I am not Jewish, but I wrote several posts on this Substack about Jews and Israel. You can find the links at the end of the post. I thought I said just about everything I can about the subject, but I keep getting dismayed by the evolution of the conflict and its perception.
The fact that we can no longer have reasonable discussion, is a part of the disappointment. While my posts had some wonderful comments, no reasonable alternative was offered to my suggestions for an equitable, humane resolution, so here we go again, me trying to make my points in the whirlwind of rising antisemitism and Jewish liberal denialism.
In my post, The American two-state solution I made the following point:
As I was watching the Gaza war unfold, I was listening to various commentators arguing for the two-state solution, almost invariably saying that it is what they would like to see, but, of course, it wouldn’t work. John J. Mearsheimer never fails to make this point on the subject.
(Just between us, I still cannot understand how somebody so smart can say something so stupid…)
Why would he call it a solution, I asked myself, if it cannot work?
Not working is what we already have. It is like putting a square peg into a round hole. And that is supposed to be the solution? Why isn’t he seeking an ACTUAL solution?
The problem with Israel is the coexistence of two incompatible group of people, one of which vehemently hates the other.
Let me say it again:
I don’t care about the Jews; what I care about are my principles, decency and common sense.
It shouldn’t matter what I think about either the Jews or the Muslim Arabs.
The only thing that should matter, is how to find an equitable and workable solution. Not to please either side, but to come to a point, a settlement, where they can give up any further claims on the other. That is a pragmatic matter.
In every conflict, each side has its own narratives, grievances and demands. Each side is both right and wrong to some degree. Neither is without blame. There are no moral absolutes. Blame and responsibility is always on a spectrum and the best any of us can do is to decide where the fulcrum of that spectrum is. To decide which side is more in the right, more decent, more humane, more reasonable, more willing to compromise.
The closer I look, the more I learn, the more I see, the more obvious it is to me where I must stand and that I MUST stand.
This stand relies on some principles and core beliefs:
The right of self defense
Every country should have the right to have defendable bordersThe right of self determination
Every country should have the right to determine its own laws, amongst which a most fundamental is the conditions of citizenship.Equitable treatment and reciprocity
Our expectations should never exceed of what we are willing to reciprocate.
(yes, this is a sort of restatement of the Golden Rule)
This last one is especially pertinent to this issue. If you do not recognize the statehood of a country, then you can have no expectations on it to behave as a sovereign state. You should have no expectations to demand adherence to ‘international’ rules. (This point would deserve a post on its own, let me know if you would like me to expand on it.)Racism is bad in any form.
I have nothing but contempt for racism, especially the condescending kind, the one that has lower expectations for certain people, because they are, ….well….., ‘inferior’.
Let me start with the obvious: this conflict could end tomorrow:
IF Hamas would put down their weapons, release the hostages and give up the criminals responsible for the attack that started the war.
IF the international community would stop supporting the Palestinian cause by feeding and arming them.
IF the US/EU and the Arab world would be willing to stop it.
Just like the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza is a proxy war. Both sides are heavily subsidized to keep the conflict going..IF the Arab countries would be willing to accept Palestinian immigration with a path to citizenship.
Some facts
28 countries of this world do not recognize the state of Israel. All but three of them are majority Muslim. All 28 recognize the theoretical Palestinian state. The non-existent Palestinian state. There is no Palestinian state, there are only wishes and demands.
The Palestinian state, as understood by Hamas, is today’s Israel without a single living Jew in it. That is what they teach to their children in their schools.
Palestine from the river to the sea. That is also what their supporters chant in Western protests.
If Palestine would be a state, it would be a failed one as 60-80% of its GDP is foreign aid. In 2025, over half a billion from the US alone. That is NOT a viable economic model. The Palestinians of Gaza are just a bunch of welfare bums. The only point of their existence is to be a thorn in Israel’s side. Israel is NOT responsible for their misery. It is the powers and the ideology that keep them in the cage called Gaza.
The two-state solution is supported mostly by those who do not have a direct stake in the conflict. They represent the majority of the international community and international institutions, along with the virtue signaling bleeding heart western liberals.
The Muslims who support the two-state solution just want to take the slow road - changing the demography of the region - to achieve their ultimate goal, the total elimination of the Jews.
A majority of Muslims in Israel and the disputed territories (60%+) reject it and want to keep fighting for the one state solution, which means the complete erasure of the Israeli state. They are supported by the increasingly vocal antisemites all over the world.
