Part 3: 'Palestine': Who are the ancestral natives? And who the colonizers and oppressors?
The ARAB NARRATIVE, the WAR OF 1948, and the COLLAPSE OF THE LEFT (an MOR series)
If you didn’t read PART 2 yet, you may do so here:
As explained in Part 1 and Part 2, leftists have adopted the Arab Narrative as against the Israeli Narrative because, ostensibly, they consider that adopting the Arab Narrative better fits the one-sentence meaning goal of the left:
‘We have defended victims against oppression.’
It is important, for this move, to label the Arab Palestinians as the ancestral natives of ‘Palestine’ and the Israeli Jews as the imperialist colonizers, because, the way leftist moral grammar works (as explained in Part 2), the minute these labels are affixed, the Arab Palestinians become the ‘victims’ and the Israeli Jews become their ‘oppressors.’
How is this discursively done?
Leftist supporters of the Arab Narrative observe—and this is true—that, before the War of 1948, the Zionist Jews came mostly from Europe and, after 1920, they came while that territory was governed by Great Britain, a European imperialist and colonialist power that obtained suzerainty over the Palestine Mandate by promising the League of Nations to create a Jewish homeland there. From this observation, the following leftist argument is constructed:
‘the Zionist Jews are an extension of European imperialists and colonizers who came to dispossess the ancestral natives of ‘Palestine’ because—by definition—that is what imperialists and colonizers do. And who are the dispossessed ancestral natives of ‘Palestine’? The Arab Palestinians, because still today they struggle to acquire a State of their own.’
This leftist interpretation is employed to justify the social, political, and diplomatic pressure exerted on the State of Israel to make concessions in favor of the Arab Palestinians—or, speaking more precisely, in favor of the groups that claim to represent them.
But is this interpretation reasonable? I am making the following claim: even staying strictly within the confines of leftist grammar, the leftist adoption of the Arab Narrative makes zero sense, and it produces a collapse—a self-destruction—of the moral logic of the political left.
I’ll examine both issues here:
Are there any grounds—on leftist grammar—to prefer Arabs/Muslims over Jews as ‘ancestral natives of Palestine’?
Does it make any sense—on leftist grammar—to call the Zionist Jews ‘imperialists’?
What is the relevant time frame for identifying ‘ancestral natives’?
I have never seen leftists take this basic question seriously. Yet this is obligatory, because ‘ancestral’ acquires meaning only in relation to something else, so the point of reference changes depending on the time frame chosen.
I will not, however, dispute the leftist choice of time frame. I will merely ask:
If we allow leftists total freedom to choose the relevant time frame, can they, with this absolute freedom, choose one where it makes logical sense, within leftist grammar, to adopt the Arab Narrative, according to which Arabs/Muslims have privilege over Jews as ‘natives of Palestine’?
I will consider all the relevant time frames.
Before I do so, I wish to begin from ‘first principles’ and stand on the solid ground of universal agreement. So I pick an easy a case we can all agree on.
Imagine that, in the year 1946, an Arab or Muslim from Algeria arrives in Tunis, and then, in the year 1948, goes off to live the rest of his life in, say, Turkey. Is this man an Arab Palestinian? No, of course not. There are zero grounds for saying that. Indeed, the mere question sounds perfectly absurd, because none of this man’s movements have anything whatever to do with ‘Palestine.’
Everyone will agree with the paragraph above—universal agreement, as promised. But let us now tiptoe carefully away from this terra firma.
I ask: What could we call the man in my example? My proposal:
This man is an Algerian who lived very briefly in Tunis and then settled in Turkey.
Shall we now court some controversy? If this man spends enough time in Turkey and assimilates Turkish language and culture, some will be tempted—controversially—to say that he ‘became Turkish.’ On the other side of this controversy, however, many Turks and Algerians (and many third-party observers) will say that, without ties of blood, this man simply cannot be a real Turk. (I have spilled a lot of academic ink on why the latter opinion is so dominant, if you are interested.)
That controversy aside, however, does a human being exist who believes this man’s two-year sojourn in Tunis can ever justify calling him a Tunisian?
I would like to report that I looked into the matter and found that no person on Earth believes the latter nonsense. But I cannot report that.
