A Palestinian State is a Threat to Us All
Recognizing a Palestinian state means legitimizing terror, undermining allies, and surrendering Western civilization to those sworn to destroy it.
Don’t miss our Deep Dive: “The Palestinians Are the Colonizers”. It’s a must-read.
This analysis is free, but with Premium Membership you get MORE. Join today.
NOTE: The absurdity of alleged American “allies” Canada, Britain, Australia, France, Portugal, Belgium, et al. recognizing a Palestinian state that doesn’t exist — and likely never will — is dangerously naive. It is another example of what Gad Sadd calls “suicidal empathy”.
But it doesn’t have to make sense. To Western leftist elites, the “Two-State Solution” is less a foreign policy proposal than a religious dogma. Never mind that the Palestinians have consistently, repeatedly rejected that “solution” since 1947. The only Palestinian state that has ever been acceptable to the Palestinians, then or now, is one that stretches “from the river to the sea”, which is to say, one that includes all of what is now Israel.
Sorry: that is never, ever going to happen.
But if it did, we should all be very, very concerned. The Islamists refer to Israel as “the little Satan”, to the United States as “the great Satan”. And they couldn’t be clearer: they’re coming for us next.
The truth is, a Palestinian state — or at least one west of the Jordan — is a threat to us all. It must never be allowed to exist. — RDM
by Bruce Thornton
September 23, 2025
As Israel plans to finally end the decades of terrorist slaughter by Hamas, some Western nations — many functionally antisemitic — are plaguing Israel yet again with a plan to bring to the UN a resolution for creating a Palestinian state, thus rewarding Hamas and other jihadist terrorists for murdering Jews.
In addition to the blood-libels of Israelis — like “starving” and wantonly “slaughtering” innocent Gazans that lard this “plan” — there’s the stale reprise of diplomatic magical thinking to conjure a nation for a people who never had one in the ancient homeland of the Jews they want to murder and plunder.
Of course, the Europeans and other oil-cringe geopolitical milquetoasts are relying on the UN, which has long supported the fancifully named “Palestinians” — a propaganda tactic used to gull Westerners into believing that Israel sits on a sacred Palestinian “stolen” homeland. All freedom-loving nations, especially the U.S., should make every effort to stop the UN and feckless NATO nations from recharging the Jew-haters for another attempt to repeat Hitler’s Holocaust.
Moreover, the UN for decades has lost any credibility when it comes to Israel by successfully convincing Western useful idiots to ignore history and morality, and to bully Israel into not just letting a sadistic enemy off the hook, but bestowing on them a Potemkin “state” that in fact would be a bigger platform for continuing the murder of Jews.
And don’t forget the malign role the UN has played in the vicious abuse of the only democratic state in the region. For example, General Assembly Resolution 2708 (1970) stated that the UN “reaffirms its recognition of the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal.” Notice how that phrase repeated the communist moral idiocy of “any means necessary,” and exempts not just the brutal violence of “national liberation” movements, but also legitimized terrorism from the codified restraints limiting armed conflict.
One of the most infamous crimes of the “diplomatic engagement” promoted by the UN were the Oslo Accords, two agreements between Israel and the terrorist PLO negotiated in 1993 and 1995. The pacts were marketed as the foundations for a peace treaty and a Palestinian state, with the creation of the Palestinian Authority awarded some self-government authority, including armed police powers, over the so-called “West Bank,” the Orwellian euphemism for the ancient Jewish territorial heartland of Judea and Samaria.
The folly of making deals with terrorists sworn to destroying Israel quickly became obvious. Terror attacks between 1994-1999 totaled 215, just about the same number as before the pact. Carnage continued to escalate in subsequent years. In response to further Israeli concessions — offering not only an independent Palestinian state but 94% of all Palestinian demands — terrorist Yasser Arafat, the first leader of the PA, unleashed the “Second Intifada,” a series of vicious attacks which in five years murdered over a thousand Israelis, mostly civilians.
