This propaganda video is making the rounds. So for those debating the issue who are likely to run into it, and are looking for good sources that refute it, or anyone who has been tempted to buy into the bullshit presented in the video, I’ll offer refutations below.
It should be noted that this is a 5+ minute video by an ultra right wing neo-conservative, so it’s essentially one lie after another. You can expect this to be a very long rebuttal.
Yes, if you’re just going to make up shit. That’s pretty easy.
The Hamas should not be equated with the Palestinian people. The Gazans do not have any control over them, they don’t get a say in what they do. They can’t stop them. The “side” that’s being slaughtered does not want all Jews to die. In fact their people lived side by side with Jews for centuries before the Zionists moved in.
Originally the Jews were working with the PLO, who were not anti-Jewish, and were trying to work on a peace accord for decades. Probably because the PLO kept slowing down the process of expanding the Jewish state to the whole of Palestine, they actually backed Hamas and pitted them against the PLO.
“It should be mentioned that the emergence of the fundamentalists, both Islamic Jihad and Hamas, to power and influence on the West Bank and particularly in the Gaza Strip, was partly the result of Israel’s folly and short-sighted policy which attempted, in the years before the uprising, to play the fundamentalists off against the PLO in order to counterbalance and weaken the latter.” — Ahron Bregman, Israel’s Wars: A History since 1947
Thereby legitimizing, empowering, and popularizing them. And without the oppression of the Palestinian people by the israelis, there would not have been enough militants to fill their ranks. The Hamas problem is one that the Jews specifically created.
Second. The Zionists have given ample evidence that they do want the arabs dead. In fact, they’ve been carrying out a slow motion genocide of the Arab populace since the state of Israel formed.
“As documented by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his seminal book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), Israel’s genocidal policy against the Palestinians has been unremitting, extending from before the very foundation of the State of Israel in 1948, and is ongoing and even intensifying against the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza. Zionism’s ‘final solution’ to Israel’s much touted ‘demographic threat’ allegedly posed by the very existence of the Palestinians has always been genocide.
Certainly, Israel and its predecessors-in-law—the Zionist agencies, forces, and terrorist gangs—have committed genocide against the Palestinian people that actually started on or about 1948 and has continued apace until today in violation of Genocide Convention Articles II(a), (b), and (c).” — Francis Boyle, US Promotes Israeli Genocide
And many Zionists have been vocal about their desire to wipe out the Palestinians. Some equating it with the biblical commandment to commit genocide upon the Canaanites or Amalekites.
“In February 1980, Rabbi Yisrael Hess, the former campus rabbi of Bar-Ilan University, published an article in the student bulletin Bat Kol, the title of which, ‘The Genocide Commandment in the Torah’ (in Hebrew, ‘Mitzvat Hagenocide Batorah’) leaves no place for ambiguity. The article ends with the following: ‘The day is not far when we shall all be called to this holy war, this commandment of the annihilation of Amalek.’ Hess quotes the biblical commandment according to which he believes Israel, in the tradition of Joshua from biblical times, should act: ‘Go and strike down Amalek; put him under the ban with all that he possesses. Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, baby and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” — Nur Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion
So you have the side that’s claiming the other side wants to wipe them out, actively wiping out the other side. Which side looks like they want to wipe out which?
A Jewish State that was built on top of land that other people were already living on. A Jewish State that has no right to exist. A Jewish State that required the mass eviction and murders of hundreds of thousands of Arabs to create. By “peace”, they mean the kind of peace that comes when you wipe out anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
It should also be noted that there’s a world of difference between stating that a state doesn’t have a right to exist and that the people that make up the state don’t have a right to exist.
Total bullshit. The Zionist plan was always to take the whole of Palestine. All of the “concessions”, which always favor Israel have been PR stunts, as they gobble up more and more of the Palestinian State every time.
“This is a pattern we will see recur frequently in the history of peacemaking in Palestine, especially after the Americans became involved in 1967: up to the present day, ‘bringing peace to Palestine’ has always meant following a concept exclusively worked out between the US and Israel, without any serious consultation with, let alone regard for; the Palestinians” — Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
Then they harass the Palestinians until they retaliate, start a war, gobble up more land and murder more civilians, and then cease fire for a bit. Rinse, and repeat. There’s never been any peace for the Palestinians.