The time frame chosen by the United Nations
The bureaucrats over at the United Nations decided that, if an Arab or Muslim from Algeria arrived in British Mandate Palestine in 1946, and then, after the War of 1948, lived the rest of his life in Lebanon, or in the United States, or Chile, or wherever, that man—and all of his descendants!—must be considered ‘Arab Palestinian.’1
Two years in ‘Palestine’? Congratulations! You are now ‘Palestinian’—and so are all your descendants.
How to understand this astonishing UN behavior? I think we should do ‘reasoning from design’: we study the apparent function of an artifact (here: UN policy) to infer the intentions, purposes, or goals of the designer (here: the United Nations). So we ask: What is the apparent function of this UN policy? What does it achieve?
In order to answer, you must first know the historical context. Before the Zionist movement began in the late 19th century,
“the best estimates point to a maximum of 300,000 inhabitants living within the sanjaks of historic Palestine in 1841.”2
That’s really not a lot of people. And they weren’t all Arabs. Many were Jews. So how did we go from such a small population of Arabs—now called ‘Arab Palestinians’—in 1841 to the around 14 million Arab Palestinians officially claimed to exist today? There was certainly demographic growth. There was also immigration.
It is recognized that “...1880...is the last year before the great Jewish immigration began.”3 Given that large numbers of Jews began arriving after 1880 in what the British later called, in 1920, ‘British Mandate Palestine,’ here is a pertinent question: How many Arabs/Muslims arrived in the same area, and during the same period, as the Zionist Jewish arrivals? The answer turns out to be: cartloads.
Initially, the Ottoman Turks were lording it over that place. The Ottoman sultan was paid to allow some Zionist immigration to the Levant (not yet baptized ‘Palestine’ by the British), but at the same time he sought to sabotage Jewish immigration by implementing policies for massive immigration of Muslims to the same area. And many other Muslims, unprompted by the sultan, immigrated there in search of a better life.
“...1880...is the last year before the great Jewish immigration began … The Turks had begun the systematic colonization [by] non-Palestinian Moslems, notably Circassians and Algerians, in 1878. After 1880, the forces of nascent Jewish nationalism, foreign Moslem colonization sponsored by the Turks, and spontaneous Arab immigration prompted by the new prosperity of Palestine changed the demographic face of the land.”4
The “non-Palestinian Moslems” sent there by the Ottoman sultan or attracted by “the new prosperity of Palestine,” which is to say by the economic boom of the Zionist Jews, were, as historian Arnold Blumberg mentions above, Circassians and Algerians. But they also came from other places, as historian Bat Ye’or comments. As the Ottomans lost their provinces in the European Balkans, large numbers of Balkan Muslims also moved elsewhere, and many to ‘Palestine.’
“Millions of Muhagir (émigrés), Muslims fleeing the new Christian states in the Balkans after defeats in the 19th century, abandoned the former Ottoman provinces of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, Bosnia-Herzegovinia, Thessalia, Epirus, and Macedonia. The sultan resorted to the traditional policy of Islamic colonization and, determined to counter the Zionist movement, settled the refugees in Judea, Galilee, Samaria and Transjordan. These were the same Muslims who had combated the rights, emancipation, and independence of Christian dhimmis (semi-slaves of the Muslims) in Europe. The sultan had sent some of them to Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine where they were given collective land grants under favorable conditions according to the principles of Islamic colonization imposed on [non-Muslim] natives ever since the beginning of the Arab conquest. Circassian tribes fleeing the Russian advance in the Caucasus were sent into the Levant at the same time; most of them were settled around Armenian villages in Mesopotamia where they soon began to massacre the local people. Other Circassian colonists settled in historic Palestine—today’s Israel, Cisjordan [Judea and Samaria] and Jordan—establishing villages in Judea, and near Jerusalem such as Abou Gosh, or in Kuneitra on the Golan. Today their descendants intermarry. In Jordan they make up the king’s guard.”5
When the British Empire took over those lands it would call ‘Palestine,’ Arabs/Muslims continued to immigrate there. How many? It is impossible to know for sure, because much of this immigration was illegal. But we can at least get a sense for it from a 1935 British report to the League of Nations, which noted that:
“ ‘One thousand five hundred and fifty-seven persons [1557] (including 565 Jews) who, having made their way into the country surreptitiously, were later detected, were sentenced to imprisonment for their offence and recommended for deportation.’ ”6
According to this sample of captured illegal immigrants, Arabs/Muslims coming illegally into ‘Palestine’ were three times the number of Jews doing the same. The true ratio is perhaps even more lopsided, because the British bias was anti-Jewish and pro-Arab (more on this later).
