Israel & The Cloak of Victimhood

How Israel plays the victim to conceal its crimes against humanity. Act two in a series called "Jewish Supremacy From The River To The Sea."

Act two of a series. For act one, click here.

Victim Washing: To conceal a wrong against another by putting the blame on them and claiming your crimes are righteous self-defense.

Dread painted the faces of Anatolian Christians gathered on the Aegean coast. The sun blistered the land. Underneath layer after layer of clothing, each refugee baked in their own anxious sweat. Turkey had just uprooted them from their homes. With just the things they could heap onto their backs, they waited for the boat that would ship them off to a land of uncertainty. This was part of a population exchange between Greece and Turkey called the “Lausanne Convention.”

Joan Peter’s From Time Immemorial claims something similar happened between Jews and Arabs — a claim etched deep into the Zionist psyche. Zionists allege that due to antisemitism inherent in Islam, Arab countries expelled Jews, while Palestinians left the “holy land” on their own or at the request of Arab leaders. Further, they point out that Palestinians can choose from 22 Arab countries, while Jews have only one choice.  

The claim that hatred of Jews is inherent in Islam hinges on evidence that the Qur’an, the one text that expresses the will of Allah and all Muslims follow, is antisemitic.

For the Qur’an to be antisemitic, it would need to dehumanize Jews, racialize them, target them as enemy number one, and/or call for all of them to be blotted out of existence in the same way the Hebrew bible calls for the annihilation of the Amalekites.

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen claims to have found the evidence:

Jews are the children of apes and pigs… It is in the Qur’an itself. [It's] a powerful trope that dehumanizes Jews… They're not even human beings.

While the Qur’an doesn’t call Jews the children of apes or pigs, it does discuss God turning some Jews into apes three times (2:65, 5:60, 7:166). All three times pertain to Jews who violated their covenant with God. Two of the times specifically home in on Jews who broke the Sabbath.

It’s not the only religious text to do so. The Talmud does as well.

“[The Builders of Babel] divided into three groups… The one that said, "Let's go up and make war," were made into apes and spirits and demons and night demons.”

—        Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Tractate Sanhedrin 109a-b

Examples of people being turned into apes are used rhetorically in both the Qur’an and Talmud to point out the consequences of defying absolute obedience to God —something the God of all Abrahamic religions demands.

The Qur’an doesn’t racialize, dehumanize, specifically target, or call for the destruction of all Jews. In fact, certain passages praise Jews. However, other passages are critical of Judaism. Is this antisemitic?

No and here’s why. While Christianity was the official religion of the Byzantine Empire, Judaism was the official religion of the Himyar Kingdom. It ruled over South Arabia and Hijaz. After 600 years and some change, the Himyar Kingdom fell in 525 AD. Yet the Jews continued to wield influence in Hijaz — specifically in Medina. When Muhamad arrived, he encountered three prominent Jewish tribes: the Banu Nadir, the Banu Qurayza, and the Banu Qaynuqa. They all rejected his revelations.

This stung on two levels. A religion that not only was influential and established in Medina but also worships the same God as Islam — the God of Abraham — rejected him.  

From the Jewish perspective, Muhamad was a threat. Once a religion is established and its scripture is canonized, any new revelation is seen as a polemic — a vicious attack on its beliefs, practices, and previous revelations. Just like then, today Judaism and Christianity would reject anyone who claimed to be a prophet with new revelations.

For most of Islam’s existence, Arab countries treated Jews relatively well. Sharia (Islamic law) classified Jews as dhimmis. It obligated each Islamic state to protect dhimmis, ensure they could practice their religion freely, and entitle them to the same resources as Muslims. On rare occasions, the dhimma system broke down, like in the 12^th century when the Almohads forced Jews (and Christians) in North Africa and Spain to convert to Islam. But these cases were the exception, not the rule.

Avi Shlaim tells us:

[During Ottoman rule, Jews] played a prominent part in the finance, trade, and commerce of an empire that stretched from the Gulf of Aden to the eastern edge of Europe.

This was especially true in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq).

