Mick Hartley

@fathomjournal is back in a few days after a summer break. Here is an excerpt from an upcoming article by @renegade_Kathy

To @EinatWilf , the best definition of the Israel-Palestine conflict ever came from British former Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin—no friend of the Jews or…

— Alan Johnson (@Fathom_Editor) September 9, 2024

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Full text:

To @EinatWilf , the best definition of the Israel-Palestine conflict ever came from British former Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin—no friend of the Jews or Zionism—in 1947. In an address to British Parliament, Bevin called the situation in what was then called Palestine ‘irreconcilable,’ saying the land contained two peoples, two nations—Jews and Arabs—each of whom had a central point of principle. For Jews, Bevin said, that top principle was to establish a state. For Arabs, the top principle was to prevent the Jews from establishing a state in any part of the land. As Wilf writes: ‘Notice that he is not saying that the conflict is “the Jews want a State, the Arabs want a State, and they cannot agree on the borders, and it is difficult to figure out how to divide the land.” No. He zeroes in on why the conflict is irreconcilable: the Jews want a State, and the Arabs want the Jews not to have a State. This, by definition, is irreconcilable.’