism was repeatedly tried over the centuries.

    Jews would return to the land – live for awhile (perhaps even generations) and then be slaughtered in some Islamic attack in the town or village they had settled (settled without military control) – the myth of tolerant Islam is just that, a myth.

    “Statist” Zionism was invented because non “statist” Zionism had failed (repeatedly failed – over centuries).

    Lastly would the wiping out (the real aim of the Obama-Kerry “peace process”) bring peace with Islam?

    No it would not – Islam does not just claim a little land (about the size of Wales) between “the river and the sea”, Islam claims the whole world.

    As both Winston Churchill and Gladstone pointed out there has been conflict with Islam for some 14 centuries – and that is not going to change.

    Wiping out Israel will not change this.



  2. While I am waiting for my last comment to appear I will stress one point.

    It is worth stressing that non “statist” Zionism was a terrible failure.

    Whilst it was true that Jews were the largest population group in Jerusalem in the 19th century (although they were often abused and persecuted), in other town and villages over the centuries peaceful Jewish settlement (there were repeated efforts over the centuries) has always ended the same way – slaughter.

    For the Jews to live in the “land between the river and the sea” they must be armed and in political control – hence “statist” Zionism.

    The Ottomans attacked Jewish communities in the First World War (although the slaughter was on a small scale compared to the hundreds of thousands of Christian civilians the “Young Turks” regime murdered). And the Islamic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (the friend and ally of Mr Hitler) organised attacks against the Jews (with the normal rape and murder) his whole adult life.

    Israel has many Muslim citizens – but they are a minority and their birth rate is NOT higher than religious Jews (actually it is lower).

    As for the Muslims of the “West Bank” – they turned down Israeli citizenship long ago. Too late for them to change their minds. But most of the British Mandate of “Palestine” is still under Muslim rule – TransJordan (not the Kingdom of Jordan).

    They have the whole Islamic world from the Atlantic Ocean (Morocco) to the Pacific (Indonesia) – they do not need little Israel as well.

    Although Gaza was made entirely “Jew free” in the hopes of peace – it did not work. Attacks from Gaza continue to this day. Just as they would continue from a “Jew free” “West Bank”.



    1. I meant “now the Kingdom of Jordan” not “not the Kingdom of Jordan”.

      The Islamic population of Jordan is mixed – but only a minority are Bedouin. Most of the Muslims in Jordan are what the media calls Palestinians.



    2. Nothing good comes out of statism. Zionism is a complete failure. The main goal was to make Jews more secure. Well, it did not prevent the Holocaust nor a lot of other massacres. In fact, ironically, there would most likely not be a Jewish state today without the Holocaust. As you correctly say, since Israel was created, Jews were not save anymore anywhere in the Arab world, where they had lived before for centuries.

      And today, Jews are more secure in London or New York then they are in Tel Aviv. That is because London and New York are not driven by ethnic nationalism but more by liberal ideas. It is those liberal ideas that really make them save. I cannot see a happy ending for Israel. The best case scenario is an everlasting low flame conflict. The clever ones are leaving the sinking ship.



      1. Zionism has been a great success – the Jews are not saying “next year in Jerusalem” huddled in some hovel waiting for the next bunch of thugs to wipe out their community. Jews now have a country of their own.

        The alternative to having the “Sword of State” in your own hands is not some fantasy of “peaceful nonstatism” Nico – it is to have the Sword of State in the hands of someone else.

        Although, yes, one can make the argument that as the Jewish armed forces were private before 1948 (and voluntarily funded) there is no good reason why this could not have just carried on. Under the British mandate Jews built both private companies (such as the electricity company that the Labour party nationalised after independence) and private armed forces.

        Armed Zionism need not mean a “state” – at least not a Big Government state that the Labour Party created in Israel after 1948.

        The reversal of economic and social policy from the 1970s onwards could go much further – and should go much further.


  3. I sometimes quite conflicted about the situation in Isreal/Palestine. I am not usually somebody who supports nation building projects. It seems that the Wilsonian dream of every single ‘people’ having their own nation is being left behind.

    It is quite clear that Arabs are treated as second-class citizens in Israel. I do not support the push for a Palestinian state as such. Because all states are illegitimate. However, it would seem that we are seeing the slow invasion of Palestinian land- backed by the Israeli government. Therefore it would seem that a Palestinian state (with full recognition as a state) would be a positive thing to provide a bulwark against invasion.

    Nico’s article is right to claim that a dose of liberalism would do the middle east a lot of good. It is disappointing that the government of this country supports the invasion so adamantly.



    1. I will try and go through this comment – if I miss any errors I apologise, but I am tired and in some pain at the moment.