At this point, most Israelis are realizing that coexistence with the Muslims will never work, meaning that now 60-70%+ (depending on the poll) are also calling for the one state solution, meaning an ethnic Jewish state, ‘from the river to the sea’
The one sided two state solution
Following World War II, the Germans and Japanese surrendered and were forced to give up lands they had earlier occupied. In return they were granted peace and sovereignty. The Arabs, on the other hand, have never surrendered, despite losing numerous wars with Israel, and they have never accepted peace. Sadly, until the Palestinians are willing to give up their quest to conquer Israel, they are doomed to unending struggle and statelessness. (FLAME)(emphasis mine)
Many proponents of the two-state solution are talking about land swaps. What is fascinating about that is that one half of the land-swaps already happened.
In 1948, about a million Jews lived on various North African and Middle Eastern countries. That number today is less than thirty thousand, and half of that is in Turkey.
You read it right, 97% of all Jews who used the live in Muslim countries were forced to move. Not necessarily to Israel, but out of Muslim countries.
The Jews already did more than their fair share of land swapping. What is stopping the Palestinians from doing the same? They are surrounded by over 400 million of their cultural/religious brethren!
According to the 1931 census, the population of the whole Palestine, Jews Muslims, Christians, etc. was about one million. In 1949, after the war, it was closer to two, Muslims still being in majority. As of 2025, there are five million ‘stateless’ Palestinians, the vast majority of them were born into exile. The host countries do not want them, while most of the refugees do not want citizenship either, as they would not want to give up their claim to Israel. They are just biding their time waiting for the opportunity to kill all the Jews. They would have to be forced to accept citizenship in neighboring Muslim countries.
Accepting five million new Muslim citizens would be the end of Israel. There can be no ‘right of return’.
This video explains the reasons why Arab countries refuse to take in ‘Palestinians’
I could easily continue making sense, but this is not what prompted this post.
In my previous posts I pointed out most of this already just as I expressed my serious disappointment seeing the rise of antisemitism in the Western World as well.
This post was prompted by the following exchange on Facebook:
(Translated from Hungarian)
“He who deprives anyone of the attribute of being human, loses it himself.”
The link on the FB page took me to a ‘declaration’.
You can find the full translation with some comments in this document:
The declaration is both infuriating and depressing. Meaningless left-liberal virtue signaling garbage. It takes a very firm stand on not taking a stand. They unequivocally declare that their declaration should be heard by everybody and their super-virtuous position should be part of the national discourse. Mass murderers are people too and their basic humanity must be respected. They are militantly non-partisan.
“We can be both pro-Jewish and pro-Palestinian.’
They declare themselves to be super goody-good and nicey-nice people who believe that the world would be a better place if we could all be like them.
That’s it. That’s the declaration. We should support everybody and sing Kumbaya together.
All signatories of the declaration are liberal intellectuals. What unites them is their opposition to the current, and incidentally, pro-Israel Hungarian regime.
Like good leftists, they hate Netanyahu as well.
It all reminds me of a Jewish joke:
Roth and Grün are neighbors. Something destroyed the fence between their properties.
Roth goes to the Rabbi and says: “I think Grün should fix the fence because he needs it more”. The rabbi says: “you are right” Then Grün goes to the rabbi and says: : “I think Roth should fix the fence because he needs it more”. The rabbi says: “you are right”
Then Sara, the rabbi’s wife says: “Moishe, you cannot say that they are both right!”
The rabbi says: “You are right”
The majority of the comments on the declaration are against the proposition, but the exchanges, specifically the comments of the author/poster, are revealing some actual arguments:
“….when the principle is replaced by “at any cost”, it leads to anthropological tragedy. Back to the ethics of primitive reptiles.”
“…And I do not believe in the legitimacy of racism hiding behind the concept of collective guilt.”
And an exchange:
“Gábor Némethi
"He who deprives anyone of the attribute of being human, loses it himself"
Whoever deprives the attribute of being human of those whom he indiscriminately slaughters, indiscriminately abducts, tortures, humiliates (alive, dead, killed) and/or welcomes and celebrates with joy, loses it himself.
Sandor Szoke
Of course it does. That's what makes us different. We cannot become them.”
The latent racism of this last comment is an essential part of the liberal world view.