The very existence of Jews in Medieval Europe was problematic from the get-go. Based on Matthew 27: 25, early Church Fathers, like Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis, charged the Jews with deicide: eternal blame for the death of Jesus. By the 12^th century, rumors spread that Jews use the blood of children to prepare matzah. During the Crusades, Jews had a choice: baptism or death. In the 15^th century, under the nudging of the Grand Inquisitor, King Ferdinand expelled 160,000 Jews from Spain. 1903’s Protocols of the Elders of Zion alleged that the Jews were conspiring to take over the world. This gave people even more reasons to hate Jews. Tensions festered. Pogroms increased. Europeans didn’t get along with Jews and this was a problem.

Some thought the Answer to the Jewish Question was assimilation. Others didn’t think it was possible because they believed that Jews were a different race. Article 5 of the Reichstag’s 1935 Reichsbürgergesetz (Law of the Reich Citizen) embodies this:

A Jew is an individual who is descended from at least three grandparents who were, racially, full Jews.

Hitler’s Final Solution was his Answer to the Jewish Question: the wholesale slaughter of six million Jews.

Another Answer to the Jewish Question was Zionism. The idea that there should be a national home just for the Jews. At the First Zionist Congress, members settled on Palestine. As we will see, this would replace the Jewish Question in Europe with the Zionist Question in the Middle East.

In 1915, Henry McMahon, Britain’s High Commissioner in Egypt, cut a deal with Hussein ibn Ali, the Hashemite King: If he incited a revolt against the Ottoman Empire, Britain would recognize the Arabs’ independence. Ibn Ali demanded that Palestine be included. McMahon agreed and Ibn Ali followed through on his end of the bargain. The League of Nations charter, Part I of the Treaty of Versailles, codified this right into international law. While Article 22 of the charter put Palestine under mandate, it provisionally recognized its sovereignty, stated that “the well being and development of the Palestinians forms a ‘sacred trust’ of civilizations,” and that Palestinians would get to decide who ruled them until they were able to stand on their own.

Meanwhile, Zionists lobbied multiple politicians within the U.K. (and the international community) to bring their biblical goals to fruition. One of those was future British war cabinet secretary Mark Sykes.  After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the French had their eyes on Palestine. In 1916, at the behest of Zionists, Sykes convinced the French to release their claim on Palestine and make it an international zone. The next year, the Zionists went a step further. They sold the French on their dream: a National home for the Jews in Palestine. Evidence of this is in a letter Jules Cambon wrote Nahum Sokolow.

A little later, they got the U.K. on board as well. In late 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour penned a declaration to Zionist trust-fund baby Lord Walter Rothchild. A declaration that the British government would establish a Jewish State on Palestinian land. At a conference in San Remo, with all the superstar Zionists present, in complete disregard for the wishes of the Palestinians, the League of Nations named Britain the Mandatory of their land. Even worse, they passed a resolution that baked the Balfour Declaration into international law.

Now there were two competing international laws: one that promised to provisionally recognize the statehood of the local inhabitants and another that promised to give their land away to an alien people.

Conflicting interests? Not to worry. Two years later, Annex V of the Palestine Mandate sealed the cruel twist of fate for the natives. It fleeced them of all the provisions guaranteed by Article 22 and gave it to colonial settlers. Its objectives were clear: create conditions that would lead to a Jewish state, recognize a provisional government that would serve the Jewish people, and work to encourage Jewish immigration to Palestine.

What was the justification for such a callous denial of the Palestinians? According to Annex V, the Jews have a sacred historical connection to the land because:

Their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the “Diaspora”.

The Churchill Memorandum seconded that the goal of Palestinian sovereignty should take a back seat to establishing a Jewish National Home on their land. The most devastating part was that Jews made up less than twelve percent of the population.

In 1947, the United Nations announced Resolution 181. The Palestinians were horrified. A bigger and better chunk of Palestine was proposed for the Yishuv (the Jewish community) even though it made up only 30% of the population and owned a meager 5.8% of the land.

While the myth that Palestinians left on their own volition still lingers, declassified IDF intelligence tells a different story. It affirms that Jewish Armies expelled 70% of the Palestinians. Moreover, in a brutal military operation called “Plan Dalet,” Jewish armies ethnically cleansed much of the land before the Arab armies invaded on May 15, 1948.