      Woodrow Wilson did not create political Zionism – practical experience created it. Practical experience showed (over thousands of years) that the only way that Jews could live unpersecuted was to have a state of their own – for example the myth of Islamic tolerance is just that, a myth.

      “Arabs” – actually many Israeli Jews (perhaps most) are clearly Arab, dark eyed and darkish skinned.

      The idea of the blue eyed Israeli seems to be firmly embedded in the Islamist mindset – but actually most Jews do not look like that (they are mostly not blue eyed – or pale). Yes I am blue eyed and pale – but I am half Irish and I am an Anglican (I am not of the Jewish religion).

      “Arabs are second class citizens in Israel” – if you mean “Muslim” then say so (“Arab” is too vague to be helpful – see above). And Muslim Israelis are NOT “second class citizens” – indeed (if anything) they are privileged – for example they are not subject to conscription.

      Also the tax man is rarely seen in Muslim Israeli villages – “we do not want to provoke them” comes the excuse – which is rather irritating for Jewish (and Christian) Israelis.

      Inspite of all this the Muslim Israelis have the vote – and send people to the Israeli Parliament (where they spend their time being irritating).

      As for the “West Bank” – much of which is closer to the sea than the Jordan river.

      What private land is being “invaded”? There is very little private land there – and there was not under the British mandate or the Ottomans either.

      However, there is some privately owned land – and it is not being “invaded”. Court cases to decide if land really is privately owned are a regular event – and many “ancient documents” turn out to be recent forgeries.

      Nor are the Muslims of the “West Bank” “second class citizens” – they are not citizens of Israel at all. And that was their own choice – they turned down the chance of citizenship ages ago.

      These people do not want to be Israelis – yet they insist on being on the wrong side of the river Jordan (some of them insist in being in Jerusalem itself – where they act as a “5th column” plotting to murder their Jewish neighbours) . If you can suggest a military border that is NOT the river Jordan then please show it to me Jordan Lee – I am open to your suggestions.

      I really am open to suggestions – I have been on the ground and I can find no natural features between the river and the sea that could act as a border, but if you can then (please) show me.

      “Some liberalism”.

      Why not “some liberalism” in the rest of the Middle East where the Jews were driven out (or killed) a long time ago – and their property confiscated.

      I note that you do not seem to give a damn about that.

      And I also note that your comment was written after the latest terrorist attack in Jerusalem – an attack you do not even mention.

      Never take a day off from attacking the Jews.

      Sadly both the post and your comment show why Israel is necessary.

      Oh yes – “Palestinian” I almost forget this one.

      The term “Palestinian” was rarely used before the 1960s – indeed in the 1930s it was mostly a Jewish fashion to use the term (few Muslims in the Holy Land used the term back then).

      The “Palestinian Liberation Organisation” was founded in 1964 – three years BEFORE the “Occupation of the West Bank” – and terrorist attacks (by various groups of Muslims) were constant in the period 1948 to 1967 – John Kerry please note the only “peace” that is (or will ever be) on offer is DEATH.

      And throwing the Jews under the bus (as both you and Nico wish to do) will NOT bring peace with the forces of Islam.

      Islam claims THE WORLD – not just some little land between the mountains and the sea. If all Jews dropped dead tomorrow it would NOT bring peace between the West and Islam. The handful of Christians that the PA trot out to support them do not fool anyone with knowledge of the area – the Christians in the “West Bank” are being driven out (and have been for ages) and it is NOT the Jews who are driving them out.

      And the PLO founder?

      Born and brought up in Egypt.

      And a member of an Islamic attack unit in 1948.



  4. It has been pointed out to me that by “the government of this country supports the invasion” Mr Jordan Lee may not mean what I thought he meant – i.e, that the government of Israel supports the “invasion” of land privately owned by Muslims. That would be a false claim (the taking of privately owned land is NOT supported by the government of Israel – and there is not much privately owned land in the area anyway, half of it is owned by Muslims to this day) – but understandable considering all the Jew-hating propaganda in the “mainstream” media and the education system (the schools and universities).

    What it is has been suggested to me that Mr Lee actually meant by “the government of this country” was the government of the United Kingdom.

    This would not only be an utterly false claim by Mr Jordan Lee – it would be bizarre.

    After all it was the government of the United Kingdom who (under the influence of the Mr and Mrs Webb and others) worked to keep Jews OUT of the land “between the river and the sea” in the period of the British Mandate – whilst doing nothing to keep out Muslim immigrants to the same land (in the 19th century very few people, of any religion, lived in the land “between the river and the sea” – it was mostly wasteland, indeed less developed and less populated at the start of the 19th century than under the Emperor Maurice at the start of the 7th century).

