Thursday, 2 April 2026

How Israel stole Palestine, with help from Britain

͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

How Israel stole Palestine, with help from Britain

Zionists wished Palestine was empty. It wasn't

Mark Buckley

Apr 3

READ IN APP

Terra Nullius means “Land belonging to no-one” in Latin

Most of us in the West still believe that the Jews were always in Palestine, from biblical times, and thus had a right to reclaim their birthright if and when they chose.
After the first Jewish rebellion against Roman rule in the year 66 CE, the Jews were mainly expelled from Judea, which was the part of Palestine where most of the biblical story had occurred.
Judea was a Roman province, ruled by a Jewish king, but under the overall control of the Roman Empire. Before the uprisings they had been a sizeable population, with a vibrant religious and cultural presence, and a long history.
Rome reacted brutally to the rebellion, which began in 66, but was crushed mercilessly by 74 CE. Rome destroyed most of the towns and villages throughout Judea, and enslaved those who remained alive.
Over 100,000 Jewish slaves were then forcibly dispersed around the Empire. The Roman Army had destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem, which was a symbol of Jewish nationhood. They had besieged Masada, where nearly all of the defenders took their own lives, as a symbolic act, and to avoid the Roman punishments that awaited them.
Many survivors moved permanently out of Judea, and settled in areas around the Mediterranean. They joined the already established Jewish diaspora, which was scattered throughout the Roman Empire, but concentrated mainly in Egypt, North Africa and Greece.
In 115 CE the Diaspora Revolt broke out, throughout the Roman provinces. Many Jewish communities from the Eastern provinces joined in. The rebels were fierce fighters, but the rebellion was easily put down by superior Roman power. Rome had brought in troops from around the Empire. Jews were permanently banned from some Roman provinces.
It is clear from the history of the region that dominion over Palestine changed hands many times over the next thousand years. There was a Muslim wave in the 7th century, the Crusaders in the 11th and 12 centuries, the Mamluks, the Ottoman Empire from 1516 to 1918, the British Mandate, officially from 1923 till 1947.
The population of Jews never recovered within Judea, or Palestine as it was now called. By the late 19th century Palestine was overwhelmingly populated by Muslims. They represented about 86% of the population, with about 9% Christian Arabs, and the Jewish population was estimated to be between 5 – 8%.
It was very much a province of the Ottoman Empire, now known as Turkeye. It had been ruled by them since 1516. It was poor, badly governed, and a Turkish backwater, but it had persevered for 400 years. It had prospered, in a modest way.

The rise of Zionism

From the end of the nineteenth century a group of fabulously wealthy, mainly European Jews began searching for a Jewish homeland, and a place for the revitalization and cultivation of the Hebrew language. They coined the phrase Zionism in 1896. it was a mainly political movement, rather than religious.
After a couple of false starts, they settled on Palestine as desirable. The Ottomans still governed until 1917, when the British, assisted by Allied armies, conquered the territory. It remained under Allied control, with British administration until the British Mandate was activated in 1923. Coincidentally, Britain was not authorised to administer the territory until 1923, so the British during those intervening years were technically illegally in charge. They allowed substantial Jewish immigration, against the will of the Arabs, both Muslim and Christian.
The Zionist movement believed that the Jewish claim to ownership of the land outweighed the claim of the Palestinians, whose homeland it undoubtedly was. The Zionists championed mass migration to Palestine, and with the financial support of families such as the Rothschilds, and a strong political campaign in Britain, it managed to suppress public recognition of the Palestinians’ claim to the territory. It also began to surreptitiously purchase land, mainly from absent landowners.
The eventual takeover of Palestine by the Zionists followed a pattern. Most of the larger European nations had spied territories in Africa and Asia that they felt could be exploited successfully. The Zionists followed suit.
Colonial settler societies, like America, Australia and Israel, ignored the reality of indigenous communities when they conquered their lands. Australia did so in 1788, America from the arrival of the Pilgrim Fathers, and Israel from the moment the Zionists decided they wanted Palestine.
It is as if the lust for land blinds them to the reality, there in front of their eyes. Real people, living on land they cultivate, to feed themselves. Their arguments reflect immense cultural and religious arrogance, as they decide that whatever they see, is of no real importance, because it does not fit with their belief that they (the colonialists) will ‘use’ the land in a more productive way. They use the idea that they are ‘enriching’ the indigenous culture by bringing white European ideas of progress and civilisation.
Somehow there is always a hint of religious superiority interwoven into the fabric of contempt for the preceding cultures.
The settler societies were not shy about stating their case for the taking of land. Early Zionists rationalised their right to displace the Arabs, with the slogan, “A land without people for the people without a land.”
At the time the Palestinians were approximately 90% of the population. It is crystal clear that the land in question was already populated and was hardly “empty.”
In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, “It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist”. She said those words out loud, and on the record.
It is correct to say that Palestinians were previously ruled by the Ottoman Empire. They had been ruled by the Ottomans for 400 years, and their society was mainly made up of small farmers, with wheat the main crop.
So the popular belief that the Israelis merely asserted their ancient right to Palestine is built on very shaky ground. It appears that the Palestinians, the inhabitants of Palestine throughout the time of the Jewish diaspora, have suffered ever since the Zionists, with British connivance, stole their land. They have lived in refugee camps, or in occupied territories, ever since. They have no rights, and no hope. And the Israeli government is now engaging in their plan to create a Greater Israel. At the cost of all the countries in the Middle East.