Why should they? How many native Americans recognized the US as a State while the colonialists were in the middle of steamrolling the native population? And despite the fact that they shouldn’t recognize Israel, many groups; like the PLO, did. And were willing to compromise on a 2 state solution, which I feel is unwarranted.
Yes, when they granted 57% of the land that other people lived on (and was the best most fertile and best land in the nation) to a small portion of the population that was Jewish – almost all recent immigrants (84% of the Jewish population had immigrated since 1922).
The Jews pushed for the United Nations partition. Of course they accepted it, it arbitrarily decided that more than half of a foreign country belonged to them out of hand.
Of course not. Why would they accept a huge chunk of their land being given away, all of the residents forced off the land they’d lived on their whole lives and their ancestors had lived on for centuries, just because an external force declared it. How would America react if suddenly the UN decided to give 57% of the US to make a Jewish State? And most Americans don’t even have the genetic traces to the land that the Palestinians do.
Yes, on a divided front, and with a smaller military force than Israel had. Israel also had superior weaponry, and a huge numbers advantage over the Arab forces, 2:1 by the last phases of the war:
“Even when the Arab states committed their regular armies, marking the beginning of the official phase of the war, the Yishuv retained its numerical superiority. In mid-May the total number of Arab troops, both regular and irregular, operating in Palestine was between 20,000 and 25,000. IDF fielded 35,000 troops, not counting the second-line troops in the settlements. By mid-July IDF fully mobilized 65,000 men under arms,by September the number rose to 90,000 and by December it reached a peak of 96,441. The Arab states also reinforced their armies but they could not match this rate of increase. Thus, at each stage of the war, IDF significantly outnumbered all the Arab forces ranged against it and by the final stage of the war its superiority ratio was nearly two to one.” — Avi Shlaim, International Journal of Middle East Studies
Listing the number of Arab countries without discussing their military force is simply a trick to bias you in favor of Israel by making them look like a victim.
Again, carefully selected verbiage to paint the Zionists as victims and underdogs. Despite being the group that just stole more than half of someone else’s land, and despite having more funding and manpower than their opponents. That’s like pretending Japan or England were never capable of fielding military power.
Total misrepresentation of the speech made by Nasser, which was one of self defense:
“If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.” — Gamal Abdel Nasser, Speech to Arab Trade Unionists; cited in Walter Laqueur, The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict
Which…is pretty much every speech by every leader who has ever feared getting attacked by a neighbor.
If this is an act of war, then Israel has been at war with Gaza the entire time, since they’ve always had a wall of troops surrounding it. And it’s not “along Israel’s border”, it’s along “Egypt’s border with Israel”. Again, the word play is meant to make Egypt look like the aggressor.
Furthermore, this action to protect the border of Egypt was made after Israel had invaded Syria; who had a military agreement with Egypt, and after Egypt had received word from the Soviets that Israel was massed on the Syrian border. Their purpose was reputedly to force some of the Israeli forces to divide and cover the Egyptian flank, and lessen the pressure on the Syrians.
“The incident of 7 April, Syria charged, was initiated by an Israel tractor cultivating a disputed land parcel. Israel had carried out a premeditated attack in accordance with a well-prepared plan to provoke Syria into a full-scale war. During the battle, Israel had refused a cease-fire proposal of the Chairman of ISMAC and had resumed its air bombardment. Moreover, Israel had continued its acts of provocation after 7 April” — Yearbook of the United Nations 1967
“On that day an exchange of fire in the DMZ escalated into an air battle in which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian Mig fighter planes, two of them on the outskirts of the capital Damascus.” — Ahron Bregman, Israel’s Wars: A History since 1947
Which was an act of aggression. You aren’t allowed to attack another country without international sanction. The USSR and Egypt properly called them out for this:
“On June 5 Egypt, supported by the USSR, charged Israel with aggression. Israel claimed that Egypt had struck first, telling the council that ‘in the early hours of this morning Egyptian armoured columns moved in an offensive thrust against Israel’s borders. At the same time Egyptian planes took off from airfields in Sinai and struck out towards Israel. Egyptian artillery in the Gaza strip shelled the Israel villages of Kissufim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha…’” — John Quigley, The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective
But of course Israel was lying about not attacking first. As the CIA admitted, and then the Zionists had to change their story.