The condescension of lower expectations for the deplorables. To be like them would be an anthropological tragedy. “WE cannot become THEM.”
But let’s look at collective guilt. While I do not believe in collective or cross-generational guilt, I am serious about the degrees and layers of responsibility. I wrote several posts about it, most notably My little sister the mass murderer.
We should never be declared guilty for our immutable characteristics, but we should be responsible for everything we do or say.
Responsibility is a wide spectrum.
The conductor of the train bringing Jews to Auschwitz is probably less responsible than the guard pushing the button to release the gas into the chambers.
Hitler didn’t personally kill Jews and neither did the people cheering him on in his rallies; but they all had a degree of responsibility.
Most inhabitants of Gaza have some responsibility.
If you are hiding the criminals, aren’t you responsible?
If you are voting for them, aren’t you responsible?
If you are just holding down the woman who is being raped, aren’t you part of the crime?
If you are shielding a terrorist, aren’t you part of his actions?
If you are arming the terrorist, aren’t you guilty of them using the weapons?
If you are giving money to a terrorist knowing that he will buy weapons or build tunnels for his war efforts, can you claim innocence?
If you are playing soccer with the head of a decapitated hostage, can you claim innocence?
If you are preventing the Gazans from leaving aren’t you responsible for what is happening?
If you are helping the perpetuation of a conflict instead of trying to end it, aren’t you responsible for everything that is happening there?
I could go on with these questions, but the point should be clear.
In my humble opinion, the bleeding-heart liberals who can only offer retarded virtue signaling kumbaya instead of a path to peace have more responsibility for what is happening than the IDF soldiers on the ground.
The world powers keeping the conflict alive have a greater responsibility than the beleaguered Israeli state.
The protesters around world with signs saying “from the river to the sea” are openly advocating genocide. When the genocide happens, shouldn’t we hold them responsible for it?
I made the point when the latest conflict started that the only way to end it is by separating the participants. The Palestinians will never make peace with the Jews. The only solution is the one state solution.
The question is simple: where do you stand? We have three options:
1. Elimination of the Jews
2. Relocation of the Palestinians
3. Perpetuation of the conflict at a great cost to human lives
Make your choice and have the guts to stand for it.
My choice, obviously I hope, is number 2.
The signatories of the declaration are clearly voting for number 3, and they have my contempt for it. I share the anger of David Horowitz:
To finish, let me share another comment from the Facebook discussion (translated, again, with Deeple)
From: Miriam Ekiudoko
Sandor Szoke - Where in your petitions is the demand for the immediate unconditional release of the Israeli hostages (living and murdered) held in detention? Where is the demand that the terrorist organizations stop their constant threat to the existence of the State of Israel and their terrorization and use of the people of the Gaza Strip as human shields? Where is the demand for the recognition and legitimacy of the State of Israel? Where is it stated that the international, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and the media must immediately and definitively end the double standards applied against the Jewish State?
It is a very beautiful wish that we can live side by side and together in peace.
But have you forgotten what happened on 7 October 2023? Have you forgotten that the terrorists who invaded the country were given a separate list of who are the names of the old innocent people on the peace side, who have been fighting for this for decades, who support the two states, with the aim that those on the list must be killed or taken hostage at all costs?
Have you forgotten how many Gazan 'civilians', apart from the terrorists, have entered the country and with what brutality they have tortured, raped, burned, mutilated and executed their victims, all proudly, usually with live coverage breaking on their phones?Have you forgotten the jubilation that the crowds in the streets of Gaza had at the news of the terrorist attack; the way their executioners paraded the desecrated, murdered victims in the streets, and the way the crowds spat, beat the corpses and cheered the event?
Are you forgetting that not a single hostage, I repeat, not a single hostage, has been helped by the people of Gaza in the last 22 and a half months, and not a single hostage has been returned to their homes, despite the huge cash reward offered?
Do you not know that it is Hamas whose members steal food supplies and do not distribute them to the inhabitants?
Do you not know that Hamas has so far rejected 60-70 ceasefire offers out of hand since the last ceasefire?
Are you also unaware that the various international press organs are deliberately publishing and spreading false, or at least distorted, anti-Israeli news about what is happening? That the BBC has already been forced to admit this?
Do you not believe your own eyes when you see the footage of the Hamas propaganda machine, including the production of fake videos, the rehearsals to get them, the make-up, the instructions of the directors?
I'm a peace party too. I am also a humanist.
