>I asked a while ago who the Palestinian NonZionism was.
You don't even need to restrict it to Palestinians. The Arab world does not have an intellectual culture and thus anyone who falls off the pro-Palestine boat will instead switch to an extreme pro-Zionism grift. Just look how many substacks there are, written by pro-Israel Arabs and exclusively read by Jews, that just recycle the oldest and most boring of talking points. If you supported Palestine for stupid reasons, you will support Israel for stupid reasons as well, because you have a low IQ. (This is also why ex-religious zealots are the most ridiculous subset of atheists).
If you are going by the simplest IQ based analysis (which I think it should be rejected, because at the smarter end, poor countries probably have a fatter tail), then 500 million Arabs with an average IQ of 82 vs. 3 million Ashkenazi Israelis with an average IQ of 112 is basically the same number of people with a Mensa level IQ. Intelligence is obviously not explanatory though, because the smartest Arabs tend to be more pro-Palestine than the dumber ones (who gravitate towards things like woke Sunnism over leftism).
The actual explanation is, since Israel has already won, there is room for intellectual dissent, since it does not hurt their movement significantly. Palestinians and their advocates realize that if try to adopt a more nuanced position, it will damage their cause. This applies to intellectuals, but it also applies on a more basic level. Even if you are anti-Hamas, you realize that condemning Hamas is ceding ground to your opponent and allowing their talking point to succeed. The real Palestinian non-zionism, if he is alive, realizes that he has nothing to gain by publishing his thoughts.
Wouldn't a Palestinian non Zionism just be a Palestinian who is against Palestinian nationalism but not a big supporter of Israel. Like against the idea of striving for a Palestinian state (due to the disaster it would be)
> If you supported Palestine for stupid reasons, you will support Israel for stupid reasons as well, because you have a low IQ. (This is also why ex-religious zealots are the most ridiculous subset of atheists).
It's crazy how true this is. Dan Burmawi and Hussein Mansour are complete imbeciles.
However like the other commenter I completely disagree on the subject of nuance and dissent. It would be much better for the Palestinian movement if Hamas was at the very least seen as controversial.
This hypothetical Palestinian non-zionism (and by extension, you) has to be an complete tool to believe that widespread Hamas apologia is the most effective way towards a Palestinian state. It is beyond any shadow of a doubt that Palestinian rejectionism during the camp David summit was horrible for the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause (although obviously not for global support of the Palestinian cause). Also, on your note if pro-lsrael Arabs on substack, I'm only aware of Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, who A) has made a career by creating real analysis, not by recycle talking points and B) has an lQ far higher than either you or me or any normal person (Jew or goy). I'm no smolani but your comments strike me as unsubstantiated and needlessly racist.
Hussein Aboubakr Mansour writes pseudo-intellectual drivel, and he was the person I was thinking of when I wrote that.
What does a Palestine supporter have to gain by vocally calling for a two state solution? It is not 2003. You may note that at the time, many prominent Palestinians were doing exactly that, because it was the best way to help to their cause. Their goal now is to change public opinion in Western countries, which is, in 2026, the most efficient way of advancing their cause. Except for a small subset of Jews, nobody cares if your stated position is "two states" or "one state with equality for all." Do you think there is a significant amount of people alive who know the difference between Mamdani and Bernie Sanders's positions on the solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict? It only undercuts your movement to say "Well, Israel has some good points."
If this seems like "rejectionism," consider that a two-state solution organized by a pro-Palestine Democratic president in 2030 will be much more preferable to Palestinians than whatever Trump's plans are. Obviously, the majority of Palestine supporters on social media are not engaging in second-order thinking and their behavior is caused by baser, stupider impulses, but this explains why the "Palestinian non-Zionism" is silent.
As a point of comparison, with the Israel-Syria conflict, there are many intelligent Syrian commentators who are vocally calling for negotiation with Israel. That is basically the stance of the pro-rebel New Lines Magazine. This is because in this case, rapprochement is the best way to achieve their long-term goals.
Of course this whole discussion is undercut by the fact that Palestinian nationalism is centered on undoing 1948 and erasing Israel, not on a two state solution. Similar to the way that the religious Zionist right is not concerned with Israeli prosperity and the well-being of the state but with territorial maximalism at any cost.
As an Israeli, I am not principally against Israeli policies in the West Bank because of moral issues regarding Palestinians (though they obviously are a factor). I am principally against those policies because I believe them to be objectively bad for the well-being of Israel. Similarly, the objectively best strategy for Palestinians in terms of Palestinian well-being would be to call for a two state solution and (for the first time) relinquish the right of return. Basically do a Sadat goes to Jerusalem. Yes, that would even be the best strategy now, in 2026, seeing as the opposite strategy, which is the one currently being pursued, brings about very grim results for the Palestinians. But again, this is all predicated on a way of thinking that seeks to maximize objective material well-being and prosperity. If the shared aim genuinely values resistance and irredentism over objective material well-being and prosperity, the discussion is - again - moot.
Hussein is a true intellectual. I have heard him make steelman arguments that are more convincing than the side that actually makes them.
On the topic of Palestinian non-zionism, I think we will have to agree to disagree because the discussion is just too vast to encapsulate in a comment thread. I'll generally take your point. The rabid maximalism we see today is probably the best medium term strategy, provided that at some point Palestinians are able to pivot and convert all the global momentum into a 2 state reality. Until then, Palestinian rejectionism remains one of the most compelling arguments in favor of Israel. Even leftist Israelis don't believe they have a partner sitting across the table. In 2032 it won't matter who is sitting in the white house if the Palestinians aren't willing to accept something like the Clinton parameters.
So personally, if I was PNZ I would be writing in Arabic in a vain effort to pull Palestinians back from the brink. The Palestinian propaganda machine is powerful enough without real Palestinians needing to get sucked into it. Delusions of destroying Israel have plagued them for long enough.