Moreover, recently, according to Palestine Media Watch, “‘9,750 terrorist prisoners are now recognized by the PA as eligible for monthly terror rewards, up from 4,300 prior to October 7. This means the PA — not Hamas, the supposedly “peaceful” PA — is committing to pay nearly NIS 60 million [$16.4 million] a month to terrorist prisoners. The PA has recognized Hamas’ Martyr count, and a total of 38,983 new Martyrs’ families are currently eligible for terror rewards. This means nearly 55 million shekels [$14.7 million] in additional monthly payments to the families of Martyrs.’”
Your foreign aid budget pays for this.
Despite this bloody object-lesson in the PA’s jihadist bona fides, the latest “two-state solution” scheme, spearheaded by France and the UK, has proposed a Palestinian state, as the Gatestone Institute reports, “‘predicated’ on commitments from the Palestinian Authority (PA) to undergo critical governance reforms, as well as excluding the Iran-backed Hamas terrorist group from a future Palestinian government.”
For the Europeans to banish Hamas, but welcome the PA — with its long history of terrorist slaughter of Israeli civilians, and serial violations of pacts and agreements —suggests some in the West are objectively rife with antisemitism, bespeaking a despicable moral idiocy.
Finally, this long failed process of state-building and “diplomatic engagement” is one of the bloodiest repudiations of the “rules-based international order” that has mesmerized the foreign policies of the West with its feckless idealism replacing traditional realism about human nature’s flaws and passions, and the malign, parochial interests of complex, diverse states.
The fact is, there is no global “harmony of interests,” no “community of nations,” no “citizens of the world,” no “international laws” properly understood that can promote and enforce justice across hundreds of diverse nations — with different principles, cultures, and beliefs that can be trumped by alien foreign ones. Nations deem, as Lord Palmerston, UK Prime Minister in the late 19th Century, put it, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
Next, “diplomat engagement” and negotiations amongst enemies are usually a chimera when it comes to settling conflict, often leading to bad faith and appeasement. As George Shultz reminded us, “Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table.” Without a concentrated mind that believes a rival or enemy will use force to protect an agreement’s conditions, every promise is born to be violated.
Last, most important is the warning from the historian of Soviet atrocities, Robert Conquest, who wrote in Reflections on a Ravaged Century about Cold War diplomacy: “Since diplomats’ forte is negotiation, they believe negotiation to be a good in itself. . . But the Soviets did what their interests required when the alternative is less acceptable, and negotiation was merely a technical adjunct.”
Thus, diplomatic negotiation is not necessarily a sincere desire to reach a peaceful accommodation to both sides of a conflict, but rather a means to a serve a nationalist or political purpose. This means that seeing clearly the adversary’s true interests and purposes — rather than projecting our own beliefs and goods onto the enemy’s — is the most important factor in diplomacy. “It is easy enough,” Conquest writes, “to fall into the trap of thinking that others think, within reason, like ourselves. But this trap is precisely the error that must be avoided in foreign affairs.”
The wisdom of this realism has been lost in the postwar West, and the effect on foreign policy has been a plague for Israel. The “trap” Conquest identifies has been particularly perilous in our relations with Islamic states. The secular, if not outright Christophobic, prejudices of modernity have made us dismissive of faith, and prone to ignore the deep, 14-centuries-old precepts and doctrines of Islam.
In contrast to the West, as Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis points out, “in most Islamic countries, religion remains a major political factor,” for “most Muslim countries are still profoundly Muslim in a way and in a sense that most Christian countries are no longer Christian. . . in no Christian country at the present time can religious leaders count on the degree of belief and participation that remain normal in the Muslim lands.”
This is significant in no small part because the moral requirements of Islam are very different indeed from those of Christianity.
Given its Islamic neighbors, Israel is perforce an exception to the West’s dismissive ignorance, and has for decades been plagued by the well-meaning, but often dangerously misguided, advice of its Western allies, who think that Western ideals like liberal democracy, national sovereignty, human rights, and economic growth will achieve by “diplomatic engagement” the solution to a conflict born in 14 centuries of religious doctrines and faith.