But there is a certain reasonable limit.
What would be the expectation? That without a negotiating partner and a willingness to compromise, without a desire for peace, we let those whose primary goal is the destruction of Israel and its entire population 'from the river to the sea' achieve their goal?
Will we be good, humanistic Jews if we go willingly to the slaughter again?
In that case, I do not want to be, and will not be, either a humanist or a good Jew!I will remain a Jew who fights with my head held high and proud for my people, for our dignity, for our life, for our inalienable right to exist!
And if that makes me the bad Jew in the eyes of many, so be it!
I proudly accept.
This is the Jewish attitude I would like to see everywhere, not just openly declared, but celebrated.
The problem is what it is. As I stated before, it can be solved humanely, with some money and determination. The only other option is doing it the ugly, bloody, inhumane way. It seems that the whole world is clamoring for that.
All the hate is dressed in virtue signaling sanctimony.
What is most upsetting about it is the complete lack of honesty.
In any case, your comments will be welcome! Surprise me with honesty!
More from this stack
https://zorkthehun.substack.com/p/the-american-two-state-solution
This post is not directly about Israel, but it is relevant to the Gaza conflict
More from Substack
I wish I could have anything to put here……
References
Nick Freitas About “Palestinians”
This video explains the reasons why Arab countries refuse to take in ‘Palestinians’
Facts and Logic about the Middle East
FLAME is a propaganda website that does not try to hide that fact.
They are unashamedly partisan, but I have not yet caught them on a lie.
They have a spin, but they are true to their name: facts and logic. You cannot find a better source to understand the Israeli position. Wherever you stand, it is a must-read resource. These are examples of their one-pagers, pertinent to this discussion:
Why Can’t the Palestinians Have a State?
Why are there still Palestinian refugees after 75 long years?
The Facebook comment that prompted this post, and the petition that is linked in it.
The post and the comments are in Hungarian, the attached pdf file contains the English translation and some comments.
Nyilatkozat – (the original, in case you wish to read it in Hungarian)
Like everything else on Substack, this is a reader supported publication.
You can help it by following or subscribing.
You can engage with it by clicking on like and/or commenting.
A ‘like’ costs nothing and is worth a lot.
You can help this Stack grow by sharing, recommending, quoting or referencing it.
You can support it by pledging your financial support.
Any and all of it will be much appreciated.
Before Rosthchild interference and the Balfour Declaration, Christians Jews and Muslims lived in this region quite successfully
In Zork’s post, he introduced a comment that caught my attention:
“Will we be good, humanistic Jews if we go willingly to the slaughter again?
In that case, I do not want to be, and will not be, either a humanist or a good Jew!
I will remain a Jew who fights with my head held high and proud for my people, for our dignity, for our life, for our inalienable right to exist!
And if that makes me the bad Jew in the eyes of many, so be it!
I proudly accept.”
I commented in reply to express how I think about the Israel-Palestine conflict:
___ The above quote reveals a major part of the problem - an emotional commitment to an identity that justifies conflict.
If the author of those words was to prioritize being HUMAN above being a JEW, would he have written those words?
If all militant Palestinians prioritized being HUMAN above being MUSLIM, would they express comparable anti-human sentiments?
WHAT IF …. both parties (down to every man, woman and child) were to acknowledge their right to cherish THEIR respective tribal histories WITHOUT adding land claims to their stories, would this conflict continue? Would they still aspire to the ultimate goal of exterminating the other side of the conflict?
Exterminate HATE PROPAGANDA instead.
All of this conflict is fuelled by HATE - a human emotion. That HATE is sustained by propaganda from many sources, but the sources and purpose of that propaganda (media and institutional) are not always clear.
Are there MONEY interests backing this HATE propaganda? — most certainly, and America’s military industrial complex is one obvious culprit.
Are their POWER interests backing this HATE propaganda? — obviously, but while one can “follow the money” to track these interests, tracking the contents of the hearts and minds of POWER brokers is not so easy.
Neutral by default.
I don’t have a rooster in this fight and, generally, I don’t join the ringside voyeurs of such cock fights to cheer on one rooster over the other as blood spills and feathers fly.
Some people with partisan passions may consider me heartless for not taking a greater interest in this conflict. My reply to that criticism is simple: there is nothing I can do about any conflicts that occur in the world and, for that matter, any national, interprovincial or even most local conflicts. These are all way above my pay grade.