I'm usually not a fan of people talking about "Palestinians rejectionism". It's pretty easy to understand, Balfour was crazy, almost every group on earth would have rejected such declaration, it set the table for the rejection of every other offer till 1948, it is indeed pretty crazy to expect them to just accept such.
Talking about post 1948, Palestinian state offered, almost none has actually been a full sovereign state. Israel doesn't trust Palestinians, Palestinians don't trust Israel. A lot of people envision an India -Pakistan style split, but that mostly only seems to work because both sides are now pointing nukes to each other and that's not a tenable position, they still let their ethnic tension dominate their politics till today despite having even less contentious history than Israel Palestine. This can't work with Israel Palestine because Israel already set the line that such Palestine state would be demilitarized and a bunch of other conditions that change from offer to offer, this puts Palestinians in a position where they feel they will be at the mercy of their enemy without being able to defend themselves and even outside Israel, the middleast is a chaotic place to be demilitarized.
> 3 million Ashkenazi Israelis with an average IQ of 112
Okay, I get that certain groups of people are inclined to overstate Israeli intelligence, but do you at least understand how ridiculous this claim is? An IQ of 112 is 78th percentile.
For reference, the Dor-Shav thesis, targeted exclusively at Ivy League students, found a mean Jewish IQ - AGAIN, among Ivy League students, not among Joe Schlomo on the street, of 115 and 117 across two subsets. Among WASPs drawn from the same pool, it was 118. Assuming a mean WASP IQ of 105, your claim would imply that while the best WASPs are 13 points smarter than their average, the best Jews are only 3-5 points smarter than their average.
There's standard ethnonarcisissm, and then there's allowing yourself to be turned into a drooling idiot by it.
Estimates from studies range between 108-115. I suspect Israeli Ashkenazim are at the low end because of selection effects and environment. 108 is decent as a starting assumption.
I wonder who has the lie IQ here. Palestinians who oppose Hamas and seek to live in peace with Israel need to make it known that they exist to counter the common claim that all Palestinians wish to erase Israel. Expressing peace seeking views hopefully will garner support among Arabs and acceptance among Israelis. What is wrong with that? Israelis criticise their government constantly. Honest debate makes you stronger, not weaker
this “who had a higher I Q” testifies to your superficial meaningless message. There is nothing inherently positive in supporting an untenable Palestinian position and in equating the Israeli and Arab positions. Israel is struggling to survive while Palestinians are largely manipulated by Arab money and aspirations. Excuse me for stating the obvious yet again.
Nobody cares about Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib except Jews, and it is not like he is an intellectual anyway. Compare him to someone like Aymen Odeh. From a birds-eye view have pretty similar positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but only the former is considered a sell-out (even though Odeh is an Israeli citizen).
Alkhatib's rhetoric is just what low IQ Israelis imagine "pro-peace" Palestinians would say. He spends much more time criticizing Hamas than criticizing Israel, and none of his advocacy benefits Palestinians at all, other than the concrete things like fundraisers. If your goal was to change public opinion in favor of Palestinians, you would not post every day about how evil Hamas is, how the "pro-Palestine" movement is morally bankrupt, criticizing Al Jazeera and leftists, and saying Western media is pro-Hamas. He is also literally funded by a pro-Israel think tank.
I think his strategy could make sense if he were to spend more of his time explaining how slightly less insane Israeli policy might produce less insane Palestinian politics. Surely one can do something useful as a Palestinian with such an unusually large Israeli audience. But although he does occasionally criticise Israeli policies and he does occasionally gesture at the need for more sophisticated Palestinian politics he doesn’t seem to systematically connect the two.
Again, blame Israel for what Palestinians do and say. Clearly you do not believe Palestinians can do or think anything if it is not in reaction to Israel
If you think that agency is impossible in a discourse systematically influenced by other people you might just be too stupid to count as a Zionist de re.
Agency? What do you mean? Palestinians can only react? No ability for independent action? You said, not me. I think they can but chose not to because if you initiate you need to take responsibility and they are not very good at that. They prefer being victims and making money that way
> I asked a while ago who the Palestinian NonZionism was.
Probably just Richard Hanania. Arabs at large are seemingly incapable of being self-critical and I don't think it can be explained away by IQ.
My pet theory is that its the infallibility of Islam somehow worming its way to the entire culture. If you can't argue for obvious things like 'interest is fine actually' and 'maybe it should be illegal to marry a 9 year old' without being labeled a heretic, then over centuries maybe this is the end result.
The issue when it comes to Palestinian propaganda is not just that they mindlessly believe the own slop that they write, but that they do it on purpose to capture the low information hordes who have to be Pro Palestine in order to tick off a box for their social group. There is a white liberal Emily out there on a college campus who will watch this video and not question it whatsoever. Now you have this military aged female that will carry this retarded belief for the rest of her life unless she develops some critical thinking skills, and those same ones are the ones committing hate crimes (sometimes very violent) against our people. Tbqh our inept government (and the American one) and NGO’s are toothless to counter propaganda like this and I don’t see them wisening up either
I'm amused by what I guess is the implicit argument here by Shehada, namely that if the Zionists secretly didn't accept partition and wanted all the land for themselves, that makes it okay for Arab nationalists to openly and proudly reject partition and want all the land for themselves.
As usual, every PalNat argument ultimately just circles back to the unspoken principle of "We should get everything we want."
I think as usual Palestinianism is just reacting to Zionism here - Zionism defends itself on the basis that Zionists accepted partition when Arabs didn't, so Arabs will try to show that the Zionists didn't actually mean it.
