i watched an interview with jeremy corbyn and his butt buddy the other day (i think it was piers morgan) where, in response to piers pushing back on the idea of genocide in gaza, corbyn and his bud kept bringing up the situation in the west bank. they refused to discuss the situation in gaza at all, in their claims of israeli genocide, which is actually reflective of a level of dishonesty, as it indicates they knew their argument wasn't sound.
i've pointed this out myself a few times: there is a much better case for genocide in the west bank, which is a territory that israel absolutely wants, than there is in gaza, which the israeli fundamentalists don't consider a part of historical israel due it's status as being inhabited by philistines (a greek ethnic group that gave it's name to palestine, after the relatively successful roman attempt at genocide after a series of jewish revolts in the 2nd century, but which i have repeatedly pointed out that i think is an ethnic conflict dating to the punic wars) rather than jews. yes, that's crazy. it's also true. they would be more interested in annexing lebanon (which i learned recently is actually a hebrew word) than gaza. i mean, they
withdrew from gaza, as they were settling the west bank.
this is very relevant information to understand how the israeli right views the situation:
as i pointed out a few days ago, israel has a convoluted but somewhat convincing legitimate historical claim to most of lebanon, but syria (and damascus) represents a very ancient border that was never settled by canaanites or other hebrew-speaking people but is rather the far edge of the iraqi mesopotamian crescent. the philistines are in the red area, but israeli fundamentalists consider the region foreign territory.
the west bank is, to these people, firmly a part of israel, and if you understand the history, it's actually very hard to argue with them. when the un created israel in 1948, it couldn't just ignore the fact that the population of the region was almost entirely arab and muslim, and it had been that way since (a) the crusaders were expelled and left and (b) the region was "arabized" under the process of islamic colonization, and the hebrews were converted from jews (and christians, the latter conversion having had already largely happened first) into muslims. certainly, the existing inhabitants of the region deserve some kind of compensation if the state is going to seize their land (as we would do in the west, and if israel wants to be a part of the west), but the west bank should be a part of israel, if there's to be any israel at all, and even if it means resettling the existing inhabitants in a fair and just way, such as financially compensating and resettling then in jordan, syria or egypt, giving them the opportunity to stay and convert (back) to judaism or even just letting them stay and be peaceful and get along, if they can. my actual criticism of israel is more directed at it's racist land ownership laws, and persistent attempts to enforce segregation. i support a single secular israeli state where everyone is equal under the law, regardless of race, religion, language or ethnicity (and you will note that, in the case of hebrew jews v. hebrew muslims, these differences are difficult to actually even define).
the point of this post is to ask people to look at the evidence before they knee jerk around what is likely an upcoming policy change in israel regarding the west bank. the media is painting this jewish minister smotrich as some kind of crazy person, and insisting we return not to oslo and clinton but all the way back to camp david and carter, while the reality on the ground is that you can't even call the west bank swiss cheese, anymore. what's left of palestinian settlement in the west bank is better described as a handful of low income ghettoes, and you can't build a country out of that. smotrich is reacting to reality. by insisting on two states and returning to oslo or camp david, you're the one that's out of touch and crazy.
if this outcome really upsets you so much, you should have reacted some time around oslo. it's too late now.
the discussion needs to be about finding ways to get equal rights for palestinians inside israel and in finding ways to get just financial settlements to the ones that leave, not in finding ways to have two states, and those holding to that idea are out of touch with reality. this upcoming change in policy is a foregone conclusion and a formality to acknowledge something that already happened over ten years ago.