Consider again, then, the UN rule: it requires of an Arab/Muslim just 2 years of residence in ‘Palestine’ before the War of 1948 to count as an ‘Arab Palestinian,’ and all of his descendants will be ‘Arab Palestinians’ too.
Conclusion: the UN rule to identify ‘Arab Palestinians’ was designed to maximize the number of persons who, invoking the august authority of the United Nations, will claim standing to bring political grievances against the Israeli Jews.
This conclusion is consistent with the view that the UN, as an institution, suffers from a particular and quite famous animus. Allow me a brief digression to explore this question:
Is the United Nations antisemitic?
Some will perhaps feel that before lobbing such an accusation against the UN, we should first catch it behaving ridiculously just to hurt Israel a second time. Okay. ChatGPT informs me that,
“acknowledging overlaps and varying definitions, a conservative estimate suggests that the UN has adopted approximately 200 to 250 resolutions that could be categorized as human rights concerns against Israel.”
Any number we choose between 200 and 250 seems like a very large number. But more remarkable still is the relative size: the United Nations has adopted more ‘human rights’ resolutions against Israel than it has against all other countries combined.
Included in “all other countries,” of course, is the super-rich jihadi Emirate of Qatar. In Qatar, 2 million foreign workers—94% of the economically active population—do all the work, and most of them are literal slaves daily abused (both physically and sexually). Since these slaves—kidnapped in other countries or else brought to Qatar on false promises—do all the work in the homes and businesses of the Qataris, virtually every single Qatari citizen is a criminal guilty of gross human rights violations.
But Qataris are not merely astonishing domestic criminals, they are also international criminals. Because Qatar, with its immense gas wealth, is the great financier of international jihadi terrorism. In particular, Qatar is sugar daddy to Hamas, and therefore the intellectual author of the astonishing October 7th massacre and hostage-taking attack of 7 October against innocent Israeli civilians. Yet not one human rights UN resolution has ever been issued against Qatar. Not one.
As often quipped, ‘Israel is the Jew among the nations.’
Conclusion: It is outrageous to recruit the null moral ‘authority’ of the United Nations when constructing any kind of argument criticizing Israel, because the UN has an obvious and profound anti-Israel and pro-jihadi bias.
But what happens if we accept—anyway—the UN’s definition of ‘Arab Palestinian’?
I did say that I would prove the left wrong within the logic of the left’s own grammar. And I will. So I will do this: despite everything, I will be generous to the UN’s Arab Narrative and accept the UN’s definition of ‘Arab Palestinian,’ so agreeable to leftists. And I will ask this question:
Can the political left, using the advantage of the UN’s chosen time frame and logic of ‘identity,’ prefer the Arab Palestinians over the Zionist Jews as ‘ancestral natives of Palestine’ without violating its own leftist grammar?
The answer is no.
To recap, the UN rule says that, if an Arab or Muslim arrived in British Mandate Palestine from, say, Algeria in the year 1946, and then, after the year 1948, went off to live elsewhere, he and all of his descendants are ‘Arab Palestinians.’
Okay. Let us now apply the same rule to Jews.
If a Jewish immigrant from, say, Poland arrived in British Mandate Palestine in 1946, and moreover stayed in that same place until the end of his life, then he is a ‘Jewish Palestinian’ and so are all of his descendants.
Some people (leftists) will perhaps wonder: But why should we apply the UN rule to Jews? Those people will be reminded that if the UN’s grammar of ‘identity’ is applied to Arab/Muslim immigrants to ‘Palestine,’ but not to Jewish immigrants to ‘Palestine,’ then the rule is racist.
Some leftists may here choose to make a stand and defend racism against Jews. But then these ‘leftists’ become, ipso facto, indistinguishable from textbook far-right antisemites (German Nazis) and collapse into singularity. I address myself, therefore, to leftists who apply the UN rule fairly to both Arab/Muslim and Jewish immigrants to ‘Palestine,’ for these are people one can still talk to.
Continuing: If the UN rule is applied fairly, then the State of Israel was founded by ‘ancestral natives of Palestine,’ because the founding generation was composed almost exclusively of Jews who had residence in British Mandate Palestine from 1946 or earlier, and who stayed there after 1948.
