Should the Settlements Be so Vital to the Peace Process?
Putting aside the many intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are the settlements really the main reason why there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians? To accept the notion of the omnipotence of the settlements-issue vis-à-vis the peace process is to set a dangerous precedent to future conflicts in which only one side is held accountable for its actions. The Palestinians and their many Western supporters seem to have manufactured a reality where truth has become irrelevant and perceptions rule the discourse.
The constant human rights violations and the rabid anti-Semitism emanating from the Palestinian territories have become non-issues to those — mainly European and American analysts and experts — trying to provide solutions to the conflict.
Instead of demanding cultural change and reformation within the Palestinian society, these Western voices see residential buildings as the primary reason for the continuance of the conflict. It seems that those pursuing compromise, by repeating the mantra of the importance of a solution, have created a world comprised of competing narratives.
Palestinians are given a free pass on hatred that has become one of the main tenets of the forming of a Palestinian national identity. Why does the West cultivate a Palestinian narrative which is defined according to the existence and consequent actions of Israel?
The economy in the West Bank has produced unprecedented wealth in the territories, but little has changed in terms of ideas. The PA-run media is airing programs depicting Jews as sons of pigs and monkeys and recently, the seemingly moderate technocrat Saeb Erekat proclaimed that Palestinians will never accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.
One thing to be learned from this is that one’s economic conditions seem to have very little to do with one’s ideological aspirations. Improved economic conditions are seldom a gateway to liberalism.
One other “liberal” consideration: if, for “peace”, locations of residency of Jews in Judea and Samaria are to be dismantled and their residents expelled, as is the Pal. position, do not these liberals see that ultimately, in the name of a better peace, Arabs may be required to move out of Israel into this new state of “Palestine”? That way, for sure there’ll be no friction or tension. Is that what they want? Total separation? If there are to be no Jews in “Palestine”, why not no Arabs in Israel?
You see, making arabs walk through checkpoints because some of them want to blow you up is aparthied. But, not allowing any jews to live on arab land is a reasonable position.
It’s all quite simple.
Yisrael Medad,
If you make any suggestion on your run-of-the-mill lefty forum (say DailyKKKos) that a single Arab leave Palestine, be it the pre-1967 or post-1967 territories, you’ll be branded an advocate of ethnic cleansing before you can say “double standard.”
Naturally, suggestions to the opposite effect won’t receive the same treatment. Saying on a lefty forum that all Jews should leave the post-1967 territories is actually a minimum requirement for anyone who wishes to post comments on the Israel/Phakestine conflict. And saying Jews should leave the pre-1967 territories, if it is frowned upon, is frowned upon not because it is immoral, but because it is unrealistic. The Jews of the pre-1967 territories should be done the courtesy, as it were, of being allowed to stay, even though, morally speaking, they shouldn’t be anywhere in Palestine (perish these enemy thoughts!)
W. C. Fields is famously told to have asked a lady if she was willing to sleep with him for what was a lot of money in his time. She agreed, and then he asked if she was willing to do the same for a few pennies. Scandalized, she replied, “What do you think I am? A prostitute?” Fields responded, “Lady, we have already established that. We are now discussing prices.”
In the same manner, if you ask a leftist if all Jews are to leave Judea and Samaria and Gaza, he will agree enthusiastically, saying how it is only just that “Zionist colonial settlers” evacuate their stolen lands; whereas, if you ask him about Arabs of pre-1967 leaving for the new Phakestinian state, he will get outraged and ask, “Do you think I could possibly support ethnic cleansing?!” The response should be, “Commie, we have already established that. We are now discussing justifications.” Or, more to the point, the question who is the indigenous here and who the settler-colonist invader.
Let the anti-Zionists get off their high horse. A parachute will be required, naturally.
The Palestinians have never negotiated in good faith with Israel to settle the conflict peacefully. The Palestinians still dream of a one state solution, and that is the state of Palestine in place of Israel, with no Jews allowed.