I think the implicit argument is that Zionists are generally incapable of actual compromise and when they do appear to offer or accept compromises it is only for the sake of buying time so they can build up their strength to nullify the compromise. This is basically the uno reverse version of "Palestinians will only accept hudnas or temporary ceasefires and would use any autonomy/independence/statehood as a springboard for the next war."
And there's elements of truth to both critiques but broadly speaking the idea here is to convince and reassure people that there's no tradeoffs to consider in rejecting the pursuit of compromise or reason to regret not having compromised in the past because even if the compromise had been successful it will/would have actually made things worse.
General rule for good mental hygiene - be suspicious anytime tries to convince you there's no trade offs.
I find people who tout Pappe just so sgupid and unreasonable. "Oh look at me I follow the oral history of the oppressed" in between mistranslating documents and getting basic facts wrong. If he weren't Jewish he wouldn't have any credence. If you're going to be making pro-Palestine arguments and think Morris is bad because he's a racist fascist who loves war crimes or whatever just have the basic decency to cite Khalidi or something—Pappe is an idiot and a dissembler and very often both at once
I think rejecting the partition plans was certainly understandable from an Arab perspective, but it was stupid.
Even if Ben-Gurion did harbour maximalist ambitions, hoping to expand, could he have actually done it if the Arab countries left this rump Israeli state (which would probably be significantly weaker than Israel in our reality) alone? I really, really doubt it (but you may correct me if I am wrong).
Israel only got away with its aggression in the 6-day war because it could point to Egyptian actions, and even then, it gave back part of the territory it gained and kept the rest occupied, failing to find a permanent solution.
It was only stupid in retrospect after the lost. By all account, who would win the 1948 war was up in the air for a while and they stood a great chance of winning that war from outside perspective at the time.
Nah Egyptian actions pointed to was bullshit. Egyptian also thought they were preparing to defend themselves, etc.
This is not a principle people apply consistently, cause then it means Israel started the gaza war by Blockading Gaza.
But also the blockade wasn't really the start of the tensions. The tension was a bit of self reinforcing cycle of nonsense that compounded. Egypt heard Israel wanted to make a move, Israel heard Egypt was about the make a move.
Speaking of pulling famous quotes of Zionism in dubious modern context out of one’s backside, these bring to mind the one by Herzl in Der Judenstaat, where in my mind he presciently describes the primary dilemma facing political Zionism for the next 50 years:
“Here two territories come under consideration, Palestine and Argentine. In both countries important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration.”
So, if one thinks of the sovereign right to control immigration as the key to most quickly solving the population imbalance problem facing the early Zionists—or, from an Arab rejectionist POV, the bulwark to prevent the Zionists from solving that problem, then one can see the strategic logic of both Arab opposition to the partition plans and Ben Gurion’s position that establishing any kind of state no matter how meager its borders and Jewish majority should be accepted. As Ben-Gurion famously wrote to his son after the Peel report, “the rest will come, it must come.”
The details of what each side really envisioned for achieving those goals seems unknowable, lost to history, and purely speculative at this point. But there seems ample anecdotal evidence that it was not unreasonable for either side to believe at the time that the other side had maximalist ambitions and acted accordingly. This never seems to come up in the modern narratives.
My perhaps poorly-articulated point is that it was recognized fairly early on that establishing sovereignty—and thus not being gated by the fickle whims or political intrigues of the Ottomans and later the British—was the key to being able to control immigration and by extension the key to establishing a Jewish majority state in Palestine.
So if one presumes both Arabs and Zionists of 1937-48 understood and believed this, then that seems to roughly explain in part why Arabs opposed a sovereign Jewish foothold anywhere in Palestine and why Ben-Gurion would have accepted a sovereign foothold essentially anywhere during that period. Certainly there is oodles of chudish chauvinism/nationalism mixed in, but there’s at least some defensible rational self-interest there.
I think Arab opposition to Jewish immigration was extremely rational - as you say, everybody understood the importance of limiting/allowing Jewish immigration and it’s why “limit/stop Jewish immigration” was the sine qua non of every Arab demand and why “allow more Jewish immigration” was the sine qua non of every Jewish demand. The question is, in 1947, is it smarter for the Arabs to cut their losses, confine the Jews to a specific area where they can immigrate all they want, but preserve the rest of Palestine for the Arab majority, or to bet everything on being able to win a war? It’s a hard question. They likely didn’t fully appreciate the downsides of losing the war.
Yes, it ultimately proved disastrous for the Arabs. With benefit of hindsight, they should have taken the Peel Commission plan, which was the historic high-water mark for Palestinian nationalism.
'What does it have to do with Shehada’s ‘argument’ that Zionists had a crafty plan to pretend to be in favour of partition in order to provoke a war so as to ethnically cleanse all of Palestine? Beats me.' Don't you understand? If someone accurately and coherently explains past events, it means they must have planned it all along!
This is what drives me most nuts. Israelis have engaged in a degree of introspection about what they have done. Not enough (Shmuel Lahis ended up serving less than a year), but some and precisely this is seized on as proof of their total wickedness.
The situation of Palestine is unlike Ben Gurion’s in many ways, but most relevant is that they cannot even enforce the borders that they already have against Israel’s relentless encroachment. There is no prospect of them increasing them further.
They’re in a situation where Israel can effectively do what it wants in relation to them. How would it benefit them to accept the designation of a state, that would be worth entrenching their miserable status and giving up all claim to better?
Israel has already shown that it will not respect the laws of nations in their relations with Palestine. They have all the money, the military might, the powerful allies. The only thing Palestine has got is the moral/legal high ground conferred by the illegal nature of Israeli occupation. Of course they don’t want to legitimise it! Their only hope is that the geopolitical landscape shifts enough for the world to find its conscience; they would drastically undermine that hope by giving up one of the strongest and most central aspects of their normative claim, that Israel’s occupation of most of the country is illegal under international law (whether or not you give that much weight personally).