Conclusion: If we adopt the UN rule, Arabs/Muslims do not have privilege over Jews as ‘ancestral natives of Palestine.’ With this rule, both Arabs/Muslims and Zionist Jews are all equally ‘ancestral natives of Palestine.’
Shall we push it back a century?
Suppose now that someone (a leftist) changes tack here and challenges the UN’s authority, choosing to defend a different time frame. The new cutoff to consider will be the late 19th century, because that’s when the modern Zionist movement began. In this time frame, the ‘ancestral natives of Palestine’ will be those who were settled already in the land in the mid-19th century.
Does this now give a privilege to Arab/Muslims over Jews as ‘ancestral natives of Palestine’?
No, it does not. Why not? For a simple reason: In the mid-19th century, before the Zionist movement began, plenty Jews were already living in ‘Palestine.’ Consider only what the British consul in Jerusalem wrote in 1859:
“ ‘The Mohammedans of Jerusalem are less fanatical than in many other places, owing to the circumstances of their numbers scarcely exceeding one quarter of the whole population.’ ”7
These Muslims were “less fanatical” than other, more fanatical Muslims elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire because in Jerusalem, though the government was of course Muslim, Muslims were severely outnumbered. They were outnumbered by the Jews. There were also large Jewish communities in the ‘Palestinian’ towns of Safed, Hebron, and Tiberias, as well as smaller Jewish communities elsewhere in ‘Palestine.’
Thus, if we adopt the standard that the ethnoreligious communities present in ‘Palestine’ in the mid-19th century are the ‘ancestral natives of Palestine,’ and also that immigrants from the same categories to British Mandate Palestine after the mid-19th century will be included as ‘natives,’ then once again the State of Israel was founded by ‘ancestral natives of Palestine.’
Conclusion: If we choose the mid-19th century as the relevant time frame, then Arabs/Muslims do not have privilege over Jews as ‘ancestral natives’ of ‘Palestine.’ With this standard they are all—Arabs/Muslims and Jews—‘ancestral natives of Palestine.’
We will arrive at the same conclusion if we push the relevant time frame back a number of centuries, because during all those centuries the land was populated by both Arabs/Muslims and Jews.
There comes a point, however, if we keep pushing back, where we find no Arabs there. Yet we do still find Jews. I will come back to this.
For now, let us change tack a bit and focus on this other question:
Who benefited from British imperialism?
Suppose that, after reading the above, somebody (a leftist) agrees that, if we restrict ourselves to the last few centuries, then residence in the land cannot—by leftist grammar—make a distinction between Arabs/Muslims and Jews as ‘natives of Palestine.’ Yet this person, this leftist, now reminds us of the other major question upon which leftist grammar on these issues of ‘historical justice’ is constructed:
Who benefited from imperialism?
And he (the leftist) answers as follows:
‘The State of Israel was created because the British Empire promised a Jewish homeland in British Mandate Palestine. The Arab Palestinians did not so benefit, for they still don’t have their own State. Hence, the Arab/Muslims of ‘Palestine’ are the victims, and the Zionist Jews the beneficiaries, of imperialism.’
Can this argument work? For a great variety of reasons, I believe it cannot. Here I will focus narrowly on reasons having to do with the division of the land (other reasons will be considered later). In this category, my reasons are four.
First reason. The British imperialists did not commit themselves to create a Jewish homeland that would oppress or in any way disadvantage the Arabs/Muslims of ‘Palestine.’ To the contrary, the Balfour Declaration reads:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” (my emphasis)
Second reason. In point of historical fact, the British imperialists behaved as if the Balfour Declaration had expressed the primary mission of the empire to be the creation of an Arab Palestinian State, not a Jewish State. Long before the UN proposed creating a Jewish State in Mandate Palestine, in fact, immediately after creating the Palestine Mandate, the British carved out an Arab Palestinian proto-State from that territory, Transjordan, which became the Kingdom of Jordan.
Here below is the map of British Mandate Palestine, as originally created in 1920:
All of the territory you see above had been officially destined for Zionist Jewish immigration by the League of Nations, in preparation for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. But after the arbitrary British formalization of ‘Transjordan’ between 1921 and 1922, as you can see below, only 1/4 of the original territory remained for Jewish settlement, because, in defiance of international law, the British forbade Jews to settle in Transjordan.