You're currently a free subscriber to Ask Bucko’s Substack. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Upgrade to paid

Comment

Restack

The History of Autism and the Problem with “Awareness”

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

The History of Autism and the Problem with “Awareness”

Why World Autism Day still isn’t enough, and what comes next

David Gray-Hammond

Apr 2

READ IN APP

There is a story we’ve been told about autism. A story of deficits, tragedy, of something that needs fixing; but like all stories, it depends on who is telling it. The history of autism is not just a timeline of discoveries. It is a story of power, language, and who gets to define reality; and who is forced to live inside those definitions.

If we are honest about that history, we see something uncomfortable. The way we understand autism today did not emerge naturally. It was built, layer by layer, choice by choice. That means it can be rebuilt.

This article is available as a video on YouTube, click below to view!

Watch The Video

Autism Before Diagnosis: Difference Without a Name

Autism did not begin in the 1940s. Autistic people have always existed.

Long before clinicians arrived with clipboards and categories, societies noticed people who moved differently, spoke differently, focused differently. Medieval accounts describe “holy fools”, changelings, reclusive artisans; people positioned somewhere between reverence and fear. These were were cultural interpretations, rather than the medically defined definitions we are familiar with in contemporary eras.

Difference was understood through morality, spirituality, superstition; not neurology. The modern mistake is assuming that without a diagnostic label, autism did not exist. The opposite is closer to the truth. Autism existed, but the meanings attached to it shifted depending on the world around it.

Even early documented cases, like Hugh Blair of Borgue in 18th-century Scotland, or Victor, the so-called “Wild Boy of Aveyron”, show us something recognisable. Not as pathology, but as difference. Diagnosis did not create autism, it created a way of talking about it.

The Birth of Autism as a Diagnosis

In the early 20th century, the word autism begins to take shape. It comes from the Greek autos, meaning “self”. However, its early use described withdrawal; something to be explained, not an identity to be claimed. Then, in the 1940s, autism became formalised through the work of Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger.

Kanner described “early infantile autism” as rare, severe, and emotionally detached. Asperger described children with intense interests and strong verbal ability; what later became known (for better or worse) as Asperger’s syndrome. There is something important to understand here; both of these models were built from the outside looking in.

They were observational.
Clinical.
Detached from lived experience.

They were shaped by the political realities of their time.

Asperger’s work, for example, was embedded in Nazi-era Vienna; a context where ideas of worth, productivity, and usefulness were not abstract concepts, but matters of life and death. So from the very beginning, autism was not just about difference. It was about value.

The Pathologising Era: When Difference Became Disorder

As autism moved into mainstream psychiatry, it became something to diagnose, treat, and correct, with that came harm. One of the most striking examples is the “refrigerator mother” theory, which claimed autism was caused by cold, unloving parenting. Families were blamed, parents were traumatised, Autistic people were misunderstood. This was not fringe thinking. It was institutional.

Then came behaviourism. The idea that behaviour could be shaped, trained, and normalised. This gave rise to interventions like ABA (Applied Behaviour Analysis) and later PBS (Positive Behaviour Support), often marketed as more “gentle”, despite being rooted in the same assumptions. Underneath these approaches is a belief:

That neurotypical behaviour is better than Autistic behaviour.
That compliance equals success.
That difference should be reduced.

This is neuronormativity in action. A system that does not ask how to support difference, rather, how to erase it.

Support Us On easyfundraising

Awareness: A Double-Edged Sword

By the 1970s, autism entered public awareness. Organisations formed, campaigns began. April became Autism Awareness Month.

On the surface, this looks like progress, however, awareness is not neutral. Many of the dominant narratives that emerged during this period were built on fear.

Autism was framed as :

Devastating.
Burdensome.
As something that ruins families.

Large organisations built campaigns around these ideas, shaping public perception for decades. When you tell the world that autism is tragedy, the consequences are real. It influences policy, shapes funding and justifies intervention. Most importantly; it silences the voices of those living the experience.

When Advocacy Causes Harm

It is important to say this clearly. Not all advocacy is good advocacy. Some of the most visible autism organisations have been widely criticised for:

Promoting cure-focused narratives.
Funding unethical or questionable research.
Excluding Autistic people from leadership.
Using fear-based fundraising.