Apparently your information comes from Qatar funded social media. As an Israeli I am amused and flattered by your perception that Israel has super powers. Your perception of Palestinians as poor victims is also amusing considering they are funded and supported by Arab oil money and the whole Moslem world. Clearly Palestinians are hostages of the Moslem brotherhood who do not care about their welfare and exploit their suffering as a political weapon against Israel but I guess you have not seen that on social media, so how could you know?
You just love that victim profession, don’t you? You can make lots and lots of money by being a poor victim and making rich liberals feel sorry for you. Why bother doing something useful?
The question is why the Palestinians are in debt and still no info about how much they get from legitimate sources let alone secret transfers of money and contributions
How is that obvious? Billions were given to Palestinians, their leaders stole a lot if it and the rest they used to build a military super structure in Gaza. Saying that it obvious is simply your way if not dealing with facts. How is it “obvious”??? Because Israel uses money better? Maybe something totally different is obvious
Again, how much do Palestinians get from us European Union and the UN, Qatar Iran Saudi Arabia, etc? Do present your “obvious” data. Israel gets only a budget to buy American weapons. Do please present and compare the numbers. Go in, don’t be lazy
●Pretty pictures. Nice aesthetics and all that. Cool but not krass. Hopefully your secretary won't panic with so many comments kinda bad "redacted"... I'm panicking myself 😭.
● I think that, although Zionists love the whole "we are one with prostitutes and blacks" thing, the secular Zionism of the partition era and its territorial strategy have very little to do with ""today's"" Religious (state) Zionism; that stuff is older than Zionism itself...it's called messianism. But you know that already, right? I heard you were a Religious Zionist at some point. And then there are those rather macabre theological-political cults that you keep insisting on calling Kabbalah, Zoharism, (Frankism) or whatever we're calling them this week.
●The thing is kinda Sabbatean, not going to deny that: let’s use the forces of the state to accelerate "something" whatever that thing is. The point is that these movements seem to require a permanent scapegoat. Without one, there is no tikkun of the land. No redemption. No cosmic repair. So the messianic machine keeps running. And ""Palestinians"" are perfect for this game because they are too losers to really lose, to give up, to say f*** off. We go to UK or France where very hot, very smart and kinda rich people live.
●Ben-Gurion and the Haganah probably never imagined that the defense of the Jewish state would one day be taken over by movements with this kind of sadomaso weird background, with zero realistic strategy. At least you have a defense. It could be worse. Focus on that instead of being "lib gay" because it seems you don't really grasp what the game is about. Blame the game, not the Jew. And yeah by the way, a Judaism-centric "herstory" of the state of Israel doesn't help either.
This hypothetical Palestinian non-zionism (and by extension, you) has to be an complete tool to believe that widespread Hamas apologia is the most effective way towards a Palestinian state. It is beyond any shadow of a doubt that Palestinian rejectionism during the camp David summit was horrible for the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause (although obviously not for global support of the Palestinian cause).
Also, on your note if pro-Israel Arabs on substack, I'm only aware of Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, who A) has made a career by creating real analysis, not by recycle talking points and B) has an IQ far higher than either you or me or any normal person (Jew or goy). I'm no smolani but your comments strike me as unsubstantiated and needlessly racist.
Thank you for taking the time to show what goes into producing propaganda pieces like this. I understood all but your last argument.
"What does it have to do with Shehada’s ‘argument’ that Zionists had a crafty plan to pretend to be in favour of partition in order to provoke a war so as to ethnically cleanse all of Palestine? Beats me."
It seems you are saying that the Maklef quote implies only that terror happened as a byproduct of military operations. To me, the quotation establishes that expulsion was the *aim* of Israeli military operations, at least in the Galilee, and therefore terror was employed at Hula. Is your argument that terror was employed to achieve expulsion in that region, but it is insufficient to prove there was a Zionist expulsion master plan, or is your argument that it is completely irrelevant as evidence for the claim? If the former, I think that's plausible. If the latter, I do not follow. Thank you!
I mean, they didn't take all the land because the world has been pretty adamant in stopping them so it becomes a long term goal they have to back off of once in a while, i mean they stopped at 80% in 1948 only due to intense international pressure.
I don't think "why haven't they done it" is a good response. There have been many PMs that outrightly express theie desire for it. They just have a huge hurdle to achieve it that's more than just force
"There’s another point here. If accepting a state far smaller than you want and believe you deserve as a basis to achieve more in the future is such an amazing strategy why not do it? The Palestinians have rejected a state three times since Oslo. I accept the argument that what they were offered was less than (a) what they would be accorded by a simple application of international law (b) less than most Palestinians are willing to accept (c) less than they deserve from an impartial perspective. OK, but so what? Learn from the winners."
Obvs because Arabs are more honorable than those sneaky underhand J*ws.
>I asked a while ago who the Palestinian NonZionism was.
You don't even need to restrict it to Palestinians. The Arab world does not have an intellectual culture and thus anyone who falls off the pro-Palestine boat will instead switch to an extreme pro-Zionism grift. Just look how many substacks there are, written by pro-Israel Arabs and exclusively read by Jews, that just recycle the oldest and most boring of talking points. If you supported Palestine for stupid reasons, you will support Israel for stupid reasons as well, because you have a low IQ. (This is also why ex-religious zealots are the most ridiculous subset of atheists).
If you are going by the simplest IQ based analysis (which I think it should be rejected, because at the smarter end, poor countries probably have a fatter tail), then 500 million Arabs with an average IQ of 82 vs. 3 million Ashkenazi Israelis with an average IQ of 112 is basically the same number of people with a Mensa level IQ. Intelligence is obviously not explanatory though, because the smartest Arabs tend to be more pro-Palestine than the dumber ones (who gravitate towards things like woke Sunnism over leftism).