“In fact, this was not the case.” — John Quigley, The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective
“The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) “ — CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War
Jordan was already engaged by the time Israel sent the message, and they had little choice but to jump in the conflict. On top of being next in Israel’s path, a huge chunk of their population were Palestinian:
“On the Jordanian front war started at 9.45 a.m. on 5 June, as King Hussein’s guns opened fire along the border with Israel and Jordanian troops attempted to occupy the United Nations headquarters and other positions in Jerusalem. On this morning the Israelis delivered a message to the King, saying: ‘This is a war between us and Egypt. If you stay out we will not touch you’. Upon receiving this message, the King – he was at air force headquarters – said: ‘Jordan is not out. Jordan is already engaged’. This is understandable, for with Palestinians making up half of his population, if Hussein had stood aside his kingdom could have disintegrated” — Ahron Bregman, Israel’s Wars: A History since 1947
They also were bound by law and honor to defend Egypt after Israel attacked them:
And while Israel gave Jordan an out, they had every reason to believe it would be temporary because Israel wanted the West Bank all along:
“The victory had a special historic meaning because of the capturing of territories central to the religious mythical past: the Old Town of Jerusalem with the Western Wall, which is the remnant of the ancient Jewish temple destroyed by the Romans; and the West Bank, which is part of biblical Eretz Yisrael and where such sites as Machpela are situated. For Israel’s religious community, the occupation of these territories established the relationships between what they define as ‘People, God and Promised Land’, strengthening their sense of Jewish identity.” — Ahron Bregman, Israel’s Wars: A History since 1947
And accordingly, Israel was immediately poised to spring after the Jordanian attack:
“Israel’s response to the Jordanian attack was immediate and devastating – it destroyed Jordan’s two air force bases and in fifty-one sorties totally crippled its small air force, before moving to occupy the West Bank and Jerusalem.” — Ahron Bregman, Israel’s Wars: A History since 1947
Again, taking the “three nos” out of context allows for a deceptive representation of their meaning.
“Arab spokesmen interpreted the Khartoum declarations to mean no formal peace treaty, but not the rejection of a state of peace; no direct negotiations, but not a refusal to talk through third parties; and no de jure recognition of Israel, but acceptance of its existence as a state.” — Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World
And Nasser and Hussein were actually opposed to the “three nos”:
“At Khartoum, I fought very much against the three noes. But the atmosphere there developed into one where all the people who used to support Nasser…turned on him” — King Hussein, cited in Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World
Give up their colonization of other people’s lands? Live in peace side by side with Palestinians as Jews had done before Zionists?
The video gives a completely backwards presentation of this, and casually bypasses how this completely answers his last question. Israel didn’t generously offer Sinai back to Egypt. It was a condition for the peace agreements that Israel returned the land they took by force from Egypt. And Israel had motives that outweighed immediate land grabs:
“We should remember that according to the Camp David accords, signed between Israel and Egypt back in 1978, Israel had to return the Sinai to Egypt – a final withdrawal was due by 25 April 1982.” — Ahron Bregman, Israel’s Wars: A History since 1947
“Israel agreed to hand back the Sinai peninsula in exchange for a comprehensive peace treaty and demilitarisation of most of the Sinai. Both parties had compromised. Israel agreed to remove the settlements and airfields, Egypt dropped the issue of Jerusalem, and the two sides agreed on only a vague autonomy plan for the Palestinians that would be implemented in stages over a number of years.” — Greg Philo, Bad News From Israel
“Finkelstein (2001) suggests that the Israeli government agreed to peace with Egypt because it would neutralise the most powerful Arab military force threatening it, and subsequently allow it to break the nexus of the Palestinian national movement in Lebanon.” — Greg Philo, Bad News From Israel
This is the predominant train of thought now in Egypt as well, as they’ve seen how Israel has acted against peace since that time:
“The editor of an Egyptian magazine, who backed the Camp David agreements, told a group of Israeli journalists: ‘You turned peace into something hated for the Egyptians.’ The journalists discovered the truth of his statement from their own observations among officials, journalists, taxi drivers, salesmen and others. Unlike those who were skeptical from the start, ‘the advocates of peace with Israel feel defeated, deceived and scorned.’ The editor quoted above says: ‘I perceived the peace with Israel to be the cornerstone for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. But for you peace was merely a trick to neutralize us so as to more easily strike at the Palestinian people.’” — Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians
A. The Sinai was not the holy land. And it was never part of the Zionist plan.
B. Israel gave back what it had stolen from the Egyptians. And the Egyptians were willing to have peace in return. To give back the land that Israel stole from the Palestinians, Israel would need to cease to exist. Which is precisely what it should do to preserve peace. They don’t all need to leave the area, but they need to respect the right of return, and abandon their attempts to rule the area.