Israel now sits on the brink of destroying a fanatic, savage, genocidal enemy that has murdered tens of thousands of Jews living in their ancestral homeland. The Western nations like France and the UK need to stop trying to solve its domestic problems brought on by feckless immigration policies and suicidal anti-carbon energy policies, and let Israel finish the job of securing its homeland, its future, and ours.
— This essay originally appeared at Front Page Magazine.
The Great March of Return (also known as the Great Return March) was a series of protests held along the Gaza-Israel border fence, initiated by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. It began on March 30, 2018—coinciding with Land Day, which commemorates Palestinian protests against Israeli land expropriations in 1976—and continued weekly until it was officially suspended on December 27, 2019, after approximately 88 weeks of demonstrations.
2 sources
The protests were organized by a coalition of Palestinian civil society groups, political factions (including Hamas, which provided logistical support), and independent activists, framing it as a grassroots movement.
2 sources
The primary demands were the implementation of the United Nations-recognized right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants (stemming from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War), an end to Israel's blockade of Gaza (imposed since 2007), and relief from the humanitarian crisis in the territory, including high unemployment, restricted access to resources, and limited movement.
3 sources
Key Events and TacticsProtests typically occurred on Fridays after prayers, with tens of thousands gathering at tent encampments set up several hundred meters from the border fence in five main locations across Gaza.
2 sources
Demonstrators engaged in largely non-violent activities such as marching, chanting, planting olive trees symbolically, and cultural events, though some incidents involved stone-throwing, burning tires to create smoke screens, launching incendiary kites or balloons toward Israel (causing fires in Israeli fields), and attempts by small groups to approach or damage the fence.
2 sources
Israeli authorities described these as riots and security threats, claiming that Hamas used the protests as cover for militant activities, including planting explosives and attempting infiltrations.
One of the deadliest days was May 14, 2018, coinciding with the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem and the 70th anniversary of Israel's founding (Nakba Day for Palestinians), when over 60 Palestinians were killed and thousands injured.
2 sources
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) positioned snipers, tanks, and troops along the fence, employing a "shoot-to-maim" strategy according to some reports, using live ammunition primarily aimed at protesters' lower limbs to disperse crowds and prevent breaches.
3 sources
Tear gas, rubber bullets, and other crowd-control measures were also used.
From the Palestinian side, organizers emphasized non-violence, with medics, journalists, and families often present, but acknowledged that some youths engaged in confrontational acts.
Casualties and Humanitarian ImpactThe protests resulted in significant casualties, predominantly on the Palestinian side. By the end of 2019, at least 277 Palestinians were killed (including 48 children) and over 28,000 injured during the demonstrations, with about 25% of injuries from live ammunition.
3 sources
Among the injured, around 7,000 suffered gunshot wounds, leading to over 150 amputations and thousands with lifelong disabilities due to complex injuries like shattered bones and infections.
3 sources
This included 1,849 children, 424 women, 115 paramedics, and 115 journalists wounded in the first six months alone.
Gaza's healthcare system, already strained by the blockade, was overwhelmed, exacerbating trauma and mental health issues; studies noted a positive initial community spirit from the protests but long-term psychological strain.
2 sources
On the Israeli side, no soldiers or civilians were killed by protesters during the marches up to mid-2018, though some were injured by stones or explosives, and agricultural damage from incendiary devices was reported.
One Israeli soldier was killed in July 2018 by a Palestinian sniper during a related incident.
Responses and PerspectivesPalestinian View: The marches were seen as a legitimate, mostly peaceful expression of resistance against occupation and siege, highlighting Gaza's dire conditions. Hamas and other groups supported them but denied using them for military purposes, though some militants participated.
2 sources
Recent discussions on platforms like X emphasize the disproportionate response, with users referencing shootings of children and medics as evidence of excessive force.
3 sources
Israeli View: Officials argued the protests posed an existential threat, with attempts to storm the border potentially leading to mass infiltrations and attacks on nearby communities. The IDF's rules of engagement allowed live fire only as a last resort against those posing imminent danger, though critics disputed this.