This is not just ideological disagreement, it is about impact. Autism being framed as something to be fought made it easier to justify harmful practices. When Autistic people are excluded from conversations about autism, the result is predictable. We are spoken about, but not listened to.

Vote For Us In NDA 2026!

The Rise of Neurodiversity

In response to this, something powerful began to grow; the neurodiversity movement. Not led by institutions, rather, by Autistic people. Grounded in lived experience. Emerging from early online communities in the 1990’s, neurodiversity reframed autism as a natural variation of human experience, a form of neurological diversity.

Not something broken. Something different.

This does not deny distress, but it changes the question from:

“What’s wrong with you?”

To:

“What has happened around you?”

What environments are you navigating?
What systems are shaping your outcomes?

This is why the ecosystemic understanding I often refer to becomes essential. Distress and disability do not exist in isolation. They emergs from the interactions between bodymind, environment, and systems. Autism, in this framing, is not the problem.

The ecosystem is.

World Autism Day: Awareness Without Change?

On December 18, 2007, the United Nations declared April 2nd as World Autism Awareness Day, the first official observance took place in 2008. The aim was clear:

Improve understanding
Improve support
Improve quality of life.

Yet, much of what followed remained surface-level.

Campaigns prioritised visibility over understanding.
Symbolism was prioritised over structural change.
Awareness as a buzzword took precedence over acceptance.

“Light It Up Blue” became globally recognised, but also widely criticised by Autistic people. Visibility without representation is not progress. It is performance.

So we have to ask:

Awareness for who?
And for what purpose?

Donate To NeuroHub Community

From Awareness to Justice

There has been a shift in recent years.

From awareness, to acceptance, to something deeper; Justice. Awareness is passive, acceptance is relational, but justice is structural. Justice asks:

Are Autistic people safe?
Are we supported?
Are we listened to?
Are we able to exist as we are?

It moves beyond campaigns and into systems; education, healthcare, employment, policy. It demands change.

A Story Still Being Written

The history of autism is not finished. It is alive, shaped by language, culture, and relationships. The question is no longer just what autism is, it is becoming:

Who gets to define it?

Because if the history of autism was built without us, then the future must be built with us. We do not need more awareness. We need better stories, better systems, stronger communities.

Above all; we need to listen to Autistic people.

Call to Action

If this piece resonated with you, consider supporting the work we’re building through NeuroHub Community. This isn’t just about understanding autism, it’s about changing the conditions Autistic people live in. Real change doesn’t happen through awareness alone. It happens through connection, community, and collective action.

Check out our online neurodivergent community and our re-storying autism course to see the ways that NeuroHub Community are helping to re-write the story of autism.

NeuroHub Online Community

Re-Storying Autism Course

You're currently a free subscriber to NeuroHub Community Ltd. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Upgrade to paid

Comment

Restack

Wednesday, 1 April 2026

Call your Program Officer

Yes, you. Schedule a phone call. This is the hidden curriculum.

By Terry McGlynn • 1 Apr 2026

View in browser

The federal funding landscape is evolving rapidly. That's a kind way to put it. While the congressional allocations haven't necessarily shrunk, the purse strings are ultimately controlled by the OMB (who are doing their darndest to stifle the flow of research dollars and forfeit America's leading position in scientific discovery and higher education).

But no matter what anybody is telling you, the staff of National Science Foundation are hard at work to receive proposals, run panels, and recommend awards for funding. The rate of awards going out the door is well behind compared to previous years, and it's easy to jump to conclusions about why this is happening, but it's worth nothing that awards are still going out, panels are still being held, and program officers are ready to speak to you about proposals that you're thinking of submitting.

NSF Update through March 13, 2026 1/2
— Jeremy Berg (@jeremymberg.bsky.social) 2026-03-16T14:49:20.252Z

To be clear: Program Officers are ready to talk to you about the proposals that you'd like to submit. And they're also ready to talk to talk to you about the proposals that have gone through panel.

While this has always been true, now it is more true than ever: have an actual conversation with program officers to learn more. Send an email and asked to have a phone call.

People at research institutions who bring in lots of grant dollars know that this is the trick of the trade. If your proposal isn't funded, give a call! You can find out what's going on. While the rest of us might think that we're being too imposing or expecting too much or want to respect boundaries, the people who are thriving are taking advantage of this resource available to them.

If you'd like to know more what happened in panel beyond the reviews and the panel summary (if you get a panel summary nowadays?), or if you're in the proposal preparation stage and you're wondering what words might be verboten and how to address certain ideas, have an actual conversation with a human being who is involved in the process. Call your PO.

That's it. That's all I have to say. In these times of uncertainty, it would be folly to submit a proposal without having a conversation in advance. And it would be squandered opportunity to not have a conversation if you're not funded. You spend weeks on a proposal and a 5-minute conversation about the preparation and the outcome is a wholly reasonable thing to expect.

Comment

genderequalitygoals

Thursday, 2 April 2026