Which the PLO did when they were in charge of Palestine. Until Israel supported the Hamas and other fundamentalists against them, and ended up dividing the PLO, which led to the weakening of the PLO and strengthening of Hamas, who do not recognize Israel. And you can’t expect most Palestinians not involved in diplomatic games to recognize Israel as a state while they’re camping out on the land their family was just driven out of.
Only if that comes in the form of a peace agreement that doesn’t require them to give back anything they just gained in their latest landgrab. And always as a temporary stalling point before moving forward with the elimination of the Arab presence in Palestine. All “peace” shy of complete Zionist control of the Palestinian region is a PR stunt. And at times, the Israelis have admitted as much:
“And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.” — Dov Weissglass, ‘Top PM Aide: Gaza Plan aims to freeze the peace process’, Haaretz
And the current leadership of Israel has directly sabotaged the peace process.
“Forget the Bar-Ilan University speech, forget the virtual achievements in his last visit to the United States; this is the real Netanyahu. No more claims that the Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the Oslo Accords. Netanyahu exposed the naked truth to his hosts at Ofra: he destroyed the Oslo accords with his own hands and deeds, and he’s even proud of it. After years in which we were told that the Palestinians are to blame, the truth has emerged from the horse’s mouth.” — Gideon Levy, ‘Tricky Bibi’, Haaretz
And during times of “peace”, Israel endlessly oppresses the Palestinians, effectively antagonizing them into a violent response, at which point they use it as justification for inching forward on their land grabs and wiping out more Palestinians.
“There is no reciprocity: the security of Palestinians is not an issue, and even the meaningless and shameful comment just quoted does not apply to Israel, despite its brutal record of terror, torture, and violation of elementary legal and human rights obligations, too well-documented to review. Included are hundreds of killings of Palestinians since Oslo, most of them ‘unlawful’ according to Amnesty International (AI), and exceeding killings of Israelis by a considerable margin (though less than before, when the ratio was extreme). AI reports further that ‘there continues to be almost total impunity for unlawful killings of Palestinians,’ not to speak of house demolitions, expulsion from Jerusalem and elsewhere, imprisonment without trial, systematic torture of prisoners, etc.—all well-documented by major human rights organizations, including Israeli organizations” — Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians
This is made out to be generous. Under international pressure, they agreed to give back a portion of land even smaller than the 1947 borders laid out by the UN.
And experts; including Clinton’s advisors have stated that other reasons why Arafat likely rejected it.
“Malley and Agha (in the New York Review of Books, 9 August 2001) argue that Barak’s decision to renege on Israel’s interim commitments such as troop withdrawals and prisoner releases whilst expanding settlements was designed to reduce political friction from the Israeli right in the run-up to the talks and husband his political capital. He could then present ‘all concessions and all rewards in one comprehensive package that the Israeli public would be asked to accept in a national referendum’. This ‘all or nothing’ approach, Malley and Agha allege, put Arafat under tremendous pressure from powerful Palestinian constituencies such as the security establishment, intellectuals, civil servants and the business community who had lost faith in Barak. They also suggest that Barak’s refusal to withdraw from territory scheduled in the interim agreements directly affected the perceived balance of power because the Palestinians believed that they would also have to negotiate over that land in the final status talks. Malley and Agha maintain that all of these factors left Arafat with the impression that the Israelis and Americans were trying to ‘dupe’ him into accepting a humiliating deal, which led him to adopt a siege mentality, unamenable to fluid negotiations and the presentation of counter-proposals.” — Greg Philo, Bad News From Israel
“Other commentators, such as the Israeli human rights group Gush Shalom (2003), have questioned whether a ‘generous deal’ was offered to Palestinians. They argue that Palestinians made their historic compromise at Oslo in agreeing to cede to Israel 78 per cent of mandatory Palestine, and that they were never offered 95 per cent of the occupied territories at Camp David in July 2000. Gush Shalom allege that Barak insisted on annexing 10 per cent of the West Bank comprised of settlement blocks which, they argued, would ‘create impossible borders which severely disrupt Palestinian life in the West bank’. They also claim that Barak wanted ‘temporary Israeli control’ of another 10 per cent of the West Bank for an unspecified duration. They argue that ‘what appears to be territorial continuity is actually split up by settlement blocs, bypass roads and roadblocks’, and that ‘the Palestinians have to relinquish land reserves essential for their development and absorption of refugees’ as well as accepting ‘Israeli supervision of borders crossings together with many other restrictions’. They suggest that nobody would accept foreign control of domestic border crossings or traveling 50 miles between areas when the real distance was only five miles.” — Greg Philo, Bad News From Israel
“Jeff Halper, an anthropology professor at Ben-Gurion University and coordinator of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, argues that the focus on whether the Palestinians were offered 81 per cent or 91 per cent or 95 per cent or 96 per cent is misplaced because even if Israel agreed to hand back 96 per cent of the occupied territories it would still possess a ‘matrix of control’ which would completely undermine Palestinian sovereignty and independent development” — Greg Philo, Bad News From Israel
Also this agreement was also weak because it lacked the Right of Return policy that the UN had ordered and the PLO considered in inalienable right.