The actual explanation is, since Israel has already won, there is room for intellectual dissent, since it does not hurt their movement significantly. Palestinians and their advocates realize that if try to adopt a more nuanced position, it will damage their cause. This applies to intellectuals, but it also applies on a more basic level. Even if you are anti-Hamas, you realize that condemning Hamas is ceding ground to your opponent and allowing their talking point to succeed. The real Palestinian non-zionism, if he is alive, realizes that he has nothing to gain by publishing his thoughts.
Wouldn't a Palestinian non Zionism just be a Palestinian who is against Palestinian nationalism but not a big supporter of Israel. Like against the idea of striving for a Palestinian state (due to the disaster it would be)
But with a blog where he debunks stuff.
> If you supported Palestine for stupid reasons, you will support Israel for stupid reasons as well, because you have a low IQ. (This is also why ex-religious zealots are the most ridiculous subset of atheists).
It's crazy how true this is. Dan Burmawi and Hussein Mansour are complete imbeciles.
However like the other commenter I completely disagree on the subject of nuance and dissent. It would be much better for the Palestinian movement if Hamas was at the very least seen as controversial.
This hypothetical Palestinian non-zionism (and by extension, you) has to be an complete tool to believe that widespread Hamas apologia is the most effective way towards a Palestinian state. It is beyond any shadow of a doubt that Palestinian rejectionism during the camp David summit was horrible for the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause (although obviously not for global support of the Palestinian cause). Also, on your note if pro-lsrael Arabs on substack, I'm only aware of Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, who A) has made a career by creating real analysis, not by recycle talking points and B) has an lQ far higher than either you or me or any normal person (Jew or goy). I'm no smolani but your comments strike me as unsubstantiated and needlessly racist.
Hussein Aboubakr Mansour writes pseudo-intellectual drivel, and he was the person I was thinking of when I wrote that.
What does a Palestine supporter have to gain by vocally calling for a two state solution? It is not 2003. You may note that at the time, many prominent Palestinians were doing exactly that, because it was the best way to help to their cause. Their goal now is to change public opinion in Western countries, which is, in 2026, the most efficient way of advancing their cause. Except for a small subset of Jews, nobody cares if your stated position is "two states" or "one state with equality for all." Do you think there is a significant amount of people alive who know the difference between Mamdani and Bernie Sanders's positions on the solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict? It only undercuts your movement to say "Well, Israel has some good points."
If this seems like "rejectionism," consider that a two-state solution organized by a pro-Palestine Democratic president in 2030 will be much more preferable to Palestinians than whatever Trump's plans are. Obviously, the majority of Palestine supporters on social media are not engaging in second-order thinking and their behavior is caused by baser, stupider impulses, but this explains why the "Palestinian non-Zionism" is silent.
As a point of comparison, with the Israel-Syria conflict, there are many intelligent Syrian commentators who are vocally calling for negotiation with Israel. That is basically the stance of the pro-rebel New Lines Magazine. This is because in this case, rapprochement is the best way to achieve their long-term goals.
Of course this whole discussion is undercut by the fact that Palestinian nationalism is centered on undoing 1948 and erasing Israel, not on a two state solution. Similar to the way that the religious Zionist right is not concerned with Israeli prosperity and the well-being of the state but with territorial maximalism at any cost.
As an Israeli, I am not principally against Israeli policies in the West Bank because of moral issues regarding Palestinians (though they obviously are a factor). I am principally against those policies because I believe them to be objectively bad for the well-being of Israel. Similarly, the objectively best strategy for Palestinians in terms of Palestinian well-being would be to call for a two state solution and (for the first time) relinquish the right of return. Basically do a Sadat goes to Jerusalem. Yes, that would even be the best strategy now, in 2026, seeing as the opposite strategy, which is the one currently being pursued, brings about very grim results for the Palestinians. But again, this is all predicated on a way of thinking that seeks to maximize objective material well-being and prosperity. If the shared aim genuinely values resistance and irredentism over objective material well-being and prosperity, the discussion is - again - moot.
Hussein is a true intellectual. I have heard him make steelman arguments that are more convincing than the side that actually makes them.
On the topic of Palestinian non-zionism, I think we will have to agree to disagree because the discussion is just too vast to encapsulate in a comment thread. I'll generally take your point. The rabid maximalism we see today is probably the best medium term strategy, provided that at some point Palestinians are able to pivot and convert all the global momentum into a 2 state reality. Until then, Palestinian rejectionism remains one of the most compelling arguments in favor of Israel. Even leftist Israelis don't believe they have a partner sitting across the table. In 2032 it won't matter who is sitting in the white house if the Palestinians aren't willing to accept something like the Clinton parameters.
So personally, if I was PNZ I would be writing in Arabic in a vain effort to pull Palestinians back from the brink. The Palestinian propaganda machine is powerful enough without real Palestinians needing to get sucked into it. Delusions of destroying Israel have plagued them for long enough.
I'm usually not a fan of people talking about "Palestinians rejectionism". It's pretty easy to understand, Balfour was crazy, almost every group on earth would have rejected such declaration, it set the table for the rejection of every other offer till 1948, it is indeed pretty crazy to expect them to just accept such.
Talking about post 1948, Palestinian state offered, almost none has actually been a full sovereign state. Israel doesn't trust Palestinians, Palestinians don't trust Israel. A lot of people envision an India -Pakistan style split, but that mostly only seems to work because both sides are now pointing nukes to each other and that's not a tenable position, they still let their ethnic tension dominate their politics till today despite having even less contentious history than Israel Palestine. This can't work with Israel Palestine because Israel already set the line that such Palestine state would be demilitarized and a bunch of other conditions that change from offer to offer, this puts Palestinians in a position where they feel they will be at the mercy of their enemy without being able to defend themselves and even outside Israel, the middleast is a chaotic place to be demilitarized.
