AT LEAST THEY’RE HONEST

With “From the river to the sea” replacing “Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” as their mantra, useful idiots have become genocidal bigots.

We’ll see about that …

There is a mantra uttered by unthinking activists: “Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.” This is a phrase that should never come out of the mouth of any antiracist person. Decent, progressive, people do not summarily reject the opportunity to self-reflect when presented with evidence that we might carry racial biases. “Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” — even if it were true — would be among the most unprogressive things a person could say.

But there is a more basic problem with the mantra.

It is certainly fair to assert that not every anti-Zionist is an antisemite. But history is clear: Anti-Zionism is a wholly owned subsidiary of antisemitism. Anti-Zionism is a product, an outcome and a consequence of antisemitism.

Anti-Zionism — the opposition to the existence of a Jewish state — is premised one single factor. The Jewish part.

Remember: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq were all cut, basically from whole cloth, out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire in roughly the same era that Israel was founded. No one questions their legitimacy or right to exist.

The questioning of Israel’s right to exist, the core opposition to its presence, is premised on antisemitic foundations. The Arab world, and now almost the entire Muslim world (with a few exceptions since the Abraham Accords), oppose Israel because it is a Jewish state.

The excuses you hear to justify the wall of condemnation of Israel — borders, settlements, the “right of return,” the litany of real and imagined crimes of which Israel is accused — these are all red herrings distracting from the larger premise.

This is all about antisemitism.

When you are opposed to something based on irrational, racist premises, all the logic in the world will not dissuade you from your position. It also makes compromise almost impossible. Therefore, even if all of these alleged barriers to peace were satisfactorily resolved to the Palestinians’ benefit, the core problem would still remain: the presence of a self-determined Jewish people in the Middle East. That’s the problem.

Any question about the veracity of this statement has been eliminated since October 7. The mask has come off. The prevailing slogan “From the river to the sea” is a call for the eradication of Israel, and probably a call for genocide. We’re not even pretending anymore.

Even if you reject the thesis that anti-Zionism’s keystone is antisemitism, explain this: If we are contending that the Palestinian people deserve self-determination but the Jewish people do not, what’s that about? Can we stop pretending now?

To their credit, the extremists chanting “From the river to the sea” are, at least, honest. They are saying the quiet part out loud. For a long time, overseas “pro-Palestinian” activists have been pretending coexistence and a two-state solution is in the cards, if only Israel would do x, y and z. Palestinian and Arab leaders have rejected that pleasant idea all along.

A little remedial history …

At every step in post-Ottoman history, the Arabs, later in the form of Palestinians, have rejected coexistence if coexistence meant living next to Jews as anything other than their political and theological masters. If you do not know this history, you should not be engaged in this dialogue.

1920 — The San Remo Conference

At San Remo, Italy, the League of Nations set the parameters for the post-First World War Mandates for Palestine. This set out the potential for a Jewish state with codified rights for the Arab populations in the area. Arab leaders rejected the both the mandate system and the Jewish homeland proposal. They did not even make a legitimate push for an independent Arab state — their only objective was preventing Jewish self-determination.

1937 — The Peel Commission

The Peel Commission, initiated by the British government that controlled the region after the First World War, proposed partitioning Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem as an international city. The Jewish leadership, though disappointed that the proposal was deeply flawed from their perspective, considered the commission’s proposal a start for negotiations. The Arab leadership rejected the proposal, demanding a single Arab state and a halt to immigration by Jews. No Jews. That was their starting point and their end point.

1947 — UN Partition Plan

The United Nations proposed to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with an international administration for Jerusalem. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan — again, compromising because this was a deeply disappointing proposal from their perspective — but the Arab states and Palestinian leadership rejected it outright. They would not tolerate a Jewish state. Their rejection led to the Arab-initiated war of 1948–49, and the successful establishment of Israel. Antisemitism led to the rejection of compromise. Antisemitism led to the rejection of a Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel. Antisemitism led to the 76-year conflict.