There’s absolutely no evidence that any of the suicide bombers had anything to do with the Palestinian leadership. So it’s incorrect to imply they were “sent” by them. On top of that, this totally ignores what the suicide bombers were reacting to:
“The overwhelming majority of cases of unlawful killings and injuries in Israel and the Occupied Territories have been committed by the IDF using excessive force. In particular, the IDF have used US-supplied helicopters in punitive rocket attacks where there was no imminent danger to life. Israel has also used helicopter gunships to carry out extrajudicial executions and to fire at targets that resulted in the killing of civilians, including children…Hamas and Islamic Jihad have frequently placed bombs in public places, usually within Israel, in order to kill and maim large numbers of Israeli civilians in a random manner. Both organizations have fostered a cult of martyrdom and frequently use suicide bombers.” — ‘Israel and the Occupied Territories: Broken Lives – A Year of Intifada’, Amnesty International
This goes both ways. Israeli media and school books demonize Palestinians in exactly the manner described here:
“all [the books] represent [Palestinians] in racist icons or demeaning classificatory images such as terrorists, refugees and primitive farmers — the three ‘problems’ they constitute for Israel” — Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Palestine in Israeli School Books
“The books studied here present Israeli-Jewish culture as superior to the Arab-Palestinian one, Israeli-Jewish concepts of progress as superior to Palestinian-Arab way of life and Israeli-Jewish behavior as aligning with universal values” — Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Palestine in Israeli School Books
“Geography school books teach Jewish Israeli students to see themselves as masters of the Land of Israel/Palestine, to control its population, its landscape and its space, and to do whatever necessary to increase Jewish domination and its ‘development’ which means its expansion” — Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Palestine in Israeli School Books>
The Palestinians also responded better to criticism of their educational policies than the Israelis did. When confronted with studies demonstrating bias in their textbooks, the Palestinians sought to improve:
“Sounding more amenable, Salam Fayyad, the Palestinians’ prime minister, asked for help to improve the curriculum.” — ‘Teaching Children to Hate Each Other’, The Economist
And Israel tried to squash the report:
“Israel’s prime minister, when a study funded by the American government that compared Israeli and Palestinian textbooks found that both sowed negative stereotypes of each other. After failing to suppress the report, Israeli officials tried to delay its publication.” — ‘Teaching Children to Hate Each Other’, The Economist
Hamas are not the Palestinian rulers of Gaza. Firstly, the 2006 election is highly questionable. All polls leading up to the election showed an overwhelming support for Fatah. Exit polls showed an overwhelming support for Fatah. The vote showed an overwhelming support for Hamas. Something is seriously out of whack, and it’s very likely the election. Beyond that, with the formation of the Unity government, the Hamas leadership stepped down, and turned over control of Gaza to the Fatah government in the West Bank shortly before this incident.
Hamas should also not be seen as representatives of the Palestinian people, as the people have no say in the actions of Hamas, and Hamas arbitrarily make rules (like the banning of alcohol) without consulting the populace. And nobody can do anything to stop Hamas members from acting out in any fashion. They are a small terrorist group, separate from the Palestinian people, and most people; even reporters; subconsciously acknowledge this when they refer to them properly as Hamas, and not as Palestine.