Rump ‘Palestine,’ the remaining 1/4, retained that name because it was understood (back then) that, under international law, the name ‘Palestine’ referred to the land allotted for a Jewish homeland, but the British did not forbid Arabs/Muslims to settle in rump ‘Palestine.’
We have, then, that long before the Jews were offered anything, the Arabs/Muslims had already been given their own State on 3/4 of the land promised to the Jews.
Third reason. When the United Nations voted in 1947 to dissolve rump ‘Palestine’, they did not propose to create a Jewish State there to the exclusion of an Arab State; to the contrary, the United Nations voted to create a Jewish State and also a second Arab Palestinian State.
Therefore, even if we somehow managed to ignore the prior creation of Transjordan, and make believe that rump ‘Palestine’ was all of ‘Palestine,’ one still cannot say that British imperialism benefited the Jewish Palestinians and oppressed the Arab Palestinians. Each was offered a State in the territory of Mandate ‘Palestine.’
Fourth reason. When this double offer was made by the United Nations, the Jews accepted what was offered. That is, the Jews accepted the offer of a Jewish State, and also the creation of a second Arab Palestinian State right next to the Jewish State, even though this meant that the Jews had lost 7/8 of the territory originally promised to them. The Arabs/Muslims, however, rejected the 1947 offer of a second Palestinian State. And they chose war.
The reasons for this Arab/Muslim refusal are deeply interesting, and will be considered later. The point for now is this: it is false that imperial disfavor prevented the establishment of a second Arab Palestinian State in 1947; it was not established because the Arabs/Muslims chose war.
Conclusion: If we ask who was victimized by the imperial creation of British Mandate Palestine, and we try to answer this question by how many square miles were obtained, the Arabs/Muslims have zero privilege to be considered the ‘victims’ of British imperialism—to the contrary.
In the time before the British Empire, the picture doesn’t improve for those who would like Arabs/Muslims to occupy the role of ‘victims of imperialism’ relative to the Jews. Because, before the British, that land was ruled by the Muslim Ottoman Turkish Empire, which certainly didn’t have a policy to favor Jews over Arabs/Muslims!
And, coming back to the time frame of the British Mandate, the Zionist Jews arriving in British Mandate Palestine, lest we forget, were, even before Nazi Germany came into being, suffering oppression and genocide at the hands of European imperialists. It was this permanent danger that made the Zionist movement a moral imperative.
Conclusion: Strictly within leftist grammar, and within the time frames considered up to now, the obvious victims of imperialism are the Zionist Jews.
But let us be thorough, now, and see what happens if we push the relevant time frame even further back.
What happens if we push back to the 7th century?
Let us push back almost a millennium and a half to the seventh century CE. Something very interesting happens here: with this time frame we can (finally) establish—with leftist rigor—a clear distinction between victims and oppressors that checks all of the boxes in leftist grammar.
In the year 637 (or 638) CE, the Muslim imperialists under Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab took Jerusalem by force from the Romans. The place was flooded with Arab/Muslim colonizers. The numerous Jews who lived there, in their own cherished holy land, and also the Christians, were turned into dhimmis—second-class, semi-enslaved subjects of the Muslim invaders. This practice was continued by the Ottoman Empire.
Conclusion: if the Muslim conquest of the 7th century is the relevant time frame, then Jews and Christians in ‘Palestine’—who were already there—are the ancestral native victims of the Muslim imperialists and colonizers.
But let’s keep going back to see what else happens.
What if we push back two millennia—to the Hasmonean Jewish State?
In this case we find that the ancient Jews were living in their own national State, one sharing—wow—very similar borders to the modern State of Israel, as can be appreciated by superimposing the Hasmonean State of the ancient Jews (first century BCE) over the geography of the modern State of Israel.
Conclusion: The State of Israel, the modern Jewish State, was established on land where the Jews once had their own national State.
What about Arab Muslims? Were they also there in ancient times? No, because no Muslims would exist until the early 7th century, when Mohammed first preached Islam.
The shortest summary of the political history from Hasmonean times to the British Empire would go like this:
In 63 BCE, the Romans conquered the Hasmonean State. Then came the Roman anti-Jewish genocide—ongoing until the year 135 CE. The few surviving Jews became slaves in their own land. And the Romans flooded the region with Greek colonizers.
In the 7th century, Muslim imperialists seized the land from the Romans. Many Arab Muslim colonizers came. And the Jews and Christians became semi-slaves, or dhimmis.