    Considering that British government policy of trying to keep out Jews from the land “between the river and the sea” led to six million Jews being murdered by the pagan (Mr Himmler and the S.S.) or atheist “rationalist” (Mr Hitler himself) National Socialists (with the full support, indeed pleasure, of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and other such Islamic leaders) I never considered the possibility that anyone could think that the British government (with its pro Islamist Foreign Office and so on) was pro Israeli.

    Certainly in Israel itself (a country I have been to several times) the idea that the British government is pro Israeli would provoke bitter laughter. Most recently the British government voted FOR (not against) the United Nations resolution (the United Nations being the sworn enemy of the Jews – as is the “international community” in general, hence the meeting in Paris as I write these words, where the “international community” is yet again plotting to wipe the Jews out of the area) that described Jerusalem, yes Jerusalem itself – the wailing wall, as “Occupied”.

    By the way – I have still received no suggestion of a military border that is not the Jordan river.

    This is interesting as Nico Metten and Jordan Lee (if sincere) would logically have produced an argument saying “the Jordan river is not the correct military border – the correct military border is ………” and then given a military argument showing that the alternative border they proposed was superior to that of the Jordan river valley.

    Certainly Mr Kerry’s suggestion is a non starter – as it would reduce Israel to a country only nine miles wide at the narrow point (an Islamic attack could then cut Israel in two – with ease) and only eleven miles wide even at the point of Tel Aviv. The objective of the “international community” is not a smaller Israel – it is the EXTERMINATION of Israel (that is obvious). I repeat the well known point that Muhammed/Mohammed did not consider a peace treaty with infidels binding upon him – indeed one of his favorite military tactics was to promise peace and friendship and then to launch a surprise attack (killing the men and selling the women and children into slavery – with the slaves and other goods being distributed among his followers, which was a reason why many young men joined his movement ), I do not believe his followers have the legal power (in terms of religious law) to change the doctrines of the faith he invented.

    By the way Nico Metten’s claim that Jews are more secure in “London and New York than in Tel Aviv” is false. Some Jews are actually moving out of London (and that was true even before the rise of Mayor Khan) and New York City will be next. When the “Progressive Community” (all the way up the friends of socialist Mayor of New York City) chant “Palestine will be free – from the river to the sea” they do NOT mean “and the Jews will be welcome to live in New York City”.

    The “Progressive Community” (for example Barack Obama’s friend, Al Sharpton, in New York City – the chap who organises black riots from time to time) have made their feelings towards “capitalist Jews” very plain. Communist “Jews” in the universities (Frankfurt School types who got on well with the late Edward Said) are fine in the “Progressive” book – but real Jews are hated and the long term plan of the “Progressive Community” in New York City (and everywhere else) is to wipe them out.

    After all real Jews (as opposed to the handful of Frankfurt School types in the universities) are “greedy capitalist exploiters” and believe in God and the traditional family (and other “reactionary” concepts) – and they have (supposedly) lots of money which “Social Justice Warriors” could “redistribute” to the “exploited” (especially “exploited” people from more fashionable ethnic groups) – after the Jews have their throats slit. That is clearly the LONG TERM (not next week) “Progressive” plan in New York City and elsewhere – and many Jews have noted it. And increasing Islamic numbers in the United States will aid the “Progressive” cause – at lest this aspect of it, via a shared commitment to “Social Justice” (translation – rob and kill “rich” Jews and others, the opinion of the SJWs was made rather clear during the “Occupy” events across the United States, and the SJW Marxists have not gone away).

    Business and crafts (such as diamond cutting) are all very well – but Jews must understand firearms and the ways of war, if Jews are to survive.

    As Karl Marx (carefully forgetting the ethnic background of his own family) put it – a businessman is an “inwardly circumcised Jew” – and it is not just Karl Marx who wanted to send all such “capitalists” to the slaughter house, the modern Social Justice Warriors may be laughed at as “Snowflakes” by some of their enemies – but I am not laughing, I respect the Social Justice Warriors and believe they will be deadly enemies in the wars to come. Especially, an old point of mine, when the international Credit Bubble economy collapses (which it will) and the blood really starts to flow on the streets of great Western cities such as New York and London.

    If “capitalists” (Jewish or non Jewish) are to survive – they must learn how to defend themselves and their families. And in an ORGANISED way – against highly organised enemies (who are likely to control at least some governments in the Western world).

    The same is true for the “henchmen of the capitalists” – i.e. poor people (such as myself – for I am very poor) who do NOT support the “Social Justice” objective of wiping out the “capitalist exploiters” (Jewish or other).

    Hat tip to Paul Johnson for pointing out (in his “A History of the Jews”) that the rantings of Karl Marx against the capitalists are taken (sometimes word-for-word) from Martin Luther’s rantings against the Jews. Hypocritical of Karl Marx – but as one sees from the university “Jews” some of the biggest threats to the Jewish community are (and have always been) from Jewish families themselves.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s