1967 — Six-Day War and the Khartoum Conference

During the Six-Day War — another Arab-initiated conflict aimed at erasing Israel from the map — Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from newly occupied territories in exchange for peace. Israel assented. The Israelis would return everything they had won in a defensive war for nothing but a vague promise of peace. At the Khartoum Conference, the Arab League said Hell no. They would rather leave the Palestinian people stateless than live in peace with a Jewish state. Antisemitism is the cause of the continued conflict. Antisemitism is why there is no Palestine today.

1979 — Camp David Accords

The Camp David Accords resulted in a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, with provisions for the Palestinian issue to be addressed later. While Egypt and Israel reached a peace agreement, the Palestinian leadership and other Arab states felt that the accords did not sufficiently address Palestinian issues. This led to continued disputes and a lack of progress on a Palestinian state. Of course, when sufficiently addressing the Palestinian issues means the elimination of the Jewish presence in the region, it makes negotiations challenging. Antisemitism prevented a negotiated settlement. Antisemitism is why there is no Palestinian state.

1980s and 1990s — Successive Peace Processes

Various internationally led efforts at peace, most notably the Oslo Process, were leading to the establishment of an independent Palestine and mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO. History records that disagreements over key issues, like the status of Jerusalem, borders and refugees, caused the process to unravel. The real reason? Negotiations were premised on the idea of a Palestinian state alongside — rather than instead of –Israel.

2000 — Camp David Summit

The Camp David Summit was a culmination of the Oslo Process, aimed at resolving the outstanding issues preventing agreement. Again, the ostensible disagreements related to the status of Jerusalem, borders, refugees and other falderal. The real issue was simply this: It had become clear that, for all their posturing and pretense, the Palestinians had never been bargaining in good faith. They were buying time for Yasser Arafat’s explicitly expressed “phased strategy” which was to take concessions along the way until a final blow would eradicate the Jews from the Middle East. When the negotiations reached the point where Arafat had to either play his cards or walk away, he overturned the negotiating table, presented no counteroffer and launched the Second Intifada, which led to more than a quarter-century of conflict and war. Arafat was never going to peacefully accept a Jewish state. He would repeatedly reject opportunities for Palestinian statehood as long as that statehood saw a Palestinian state alongside — rather than over top of — the Jewish state.

2008 — Annapolis Conference

The Annapolis Conference was a last-ditch effort to return to negotiations. Again, negotiations faltered over issues such as borders, settlements, and the right of return — the red herrings the Palestinians wave to distract the world from their ultimate goal. They will not tolerate the existence of a Jewish state.

2005 — Gaza Disengagement

In 2005, in a revolutionary move, Israel withdrew from the occupied Gaza Strip, hoping that the Palestinian Authority might use this self-governing territory as a beachhead to demonstrate responsible government. Hamas soon supplanted the PA and turned the place into a terrorist enclave, leading to endless conflicts and successive wars, including the current war. Hamas has never pretended — neither, if you pay attention has the “moderate” Palestinian Authority — that this is anything but a war of annihilation against Jews.

Time after time, the Palestinians and the larger Arab world have rejected peace and coexistence. They offer a litany of seemingly reasonable “disagreements” over matters of policy. The core stumbling block, though, has always been the same: They will not accept the existence of a Jewish state in their region.

To their credit, overseas activists have finally stopped being the useful idiots they have always been, assuming the Palestinians and their allies will live in peace if only Israel accedes to this or that demand.

The chant “From the river to the sea …” represents the transition of overseas activists from useful idiots to genocidal bigots. No longer are they deceived by Palestinian pretense of coexistence if only their long list of demands were met. No, they know that the Palestinians seek the eradication of the Jewish state and, in a great many cases, the annihilation of Jews, as we saw on and after October 7. And they’re good with that.

At least they’re honest.

And come to think of it, “From the river to the sea” has pretty much eclipsed the previous preferred mantra of “Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.” So the transition from pretending this is about peace to accepting — and jumping on board — an annihilationist campaign of antisemitism seems pretty much complete.

The choice now is: Which side are you on?