2 sources
Some X posts frame it in broader historical contexts, questioning the "right of return" while noting Israel's withdrawals from Gaza in 2005.
International Reactions: A 2019 UN Human Rights Council inquiry found reasonable grounds to believe Israel committed violations of international law, possibly amounting to war crimes, by using lethal force against unarmed protesters.
Groups like Amnesty International and Médecins Sans Frontières condemned the response as disproportionate.
2 sources
The U.S. supported Israel's right to defend its borders, while the EU and others called for restraint.
Israel rejected the UN findings as biased.
Outcomes and LegacyThe protests did not achieve their core demands but drew global attention to Gaza's plight, contributing to temporary ceasefires and aid deals brokered by Egypt and Qatar.
They were suspended amid escalating tensions and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Long-term, they left a legacy of trauma, with thousands still requiring medical care, and influenced later events like the 2021 Gaza conflict.
2 sources
Discussions continue on X, linking it to ongoing issues in Gaza and broader Palestinian-Israeli dynamics.
6 sources
10 posts
9 web pages
Quick Answer
Got it. Let’s focus squarely on the Great March of Return and the weekly protests (2018–2019), which is what your “88 weeks” memory likely refers to.
Origins and Goals
Launch: Began 30 March 2018 (Land Day in Palestine).
Organizers: A broad coalition of civil society groups, youth activists, and factions in Gaza.
Core Demand: Uphold the right of return for Palestinian refugees (enshrined in UN Resolution 194) and protest the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
Symbolism: “Return” to villages/towns Palestinians were expelled from in 1948.
Format of the Protests
Weekly Rhythm: Protests were organized almost every Friday, especially along the Gaza–Israel border fence.
Duration: From March 2018 through late 2019 (with events into 2020) — nearly 90 consecutive weeks.
Methods:
Mass marches toward the border fence.
Tent encampments a few hundred meters back from the barrier, meant to recall pre-1948 villages.
Cultural events, speeches, and performances alongside the protests.
Most protesters were unarmed civilians, though some used kites, balloons, or burning tires.
Scale
Participation: Often tens of thousands each Friday.
Peak dates: Land Day (30 March 2018) and Nakba Day (15 May 2018) drew the largest crowds.
Demographics: Families, elderly, children participated — not just young men.
Israeli Response
Rules of Engagement: Israeli military said it would prevent any breach of the fence.
Force Used: Live ammunition, rubber bullets, drones dropping tear gas, high-velocity tear-gas canisters.
Casualties:
By end of 2019: ~200+ Palestinians killed; thousands injured (UN OCHA and human rights groups data).
Israeli authorities reported deaths of several soldiers and civilians, and injuries from projectiles launched from Gaza.
UN Inquiry (2019): A UN Human Rights Council report found that Israeli forces may have committed war crimes by intentionally shooting civilians (journalists, medics, children, disabled).
International Attention
Media Coverage: Major coverage in 2018, but less in 2019 as protests dragged on.
Human Rights Groups: Amnesty, HRW, B’Tselem condemned Israel’s use of lethal force.
Documentaries:
Gaza Fights for Freedom (Abby Martin, 2019) — filmed in Gaza, highlighted civilian perspective.
Other news features (Al Jazeera, Channel 4 UK, Democracy Now, etc.).
Decline and Aftermath
By late 2019 into 2020, the scale of weekly protests dropped.
Organizers scaled back to monthly or occasional large events.
Reasons: heavy toll of casualties, economic hardship, and political shifts (Hamas–Israel ceasefire talks).
The border zone remains volatile; smaller protests continue, but the sustained weekly cycle effectively ended after ~88–90 weeks.
👉 In other words, the “88 weeks of Gandhi-style protest” you recall lines up almost exactly with the Great March of Return: weekly, largely unarmed demonstrations from March 2018 to late 2019.
Would you like me to also compile a list of documentaries and films specifically covering the Great March of Return (not just Gaza generally), with details of who produced them and where they were shown?