UNRWA

Why do Palestinians have a separate UN refugee agency?  Because in 1948 Israel insisted on it.  They hoped the separate Palestinian agency would get Palestinians to go away.

 

More on October 7

 Israeli media confirms IDF were ordered to fire on cars fleeing the Nova fest, echoing the supposedly inactive 'Hannibal Doctrine,' to kill civilians rather than allow them to be taken hostage.

As many as 70 cars, not just one, often killing everyone in the car.

Many other details in this compelling retelling (the link is actually safe).

Calls for Genocide

Explicit calls for genocide against Palestinians by Israelis and their supporters are so common in my newsfeed I'm surprised everyone isn't aware of them by now.

Foremost, you had Netanyahu invoking the Amalek treatment: kill all of them, every man, woman, and child, along with their animals.

'Death to Arabs' seems to be commonly chanted at Zionist rallies in Israel.

Meanwhile, the Harvard President resigned for failing to censor the free speech rights of Palestinian supporters for chanting "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." and equating that with a call for genocide, when in fact it's a call for universal freedom which doesn't mention death or genocide.  Nevertheless, serious Congressional hearings were held, and a resolution was passed.

(It uses that forbidden word 'Palestine')

Anyway, here's the 'comprehensive' database of explicit calls for genocide. 

Montagu on the Balfour Declaration

https://x.com/KMPrimAcct/status/1736202142539542982?s=20

When Edwin Montagu, the only Jew in the British Cabinet, heard about the Balfour Declaration of 1917, he sprung into action writing a deeply heartfelt and logically argued memorandum opposing it.

While denying he feels this way about the government or the people involved, he declares that the Balfour Declaration is deeply antisemitic and harmful to Jews in England and elsewhere.

(I believe Jews at the time were generally opposed to Zionism in similar terms.)

He calls Zionism a mischievious political creed.

He points out that the original justifications for Zionism involved the oppression not in England but in Russia, which were no longer applicable with the new Russian government.

Jews headed to Israel may speak different languages, and have fought on different sides of WWI.

He says that Jews can't have it both ways, any English Jew who pines for Judea isn't really an Englishman, so the existence of a 'Jewish Homeland' will call into question the loyalty and nationalities of Jews in England and everywhere.

He points out that the creation of a 'Jewish Homeland' means that Christians and Muslims in Palestine will become foreigners and at best second class citizens in their own homeland, while Jews around the world become foreigners in the countries of their birth.

He asserts there is no 'Jewish Nation.'  It is no more true to say of Christian Englishman and Christian Frenchman are of the same nation.

He feared that the present inhabitants of Palestine would be driven out.

He supported the view that it would require Divine leadership to bring all the Jews back to Palestine, and he asserted no supporter Mr Balfour or Lord Rothschild was claiming them to be the Messiah.

He denied that today Palestine is mostly associated with Jews.  He said key parts of Jewish history occurred in Palestine, but the same is true for Christians and Muslims.  By singling out Jews, they are being put into a position they are not entitled.

There are about 3 times as many Jews in the world as could possibly fit into Palestine, even if you remove everyone there now.  So what happens to the 2/3 of world Jewry that does not fit into Palestine?

He says outsiders don't recognize the widespread antipathy of Jews to Zionism.

He and other Jews fear it will result in an explosion of antisemitism around the world, as Jews are no longer seen as fellows of their countrymen.  British Jews have done very well with excellent future prospects and this will greatly harm them.

He proposes that immigration to Palestine not be based on any form of religious discrimination, and the government should go no further.

Atrocity Allegations

 Here is a thread of threads about the allegations made by Israeli sources about atrocities by Hamas fighters.  (No actual 'evidence' is ever provided other than unbelievable stories by people who were not themselves raped, etc, or blood on dead bodies that has multiple alternative explanations including friendly fire.   Israeli credibility on such matters is shot after having lied about everything for decades.  International investigators have not been permitted to examine anything.  And though it's a useful distraction, none of it justifies the Israel's murderous and genocidal campaign of carpet bombing and targeted assassinations of journalists which followed. )

Taba Negotiations

Here is the best record of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Taba which followed the Camp David Accords.

Zionists claim that Palestinians rejected a two state deal and never made a counter offer.

The truth was that Israel never offered Palestinians a 'sovereign state,' only the certification of theft of even more territory.  Palestinians had counter-offers.  In the end, Israel broke off negotiations at Taba, there was no 'final proposal.'

Zionists claim that the Second Intifada was Arafat's response to their negotiations.

That's impossible, because the Second Intifada began months before the Taba negotiations even started.

Twitter/X Thread.

Robert Malley (Palestinian Negotiator) on the talks.

Palestinians accepted side-by-side Israeli and Palestinians states on the 1967 borders.

From that 1967 baseline, Palestinians accepted land swaps with certain constraints:

1) Equal size and value

2) Swaps must maintain the contiguity of their own lands, and not lead to the incorporation of Palestinians into Israel.

Subject to these constraints, Palestinians accepted that the vast majority of Israeli settlers could remain in the West Bank (a remarkable concession).

Israel rejected these constraints.

Malloy's synopsis:

Over a decade later, Malley was a key player in Barack Obama's negotiations for the 'Iran Deal' (JPCOA).  Although quite radical in his views (not unlike me) he remained in senior State Department roles until 2023.  Though many have smeared and blasted his report on the Taba negotiations, such as this article in Commentary, I have not seen a detailed deconstruction of his facts and timeline.  I think it's a fair and honest report that many voices in the establishment do not want to accept.  Since 2023 he's been under investigation for allegedly leaking confidential information.  His security clearance was revoked, but no charges have been made.  This looks like a witchhunt to me.  Otherwise, his State Department CV is incredibly impressive for a person with 'radical' views.  If he is so toxic, why had he remained in senior positions for 23 years after the Taba negotiations?  In contrast, Malley's critics, like the Commentary reporter Eli Lake are morons and moral midgets who, for example, touted Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.