Although some of the early Zionists were atheists, their justification for a Jewish State was based on scripture. When David Ben-Gurion testified before the Peel Commission, he said, “The Bible is our Mandate.”

What mandate could that be? Chaim Weisman told the Commission, “God has promised Eretz Yisrael to the Jews.”

What land does that include?

I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you.

—  Exodus 23:31-33 NIV

Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, was consistent with this:

[The Jewish state stretches] from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.

So was the Jewish Agency’s Rabbi Fischmann:

The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. It includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.

And so was the “greater Israel” map that the World Zionist Organization submitted to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

Put simply, early Zionists claimed they had a biblical justification for not only all of Palestine but also parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Why does God promise this land to the Jews (or more precisely, the Israelites)?

For you [Israel] are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

— Deuteronomy 7:6

The key to understanding this passage within a Zionist context is the Hebrew word “עַם“(‘am). It roughly translates to a people/nation. Its meaning ties nationhood, religion, ethnicity, and, most strikingly, race together. Early Zionists, like Moses Hess, Max Nordau, and Ze'ev Jabotinsky, thought of Jewishness as a distinct race. Has Zionism changed? Zionists, like Yeshiva University’s Harry Ostrer, claim to have established “a biological basis for Jewishness” and shown Jewish DNA links to Israel. Whenever scholars, like Shlomo Sand or Eran Elhaik, have published studies that undermine the plausibility of a common Jewish gene, Zionists have attempted to not only discredit them but also accuse them of antisemitism.

According to a Zionist interpretation of “עַם,” a person may be a citizen of another country, such as Japan. But if she is biologically Jewish, she is also a citizen of Israel.

As we have seen, the Hebrew bible promised the land to the Jews (or more specifically the Israelites). However, they left that land for a variety of reasons. Since then, others have inhabited the land. What right do they have to take it back? According to Zionists, Kibbutz Galuyot (the ingathering of the exiles) is the divine right of Jews to return to the holy land.

As evidence for this, they often cite:

[God] will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.

—  Deuteronomy 30: 5 NIV

I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have banished you... and I will bring you back from which I carried you into exile.

— Jeremiah 29: 14 NIV

This explains why Israel’s 1950 Law of Return lets anyone with Jewish blood make Aliyah – immigrate to Israel. Even though the 1970 amendment moderately widens the scope of who can make Aliyah, the argument still holds. Any racial Jew can immigrate to Israel — even if she doesn’t practice the religion. For Zionists, race matters.

Let’s see the situation from the Arab perspective.

With the backing of the British and international community, a group of religious zealots from Europe pillaged the Palestinians of their land based on divine commandments. Commandments not just for the Jewish race to return from the diaspora and take back Palestine but also to conquer huge chunks of land from its neighbors. Zionism was a threat to and a serious problem for the Arabs and still is. The same would be true if you and your family had lived in an area for generations only to be told by a group of people that they lived there 3000 years ago and had a divine right to take it back.  

Nazis imported antisemitism into the Arab world during the twentieth century. But only because of the presence of Zionism did their message find willing ears. When Zionists claimed God promised them the Palestinian land and threatened to expand their “divine right” into other Arab countries, it blurred an important distinction. It became difficult for Palestinians and other Arabs to tell the difference between Zionism as a movement, Judaism as a religion, and Jewishness as a race. There’s no doubt that this confusion contributed to attacks against Jewish communities in the Arab world, such as Yemen’s Aden riot and Iraq’s Farhud pogrom. Nazi propagandists, like Fritz Gorba, didn’t have a hard time finding Arab readers of Mein Kamp. They had already been indoctrinated by Zionists. The point is not that all Arabs critical of Zionism were or are antisemites. Certainly not. Instead, it’s that European antisemitism didn’t exist and would have had zero traction before the arrival of Zionism in the Arab world.

As mentioned above, Zionists claim that Arab countries expelled Jews en masse. Further, they point out that while Israel was the only place these Jews could go in the Middle East, Palestinians could choose from 22 Arab countries. Before checking the historical accuracy, let’s examine how these claims are framed. Through a Zionist lens, Jews and Arabs are two separate races at war with each other. But this carves up reality in unnatural ways. Before the arrival of Zionism, people who lived in Arabic countries and practiced Judaism were Arab Jews. They had more in common with the people from the country they grew up in than European settlers who identified as Jewish.