In 1517, the Muslim Ottoman Empire took the land by force.
And in 1917, the British took it from the Ottomans—again by force.
Who does this land belong to? Just as your TV is still legally yours if Paul steals it from you and then Peter steals it from Paul, ‘Palestine’ is still the land of the Jews if the Romans steal it from the Jews, the Muslims steal it from the Romans, and the Brits steal it from the Muslims. Or at least that’s what a leftist would have to say.
We see, then, that if the relevant time frame is pushed back to the Hasmonean State, then the victims of imperialism are clearly the Jews. The Arabs/Muslims of ‘Palestine,’ by contrast, are the descendants of Muslim colonizers and oppressors who came there by agency of Muslim imperial powers to enslave the Jews.
Big Conclusion
As we’ve seen, in order for leftists to prefer Arabs/Muslims over Jews as ‘ancestral natives of Palestine’ and/or as ‘victims of imperialism,’ all of history must be erased. Because, even staying entirely within the rules of leftist grammar, and regardless of which time frame we choose, we find:
either that Arabs/Muslims have zero privilege over the Jews as ‘ancestral natives of Palestine’ and as ‘victims of imperialism’; or else
that it is the Jews who have a dramatic claim to privilege as both ‘ancestral natives of Palestine’ and as ‘victims of imperialism.’
How then, within leftist grammar, to construct an ‘Arab Palestinian’ grievance against the Israeli Jews? The only way possible would be to argue that Zionist Jews took something from the ‘Arab Palestinians.’ I will examine this question next.
“Palestine refugees are defined as ‘persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.’ ”
https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees
Blumberg, A. 1985. Zion before Zionism 1838-1880. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. (p.19)
Blumberg, A. 1985. Zion before Zionism 1838-1880. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. (p.x)
Blumberg, A. 1985. Zion before Zionism 1838-1880. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. (p.x)
Bat Ye’or (2002). Jews and Christians under Islam: Dhimmitude and Marcionism. Published in French as Juifs et chrétiens sous l’islam, Dhimmitude et marcionisme [Commentaire, N°97, Printemps 2002]
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_dhimmitude_marcionism_en.pdf
quoted in: Gottheil, F. M. (2003). The smoking gun: Arab immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931. Middle East Quarterly.
https://www.meforum.org/middle-east-quarterly/the-smoking-gun-arab-immigration-into-palestine
quoted in: Peters, J. (2002[1984]). From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine. Chicago: JKAP. (p.198)
Maybe a love offensive would bring around wrong-thinking leftists, but the danger offensive seems effective too: Jews in Israel have shifted right whereas leftist Jews in the West, despite their trademark empathy, don't quite get it.
Small issue with the framework here: not seeing such thing as "The Antisemites"--as if it's a clean squaring off of "The Red Coats" and "The Blue Coats." Seeing instead antisemitic beliefs in degrees within a range of people, including Jews; so seems more like a complicated intellectual guerrilla warfare. Indeed, "antisemitism" hasn't even been defined to everyone's satisfaction. Also don't see a clean divide between psychopathic Western bosses and their implicitly victim masses, but degrees of psychopathology all over.
The social game theory on the left does explain well my encounters. Don't know though that the BS narratives of colonialism/oppressor/indigenous are what engendered today's antisemitism or the other way around. Because it seems these narratives had less potency before Jews were the prime offenders. Just a hunch.
The logical inconsistencies in leftist reasoning and how to leverage them is also interesting. My own take is that the inconsistencies are so hallucinatory that it amounts to a hypnotic state. Under hypnosis subjects have both negative hallucinations (don't see what's there) and positive ones (see what isn't there), and they can't be reasoned out of it. Maybe it's not just a metaphor either when you consider that the brainwaves of young children resemble the hypnotic state, and this is when they acquire socio-religious beliefs.
Do think that engaging at the deepest level with the leftist "grammar" in order to challenge it, especially re. the Israel/Arab conflict, is needed. Here's one video series that seems to do that, though possibly with different arguments than planned for Part 4: https://youtu.be/hskX-2gTmws
Please confirm the dates and chronological sequence for the land allocated by the League of Nations for a Jewish State. I'm reading elsewhere that "The approval of the Palestine Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922 put the Balfour Declaration, of 1917, into legal force." In other words, The League of Nations, founded on 10th Jan 1920, rubber-stamped Britain's intentions. That's not what I understand from your article.