This study compiles historical information to highlight the role played by both East and West European countries in the creation of Israel since before World War I. East European countries, especially Russia, Poland, and Romania, were as effective in this regard as the West Europeans. While racial policies were paramount in East Europe, including Germany, religious and strategic policies were as effective in the West, especially in Britain. Two points can be redrawn in this regard: That the question of Palestine was a Western question on both sides of the continent; it had nothing to do with the Eastern question that engulfed the Ottoman Empire before and during World War I. Additionally while World War II did not start the process of creating Israel, it accelerated it since the United States became an active supporter of the Zionist project. The second conclusion explains why all major powers give so much latitude to Israel, regardless of its constant neglect of international law to this very day.

This article argues that Syria considers Israel as an existential threat and that peace or coexistence between the two sides is impossible in the long run, due to the fact that Syria’s perception of its own history and identity, as an entity that consists of a majority belonging to one ethnicity, (90 percent Arabs), and various religious groups, is in direct conflict with Israel’s perception of its own history (80 percent Jews from various ethnicities). This renders Syrian national security in direct conflict with Israel’s perception of its national security. In addition, both sides are competing over the same sphere of influence which is Greater Syria. This has rendered any reconciliation impossible between the two sides and has led to a continuous struggle with the failure of all efforts to establish peace and end the conflict between them.

This study compiles historical information to highlight the role played by both East and West European countries in the creation of Israel since before World War I. East European countries, especially Russia, Poland, and Romania, were as effective in this regard as the West Europeans. While racial policies were paramount in East Europe, including Germany, religious and strategic policies were as effective in the West, especially in Britain. Two points can be redrawn in this regard: That the question of Palestine was a Western question on both sides of the continent; it had nothing to do with the Eastern question that engulfed the Ottoman Empire before and during World War I. Additionally while World War II did not start the process of creating Israel, it accelerated it since the United States became an active supporter of the Zionist project. The second conclusion explains why all major powers give so much latitude to Israel, regardless of its constant neglect of international law to this very day.

This article argues that Syria considers Israel as an existential threat and that peace or coexistence between the two sides is impossible in the long run, due to the fact that Syria’s perception of its own history and identity, as an entity that consists of a majority belonging to one ethnicity, (90 percent Arabs), and various religious groups, is in direct conflict with Israel’s perception of its own history (80 percent Jews from various ethnicities). This renders Syrian national security in direct conflict with Israel’s perception of its national security. In addition, both sides are competing over the same sphere of influence which is Greater Syria. This has rendered any reconciliation impossible between the two sides and has led to a continuous struggle with the failure of all efforts to establish peace and end the conflict between them.

This article is based on a study in Arabic by author that formed the final chapter of the book Yahud al-bilad al-‘arabiyyah (The Jews of the Arab Countries) by the late Palestinian historian Khairiyyah Qasimiyyah. It examines the problem of identity among Jews of Arab origin in Israel and the resurgent use of the term ‘Arab Jew’ used by Jewish academics and activists in Israel. It also considers the issues of discrimination and socioeconomic injustice against the Arab Jewish community since the early history of Israel. Finally, it discusses the potential for joint action by Arab Jews and Palestinians for the cause of social justice and pluralism in Israel.

The Zionist project to remove or ‘transfer’ Palestinians from Palestine began but did not end in 1948; it continues to this very day. Since 1980, Jerusalem has been the central focus of the transfer process: the central hub of the project of coercively removing long-established Palestinian communities in order to make space for new Jewish arrivals. This paper examines the nature and mechanisms of this ongoing transfer from redrawing of boundaries and a system of checkpoints to the legal devices, complexities and manoeuvring employed to achieve the transfer of Palestinians, such as zoning, construction permits and even including documentation of the birth of a child. As the political, cultural and geographical core of the conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians, Jerusalem serves, in effect, as a kind of microcosm of the wider conflict.

This is a report on a conference held at the University of Massachusetts in Boston about the ‘One-State Solution for Palestine’. The latter is a response and an alternative to the ‘Two-State Solution’ favoured by the United States and the international community. Such a solution is losing credibility in terms of its possible implementation by most Arab Palestinians and the vast majority of Arabs. The two-day conference hosted academicians and activists from Palestine, the United States, and Europe defending the ‘One-State Solution’. (For further information, see http://www.onestateforpalestineisrael.com/ .)

Azmi Bishara assesses Israel in terms of the ancient regional precedent of the crusader state, where a foreign polity maintained its existence through military might and orchestrating intricate pacts with various local powers and Arab princes while sowing internecine dissent among them. The ‘two-state’ solution is, according to the author, one which is doomed to failure due not only to public opinion, political ambiguities and realities on the ground and practical issues, but also to the lack of genuine support. Aside from the concept of a bi-national state once advocated by Hashomer Hatzair in the 1930s, Israel has been unwilling to seriously entertain alternatives. The viable solution, which is unfortunately not taken seriously is the democratic, egalitarian, secular one-state solution—a solution which guarantees equal rights for Jews and Arabs, the right of return. Time, however, according to the author is running out—and the future solutions currently held out by Hamas or Israel are not democratic.