Even if we assume this isn’t a distinction between races but religions, it’s deceptively reductive. What do people from Palestine have in common with people from Iraq and Yemen,? Outside of all being Muslim-majority countries, not much. Even their Arabic dialects are alien from each other. It would be like transferring people from Chile to Equatorial Guinea because both countries are Roman Catholic.

Let’s look at the historical evidence — or lack thereof — that Arab countries expelled Jews in and around 1948.  Arab Jews migrated to Israel for a variety of reasons that didn’t involve expulsion — such as Yemeni Jews who believed a return to the holy land would help precipitate the Messianic Era.

As for expulsion, almost the mirror opposite happened. Arab countries justifiably feared the Zionist movement growing bigger, getting more powerful, and taking more land. That’s why Iraq, Syria, and Yemen banned Jews from immigrating to Israel. Meanwhile, Israel worked tirelessly to facilitate a population transfer of Jews out of Arab countries and into Israel. The Zionist underground smuggled a thousand Jews a month out of Iraq.

The closest thing that came to expulsion happened in Iraq. But as we will see, this is an athletic use of the word “expel.” Zionists lobbied the Iraqi government to lift their ban on Jewish immigration to Israel. In 1950, Iraq agreed to lift the ban for one year. But on the condition that anyone who registered to leave had to renounce their Iraqi citizenship. The Zionist Underground planted bombs to instill fear in Jews and hasten their exodus. The terror campaign was too successful and Israel couldn’t accommodate the influx of refugees at once. Prime Minister Nuri Al-Said grew impatient and expedited immigration by freezing all the assets of those who registered to leave. As mentioned above, like other Arab countries, he saw Zionism as a threat and may have thought the massive influx of immigrants would weaken the fledgling Jewish state.

Underneath the thin veneer of crusaders saving Jews from the “evil Arab countries,” Zionists had a more ominous goal. As we will see, once Israel had cleansed the land of Palestinians, they needed to populate it with Jews to ensure a racial majority.  

Zionist historian Benny Moris doesn’t deny that Israel ethnically cleansed Palestinians between 1947 and 1948. But he makes no apologies and fully articulates the Zionist’s narrative:

When the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide— the annihilation of your people— I prefer ethnic cleansing. From the moment the Yishuv was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.

— Benny Morris

Put simply, the claim is that it was unplanned, righteous self-defense against a Palestinian majority and Arab states looking to blot Jews out of existence.

Let’s see how this claim matches up with reality.

The day after the UN announced Resolution 181, the civil war began. On December 30, 1947, eight Palestinians ambushed a Jewish bus and killed five people. A half-hour later, they hit another bus and killed two more. While this commenced the start of the civil war, it was revenge for the Irgun (a Jewish militia) slaughtering five members of the Shubaki family.

Like Nietzsche’s Eternal Return, this pattern repeated itself again and again. In Eastern Galilee’s Khisas, Palestinians attacked a Jewish guard buying cigarettes at a kiosk. The guard killed one of them. Palestinians avenged the murder and killed a Jewish cart driver. So, the Palmach attacked Khisas. In one gruesome example, they stormed a house, and butchered three men, a woman, and four children. Then they blew it up. A few weeks later, a volunteer army established by the Arab League called “Jaish al-Inqath” (Rescue Army) avenged the butchery in Khisas. They crossed over from Syria, attacked the Jewish settlements Kfar Sold and Kfar Etzion, and killed 35 Palmach troops.

Is it possible that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was just an unfortunate consequence of tit-for-tat retaliation?

Starting in February 1947, Ben-Gurion held regular meetings with a small group of experts on Arabs, war, and taking land. The cabal was referred to as the “Consultancy.” At first, the Consultancy framed the removal of Palestinians as Tagmul — justified retaliation. But by December 1947, the word “Yotzma” (initiative) usurped “Tagmul.” In other words, their strategy was no longer tit-for-tat or an eye for an eye. Instead, the plan was to attack, ethnically cleanse, and take land even if the Palestinians didn’t attack.