It’s not just about laying down arms. It’s also about the fact that they’re sitting on stolen land. If Israel was also willing to build additional housing for these people; or even better build additional housing for the Jews, and let the Palestinians have their homes back, as well as abandon control of the area, so that the Arabs could have a say in governance, it’s very possible that a single state solution would occur.
It would certainly disempower groups like Hamas, who are fueled exclusively by hatred, and would empower groups like Fatah, who have been striving for peace.
As far as the dissolution of Israel is concerned. Yes; that very likely would happen eventually. And it should. Israel was created on top of someone else’s land, and under fucked up conditions. Apartheid in South Africa was successfully reversed, and apartheid in Palestine should be as well. There is no reason why; in a single state solution, the Jews should rule over the Arabs. And there’s no logical reason to reject the right of return that the Palestinians have every right to, even according to the UN.
As to mass murders, that’s completely unfounded. Arabs lived side by side with Jews for years until Israel started it’s atrocious oppression of the Palestinians. As countries like Egypt have demonstrated, if the Israeli people truly wanted peace, they’d probably get it.
The people are also going to want to see the war criminals responsible for the slaughter of thousands prosecuted. And that goes for the Hamas leadership as well.
Maybe for a day while they stockpiled troops and weapons like they always do. And then go back to antagonizing the Palestinian population. This has been proven time and time again in the literal cases where the Palestinians have laid down arms. You can’t claim that something would happen when all history and evidence demonstrates that exactly the opposite always happens. Israel has broken way more cease fires than Palestine. They seek absolutely any excuse they can to do so, and prod the Palestinians into giving it to them the whole time.
First off, if we’re talking state in terms of population demographics, all of the states that were Jewish, were filled by the same demographic that is now referred to as Arab. There was not a large transfer of people out of Palestine. Meaning that they merely adopted Arab and Muslim culture, but these are still the same people who have always been on the land.
“While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained in situ, and did so again after Bar Kochba’s revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish.” — Michael Prior, Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry
And this is verified by genetic evidence:
“We propose that the Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews” — The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East
If we’re talking in terms of rulership. That’s absolutely untrue. Israel has spent almost all of its history being conquered and ruled by one empire after another. And the truly Jewish states were few and far between. Especially if you want to make the distinction between Jewish and Canaanite, because the only split there early on was religion. So the first state that can truly be considered Jewish was Josiah’s.
Since it was likely that Judaism itself segmented off the population which was to become modern Jews from the other Palestinians, the earliest rulers of the area would have all probably been closer to modern Palestinians in terms of DNA.
There’s also non-Jewish states like the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem that existed for almost 200 years (1099CE-1187CE).
Lastly his graphic is not accurate. He’s using outdated and inaccurate information on the “First Kingdom” graphic, as modern archeology shifts the Kingdom of Israel to later than 1000 BC. If he wants to use the bible as his source, then he’s going to lose his point anyway. As, according to the bible; the land was taken by force by the Israelites from the Canaanites (archeology tells us that the Israelites were a subsection of Canaanites).
And coincidentally; the “Founding Father of Israel”; David Ben-Gurion has been quoted as stating that Joshua is his favorite book of the bible. Obviously because of the symbolism of conquest of the holy land in which Joshua carries out Yahweh’s genocide commandments. The Zionists are stealing the land now, in the same way the myth pictures Joshua stealing it then.
“Ben-Gurion was credited with many Zionist projects. Among these are: making the Book of Joshua central to Zionist politics and Israeli political culture, and deploying the biblical narrative and biblical archeology in the service of Israeli state policies.” — Nur Masalha, The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archeology, and Post-Colonialism
Yet, Palestine was a part of all of the above, usually as a unified province, equivalent to what the US considers a “state”. If the US gave up rights to Texas, the people would still maintain an identity, and would not welcome being handed off to foreign people, nor would they stand idly by while these people flood in and force them out of their homes.
Furthermore, an independent Palestine would have manifested at the end of WW1, had the British kept their promise to the Arabs to allow them the right to autonomy and independent statehood that had been guaranteed to them in return for their cooperation in fighting the Ottoman Empire.