> 3 million Ashkenazi Israelis with an average IQ of 112
Okay, I get that certain groups of people are inclined to overstate Israeli intelligence, but do you at least understand how ridiculous this claim is? An IQ of 112 is 78th percentile.
For reference, the Dor-Shav thesis, targeted exclusively at Ivy League students, found a mean Jewish IQ - AGAIN, among Ivy League students, not among Joe Schlomo on the street, of 115 and 117 across two subsets. Among WASPs drawn from the same pool, it was 118. Assuming a mean WASP IQ of 105, your claim would imply that while the best WASPs are 13 points smarter than their average, the best Jews are only 3-5 points smarter than their average.
There's standard ethnonarcisissm, and then there's allowing yourself to be turned into a drooling idiot by it.
Estimates from studies range between 108-115. I suspect Israeli Ashkenazim are at the low end because of selection effects and environment. 108 is decent as a starting assumption.
I think around 110 like the American ones. Maybe 108 because of non iodized salt.
I wonder who has the lie IQ here. Palestinians who oppose Hamas and seek to live in peace with Israel need to make it known that they exist to counter the common claim that all Palestinians wish to erase Israel. Expressing peace seeking views hopefully will garner support among Arabs and acceptance among Israelis. What is wrong with that? Israelis criticise their government constantly. Honest debate makes you stronger, not weaker
this “who had a higher I Q” testifies to your superficial meaningless message. There is nothing inherently positive in supporting an untenable Palestinian position and in equating the Israeli and Arab positions. Israel is struggling to survive while Palestinians are largely manipulated by Arab money and aspirations. Excuse me for stating the obvious yet again.
Nobody cares about Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib except Jews, and it is not like he is an intellectual anyway. Compare him to someone like Aymen Odeh. From a birds-eye view have pretty similar positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but only the former is considered a sell-out (even though Odeh is an Israeli citizen).
Alkhatib's rhetoric is just what low IQ Israelis imagine "pro-peace" Palestinians would say. He spends much more time criticizing Hamas than criticizing Israel, and none of his advocacy benefits Palestinians at all, other than the concrete things like fundraisers. If your goal was to change public opinion in favor of Palestinians, you would not post every day about how evil Hamas is, how the "pro-Palestine" movement is morally bankrupt, criticizing Al Jazeera and leftists, and saying Western media is pro-Hamas. He is also literally funded by a pro-Israel think tank.
I think his strategy could make sense if he were to spend more of his time explaining how slightly less insane Israeli policy might produce less insane Palestinian politics. Surely one can do something useful as a Palestinian with such an unusually large Israeli audience. But although he does occasionally criticise Israeli policies and he does occasionally gesture at the need for more sophisticated Palestinian politics he doesn’t seem to systematically connect the two.
Again, blame Israel for what Palestinians do and say. Clearly you do not believe Palestinians can do or think anything if it is not in reaction to Israel
If you think that agency is impossible in a discourse systematically influenced by other people you might just be too stupid to count as a Zionist de re.
Agency? What do you mean? Palestinians can only react? No ability for independent action? You said, not me. I think they can but chose not to because if you initiate you need to take responsibility and they are not very good at that. They prefer being victims and making money that way
Odeh opposes Israel remaining a Jewish state
He is great. Non-intellectual, but absolutely fantastic. I hope one day he can lead his people to prosperity and competent governance.
> I asked a while ago who the Palestinian NonZionism was.
Probably just Richard Hanania. Arabs at large are seemingly incapable of being self-critical and I don't think it can be explained away by IQ.
My pet theory is that its the infallibility of Islam somehow worming its way to the entire culture. If you can't argue for obvious things like 'interest is fine actually' and 'maybe it should be illegal to marry a 9 year old' without being labeled a heretic, then over centuries maybe this is the end result.
Judaism seems to have had the opposite effect.
The issue when it comes to Palestinian propaganda is not just that they mindlessly believe the own slop that they write, but that they do it on purpose to capture the low information hordes who have to be Pro Palestine in order to tick off a box for their social group. There is a white liberal Emily out there on a college campus who will watch this video and not question it whatsoever. Now you have this military aged female that will carry this retarded belief for the rest of her life unless she develops some critical thinking skills, and those same ones are the ones committing hate crimes (sometimes very violent) against our people. Tbqh our inept government (and the American one) and NGO’s are toothless to counter propaganda like this and I don’t see them wisening up either
I'm amused by what I guess is the implicit argument here by Shehada, namely that if the Zionists secretly didn't accept partition and wanted all the land for themselves, that makes it okay for Arab nationalists to openly and proudly reject partition and want all the land for themselves.
As usual, every PalNat argument ultimately just circles back to the unspoken principle of "We should get everything we want."
I think as usual Palestinianism is just reacting to Zionism here - Zionism defends itself on the basis that Zionists accepted partition when Arabs didn't, so Arabs will try to show that the Zionists didn't actually mean it.
I think the implicit argument is that Zionists are generally incapable of actual compromise and when they do appear to offer or accept compromises it is only for the sake of buying time so they can build up their strength to nullify the compromise. This is basically the uno reverse version of "Palestinians will only accept hudnas or temporary ceasefires and would use any autonomy/independence/statehood as a springboard for the next war."
And there's elements of truth to both critiques but broadly speaking the idea here is to convince and reassure people that there's no tradeoffs to consider in rejecting the pursuit of compromise or reason to regret not having compromised in the past because even if the compromise had been successful it will/would have actually made things worse.
General rule for good mental hygiene - be suspicious anytime tries to convince you there's no trade offs.
Fair.