But isn’t it possible that Yotzma was preemptive? Doesn’t it seem plausible that living with that number of Palestinians would never work and lead to violence? Isn’t it possible that the massive Israeli land grab was less about greed and more about creating a military buffer zone — one that would protect them from Arab states who didn’t recognize their right to be there?

The surrounding Arab armies weren’t a threat. By the time they invaded on May 15, 1947, Israel had already fleeced much of the land from the Palestinians. The only Arab army that could do any damage was Jordan’s Arab Legion. Like Israel’s Haganah, they were trained by the British. As Ilan Pappe, Noam Chomsky, and Simha Flapan have pointed out, Jordan’s King Abdulla was a British stooge in cahoots with the Haganah. In exchange for his loyalty, they agreed to let him annex the West Bank. While Abdulla feigned support for the Arab League, he never invaded Israeli-controlled territory. Put simply, the surrounding Arab states weren’t a threat. There was no need to create a military buffer zone.

The Zionists sealed the fate of the Palestinians much earlier.  In 1940, Ben-Zion Luria suggested to the Jewish National Fund (JNF) that they create a registry of the Palestinian villages. This registry would later be known as the “Village Files.”

Under the aegis of Yossef Weitz, Ezra Danin, and Yaacov Shimoni, the Village Files carried out extensive reconnaissance on Palestinian villages. They even set up a spy camp in the town of Meir Shfeya. They collected details about each town — quality of land, demographics, income levels, access roads, and most tellingly, how to attack it. This would serve as the key database for carrying out Plan Dalet.

Early Zionists expressed the desire to cleanse the land. 

Theodor Herzl, one of the founders of Zionism, wrote in his diary:

We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border, by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.

Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. wrote to his son in 1937,

What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish. A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for me–if it were Arab… The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.

Ten years later, he gave the reason why. In December 1947 he told the Histadrut":

“There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 percent.”

In April 1949, he told the Knesset,

"A Jewish state without (the events of) Dir Yassin can exist only by the dictatorship of the minority."

What kind of majority did Ben-Gurion have in mind? He reveals the number in a talk he gave to the Mapai party in February 1948,

“Only a state with at least 80 percent Jews is a viable and stable state.”

In August of 1946, the Jewish Agency proposed a partition map to the UN – one that gave the Zionists 80 percent of the land. The UN rejected it.  After the War of Independence, the map looked eerily similar to their proposal. Israel not only ended up with 80 percent of the land but managed to create an 80 percent majority within Israel.

As we have seen, each Zionist claim has ended up being its opposite. They claim that Arab countries are racist against Jews because of antisemitism inherent in Islam. But it’s Zionism that sees Jews and Arabs as separate races and seeks to maintain a Jewish-race Supremacy state. They claim that Arab states expelled Jews but it was Zionists who expelled Palestinians. The few Zionists, like Benny Morris, who admit this, justify expulsion and rapacious land grabs as unplanned but righteous self-defense against the Jew-hating Palestinians and surrounding Arab neighbors. As shown above, the Arab states weren’t a threat and the Zionist plan all along was to expel the Palestinians — even if they were peaceful (like in Al-Dawayima). In each case, the Zionist bullies played the victim.

Victim washing is concealing a wrong against another by putting the blame on them and claiming your actions are righteous self-defense.

Zionists victim wash their crimes against Palestinians. It’s baked into their raison d’etre — justification — for a Jewish state in Palestine.

Their twofold raison d’etre is:

One, their “biblical right” to clear the promised land of its natives by any means possible and take it for themselves. And two, the slogan “never again”: the Zionist promise to “never again” allow something like the Holocaust to happen. Zionists argue that this commitment can only be carried out by giving Jews a safe space — one they’ll do anything to protect.  

As we have seen, Zionists often exaggerate threats to Jews and use “never again” to victim wash each sordid step towards their real objective: clear the land of the natives and take it for themselves. They not only exonerate themselves of moral responsibility but also assert moral superiority for keeping Jews safe no matter what.    