I find people who tout Pappe just so sgupid and unreasonable. "Oh look at me I follow the oral history of the oppressed" in between mistranslating documents and getting basic facts wrong. If he weren't Jewish he wouldn't have any credence. If you're going to be making pro-Palestine arguments and think Morris is bad because he's a racist fascist who loves war crimes or whatever just have the basic decency to cite Khalidi or something—Pappe is an idiot and a dissembler and very often both at once
"Sgupid." Fuck me.
I think rejecting the partition plans was certainly understandable from an Arab perspective, but it was stupid.
Even if Ben-Gurion did harbour maximalist ambitions, hoping to expand, could he have actually done it if the Arab countries left this rump Israeli state (which would probably be significantly weaker than Israel in our reality) alone? I really, really doubt it (but you may correct me if I am wrong).
Israel only got away with its aggression in the 6-day war because it could point to Egyptian actions, and even then, it gave back part of the territory it gained and kept the rest occupied, failing to find a permanent solution.
It was only stupid in retrospect after the lost. By all account, who would win the 1948 war was up in the air for a while and they stood a great chance of winning that war from outside perspective at the time.
Nah Egyptian actions pointed to was bullshit. Egyptian also thought they were preparing to defend themselves, etc.
They should have realised that they were Arabs.
Egypt instituted a naval blockade, which is, under international law, an act of war.
This is not a principle people apply consistently, cause then it means Israel started the gaza war by Blockading Gaza.
But also the blockade wasn't really the start of the tensions. The tension was a bit of self reinforcing cycle of nonsense that compounded. Egypt heard Israel wanted to make a move, Israel heard Egypt was about the make a move.
Speaking of pulling famous quotes of Zionism in dubious modern context out of one’s backside, these bring to mind the one by Herzl in Der Judenstaat, where in my mind he presciently describes the primary dilemma facing political Zionism for the next 50 years:
“Here two territories come under consideration, Palestine and Argentine. In both countries important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration.”
So, if one thinks of the sovereign right to control immigration as the key to most quickly solving the population imbalance problem facing the early Zionists—or, from an Arab rejectionist POV, the bulwark to prevent the Zionists from solving that problem, then one can see the strategic logic of both Arab opposition to the partition plans and Ben Gurion’s position that establishing any kind of state no matter how meager its borders and Jewish majority should be accepted. As Ben-Gurion famously wrote to his son after the Peel report, “the rest will come, it must come.”
The details of what each side really envisioned for achieving those goals seems unknowable, lost to history, and purely speculative at this point. But there seems ample anecdotal evidence that it was not unreasonable for either side to believe at the time that the other side had maximalist ambitions and acted accordingly. This never seems to come up in the modern narratives.
I don't see what you are getting at. Herzl's point was that that he needed to get the Ottomans to agree for it to work. Not a secret.
My perhaps poorly-articulated point is that it was recognized fairly early on that establishing sovereignty—and thus not being gated by the fickle whims or political intrigues of the Ottomans and later the British—was the key to being able to control immigration and by extension the key to establishing a Jewish majority state in Palestine.
So if one presumes both Arabs and Zionists of 1937-48 understood and believed this, then that seems to roughly explain in part why Arabs opposed a sovereign Jewish foothold anywhere in Palestine and why Ben-Gurion would have accepted a sovereign foothold essentially anywhere during that period. Certainly there is oodles of chudish chauvinism/nationalism mixed in, but there’s at least some defensible rational self-interest there.
Here I agree with Seth. In international relations, there are always reasons to be paranoid, but it's almost never the smart play.
I think Arab opposition to Jewish immigration was extremely rational - as you say, everybody understood the importance of limiting/allowing Jewish immigration and it’s why “limit/stop Jewish immigration” was the sine qua non of every Arab demand and why “allow more Jewish immigration” was the sine qua non of every Jewish demand. The question is, in 1947, is it smarter for the Arabs to cut their losses, confine the Jews to a specific area where they can immigrate all they want, but preserve the rest of Palestine for the Arab majority, or to bet everything on being able to win a war? It’s a hard question. They likely didn’t fully appreciate the downsides of losing the war.
I don't agree because I don't accept nationalism as normative. What was strictly rational was to welcome Jewish immigration and benefit economically.
Yes, it ultimately proved disastrous for the Arabs. With benefit of hindsight, they should have taken the Peel Commission plan, which was the historic high-water mark for Palestinian nationalism.
'What does it have to do with Shehada’s ‘argument’ that Zionists had a crafty plan to pretend to be in favour of partition in order to provoke a war so as to ethnically cleanse all of Palestine? Beats me.' Don't you understand? If someone accurately and coherently explains past events, it means they must have planned it all along!
This is what drives me most nuts. Israelis have engaged in a degree of introspection about what they have done. Not enough (Shmuel Lahis ended up serving less than a year), but some and precisely this is seized on as proof of their total wickedness.
The situation of Palestine is unlike Ben Gurion’s in many ways, but most relevant is that they cannot even enforce the borders that they already have against Israel’s relentless encroachment. There is no prospect of them increasing them further.
They’re in a situation where Israel can effectively do what it wants in relation to them. How would it benefit them to accept the designation of a state, that would be worth entrenching their miserable status and giving up all claim to better?
Israel has already shown that it will not respect the laws of nations in their relations with Palestine. They have all the money, the military might, the powerful allies. The only thing Palestine has got is the moral/legal high ground conferred by the illegal nature of Israeli occupation. Of course they don’t want to legitimise it! Their only hope is that the geopolitical landscape shifts enough for the world to find its conscience; they would drastically undermine that hope by giving up one of the strongest and most central aspects of their normative claim, that Israel’s occupation of most of the country is illegal under international law (whether or not you give that much weight personally).
And who do you think pays for the weapons Hamas the Houthi and Hizbullah use against Israel?
And we see no coherent answers here just some pathetic ranting
Apparently your information comes from Qatar funded social media. As an Israeli I am amused and flattered by your perception that Israel has super powers. Your perception of Palestinians as poor victims is also amusing considering they are funded and supported by Arab oil money and the whole Moslem world. Clearly Palestinians are hostages of the Moslem brotherhood who do not care about their welfare and exploit their suffering as a political weapon against Israel but I guess you have not seen that on social media, so how could you know?
Israel is obviously vastly more powerful and wealthy than Palestine- and the word is ‘Muslim’.
You think to believe that being a corrupt poor victim somehow makes you morally superior, it does not
You just love that victim profession, don’t you? You can make lots and lots of money by being a poor victim and making rich liberals feel sorry for you. Why bother doing something useful?
It seems that it is you who is suffering from feelings of deprivation and envy of Israel . Maybe you can get a job as a Qatar troll
Moslem is a perfectly correct way to write that word. Anything other irrelevant nonsense you wish to point out?
No, it isn’t.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Moslem
Who cares?
Pretty much everyone
Israel receives billions every year from the US alone.
I can’t believe you’re seriously trying to dispute that Israel is wealthier than Palestine!
https://georank.org/economy/israel/palestine
Israel gets only military aid. Palestinians have been living off charity for almost 80 yrs
The question is why the Palestinians are in debt and still no info about how much they get from legitimate sources let alone secret transfers of money and contributions
How is that obvious? Billions were given to Palestinians, their leaders stole a lot if it and the rest they used to build a military super structure in Gaza. Saying that it obvious is simply your way if not dealing with facts. How is it “obvious”??? Because Israel uses money better? Maybe something totally different is obvious
Israel receives billions every year from the US alone.
I can’t believe you’re seriously trying to dispute that Israel is wealthier than Palestine!
This is how it’s obvious:
https://georank.org/economy/israel/palestine
Again, how much do Palestinians get from us European Union and the UN, Qatar Iran Saudi Arabia, etc? Do present your “obvious” data. Israel gets only a budget to buy American weapons. Do please present and compare the numbers. Go in, don’t be lazy
I did provide the numbers?
●Pretty pictures. Nice aesthetics and all that. Cool but not krass. Hopefully your secretary won't panic with so many comments kinda bad "redacted"... I'm panicking myself 😭.
● I think that, although Zionists love the whole "we are one with prostitutes and blacks" thing, the secular Zionism of the partition era and its territorial strategy have very little to do with ""today's"" Religious (state) Zionism; that stuff is older than Zionism itself...it's called messianism. But you know that already, right? I heard you were a Religious Zionist at some point. And then there are those rather macabre theological-political cults that you keep insisting on calling Kabbalah, Zoharism, (Frankism) or whatever we're calling them this week.
●The thing is kinda Sabbatean, not going to deny that: let’s use the forces of the state to accelerate "something" whatever that thing is. The point is that these movements seem to require a permanent scapegoat. Without one, there is no tikkun of the land. No redemption. No cosmic repair. So the messianic machine keeps running. And ""Palestinians"" are perfect for this game because they are too losers to really lose, to give up, to say f*** off. We go to UK or France where very hot, very smart and kinda rich people live.
●Ben-Gurion and the Haganah probably never imagined that the defense of the Jewish state would one day be taken over by movements with this kind of sadomaso weird background, with zero realistic strategy. At least you have a defense. It could be worse. Focus on that instead of being "lib gay" because it seems you don't really grasp what the game is about. Blame the game, not the Jew. And yeah by the way, a Judaism-centric "herstory" of the state of Israel doesn't help either.
This hypothetical Palestinian non-zionism (and by extension, you) has to be an complete tool to believe that widespread Hamas apologia is the most effective way towards a Palestinian state. It is beyond any shadow of a doubt that Palestinian rejectionism during the camp David summit was horrible for the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause (although obviously not for global support of the Palestinian cause).
Also, on your note if pro-Israel Arabs on substack, I'm only aware of Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, who A) has made a career by creating real analysis, not by recycle talking points and B) has an IQ far higher than either you or me or any normal person (Jew or goy). I'm no smolani but your comments strike me as unsubstantiated and needlessly racist.
Delete this comment, it was meant as a reply to another
Thank you for taking the time to show what goes into producing propaganda pieces like this. I understood all but your last argument.
"What does it have to do with Shehada’s ‘argument’ that Zionists had a crafty plan to pretend to be in favour of partition in order to provoke a war so as to ethnically cleanse all of Palestine? Beats me."
It seems you are saying that the Maklef quote implies only that terror happened as a byproduct of military operations. To me, the quotation establishes that expulsion was the *aim* of Israeli military operations, at least in the Galilee, and therefore terror was employed at Hula. Is your argument that terror was employed to achieve expulsion in that region, but it is insufficient to prove there was a Zionist expulsion master plan, or is your argument that it is completely irrelevant as evidence for the claim? If the former, I think that's plausible. If the latter, I do not follow. Thank you!
It's good to see you crawl out of your masochistic shell every once in a while!
Watching this video to the end was my most masochistic act to date.
History is haaaard.
Nice article.
I mean, they didn't take all the land because the world has been pretty adamant in stopping them so it becomes a long term goal they have to back off of once in a while, i mean they stopped at 80% in 1948 only due to intense international pressure.
I don't think "why haven't they done it" is a good response. There have been many PMs that outrightly express theie desire for it. They just have a huge hurdle to achieve it that's more than just force
"There’s another point here. If accepting a state far smaller than you want and believe you deserve as a basis to achieve more in the future is such an amazing strategy why not do it? The Palestinians have rejected a state three times since Oslo. I accept the argument that what they were offered was less than (a) what they would be accorded by a simple application of international law (b) less than most Palestinians are willing to accept (c) less than they deserve from an impartial perspective. OK, but so what? Learn from the winners."
Obvs because Arabs are more honorable than those sneaky underhand J*ws.