In the wake of October 7, 2023, Israel’s genocidal campaign against Gaza has a familiar victim washing stench. Their rationale: we will never again let a genocide happen to us, we will never feel safe with Hamas next store, and we will never stop fighting until every one of them is destroyed.

But even if you buy into Israeli’s version of what happened on October 7, 2023 —including the now debunked beheaded-babies bubbe miese — why has Israel used disproportionate force? Hamas killed 1200 Israelis and Israel has killed over thirty-thousand Palestinians so far (most of whom are innocent civilians).

The disproportionate use of force is not new. In fact, not only has Israel violated a slew of ceasefires with Hamas but also inflicts ever so often what its generals call “mowing the lawn.” With Uncle Sam’s endless piggy bank and the pretext of “weakening the terrorists,” it uses disproportionate force, razes infrastructure, and indiscriminately butchers Gazans.

If Israel seeks to destroy only Hamas but not the Gazans, why do Israeli officials like Yoav Gallant want to punish everyone?

We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything will be closed. We are fighting against human animals.

-        Defense Minister Yoav Gallant

Why has Israel imprisoned not just Hamas but also everyone living in Gaza?

Hamas, originally funded by Netanyahu to undermine the Palestinian Authority, democratically won the election in 2006. USAID oversaw the election to make sure there was no funny business. Jimmy Carter called it “Completely honest and fair.” Hilary Clinton complained:

If we were going to push for an election [in Palestine], then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.

- Hillary Clinton

Israel punished the Palestinians for electing the wrong party. It imposed a complete blockade, taking control of the air, the ocean, and the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza. It became what Haaretz’s Baruch Kimmerling calls “the world’s largest concentration ever to exist.”

To justify these repugnant actions, Zionists often argue that Hamas hates Jews and wants to blot them out of existence from River to the Sea. As evidence, they often point to Hamas’ charter.

Hamas’s 2017 charter denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish Supremacist state just like Canada would deny the United States’ right to exist as a White Supremacist state. The charter states:

Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion.

Based on the pre-1967 borders, paragraph 20 of Hamas’ 2017 charter pragmatically accepts a two-state solution. Put simply, Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a fait accompli — an existing reality. 

Moreover, Zionist groups like the ADL have called the popular chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” antisemitic. They claim this is code for the annihilation of Israel and all the Jews in it. Further, they claim that any criticism of Zionism is antisemitic. Let’s unpack both these claims because they’re connected.  

As we have seen, during what Palestinians call the “Nakba,” Zionists liquidated the native population to fulfill what they see as their divine right. All of the Palestinian territory is under brutal Israeli occupation — a space that gets smaller and smaller because Israel continues to take more land.

Some people, like Rashida Tlaib, mean the chant “from the river to the sea” as "an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate.” Some mean it to bring into question the legitimacy of the Zionist project: the existence of a Jewish Supremacist state.

Zionist groups claim that this is antisemitic because it denies Jews the right to self-determination. In international law, “self-determination” means the right of a people to self-govern and form their own state. Typically “self-determination” applies to groups of people who have been colonized, not colonizers. Israel defines its own self-determination as the divine right of the Jewish people to create a Jewish Supremacy state from the river to the sea. In fact, the charter of Likud, the political party of Netanyahu and the main one in Israel, states:

Between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

The problem is that this denies Palestinians their own self-determination and sovereignty.

Many Israeli officials have recently said the quiet part out loud.

The north of the Gaza Strip, more beautiful than ever. Everything is blown up and flattened, simply a pleasure for the eyes… We will hand over lots to all those who fought for Gaza over the years.

— Minister of Heritage Amichai Eliyahu

"Now we all have one common goal — erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth."

—  Deputy speaker of the Knesset Nissim Vaturi

We don't give them food. We don't give the Arabs anything. They will have to leave. The world will accept them. The Jewish people will make the land of our forefathers flourish.

—  Mayor of the Kedumim, West Bank Settlement Daniella Weiss

Israel uses “never again” to victim wash their real goal: fulfill the divine prophesy and expel the Palestinians from the Gaza as well as the West Bank.

Stay tuned for part 3.

If you enjoyed this article, give it a like.