This is the root of the problem and is the reason why after over forty years of Israeli control of the Disputed Territories, the conflict continues. Israeli governments have made territorial concessions including two unilateral withdrawals from vast tracts of territory, the Rabin/Arafat Oslo Accords which brought the PLO into every Palestinian city in the Territories, and of course the Sharon Disengagement from the Gaza Strip and the Northern Shomron. These incredibly huge and largely unwise territorial concessions were intended to prove to the Palestinians that Israel was serious about territorial compromise and were supposed to soften the hardline uncompromising and rejectionist Palestinian negotiating positions. Instead to Israeli horror and disbelief, they only brought suffering and death to innocent Israelis, with a murderous Palestinian terrorist war following Oslo, directed by Arafat personally and in contradiction to all his promises of peace, and uprovoked missile and terrorist attacks on Israeli civilian communities from the Palestinian controlled Gaza Strip.
Every Israeli offer of peace, including the plans offered by Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert which even included the shared Israeli Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem along with an exchange of Israeli territory with the Palestinians for the territory of the settlement blocks were met with either outright rejection by the Palestinians, totally ignored by them, or as in the case of the Ehud Barak were answered by armed Palestinian war on Israeli civilians with Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorist killers waging war on innocent Jewish civilians, men, women, and children.
Indeed, the so called Palestinian right of return, that is the “non negotiable”(their words, not mine) Palestinian plan to flood Jewish Israel with millions of supposed Palestinian refugees is nothing more or less than a plan to destroy Israel and drive out or kill of the Jewish People living here.
The Jewish settlements mean nothing to the Palestinians and never have. And if President Barack Obama had not brought them up, they would have no importance even now. Indeed if they did, they would have been at the top of the agenda for the Israeli Palestinian negotiations beginning with Oslo. In point of fact, Arafat himself agreed in the Oslo Accords that the settlements were of such minor importance that they could be dealt with at a later date.
Israelis want peace with the Palestinians and the larger Arab world so badly we have even made unwise and outright dangerous unilateral territorial concessions to the Palestinians. These concessions have directly damaged our own security and political interests while the Palestinians have only responded with suicide bomb attacks on Israeli civilians, calls for Israel’s destruction, and demands for the genocide of the Jewish Israeli people.
Not one time, never, have the Palestinians offered any compromise whatsoever and instead have used the negotiations as simply another front in their war to delegitimize, demonize, embarrass and ultimately bring forward their ugly and despicable plan to destroy Israel.
When and if the Palestinians decide to negotiate in good faith with Israel to arrive at a settlement which promises two states with secure borders, mutual recognition of each state’s legitimacy, with an ironclad agreement that the conflict is over, and that there will be no further territorial,political, diplomatic, or financial demands from either side against the other, then the Israeli Palestinian peace negotiations will bear fruit.
This is not the case now, and has not been for the past forty three years.
Unfortunately the Palestinians remain committed to the “armed struggle”, (their words,) to destroy Israel, and that failing, they remain committed to frustrating and poisoning the peace negotiations in every possible way.
When the Palestinians want peace, Israelis will be more than ready meet them more than halfway with open minds, open hands, and open hearts, but so long as the Palestinians want war, Israel will be forced to respond in kind.
A pretty straight forward analysis, Ken, yet misses some very significant points. The Palestinians are dedicated to war and push war over production, depending to a large extent for relief. Cut off the relief and force the Palestinians to produce their own living. I am reminded of Nehemiah as he rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem being armed at all times. Israel is and has been producing their own living while having to defend against the Palestinians. The Gaza expulsion underlines this. Those Jews were productive rather than belligerent.
The Palestinians despised that production and judged themselves unworthy of peace.
There is no possibility of compromise with strategy, especially when the strategy is winning. If we treat these Palestinians as the criminal outlaws they actually are we would soon have peace.
We, in America, should take heed to these lessons . Islam is not on a peaceful mission neither here nor in Israel. The people can change and we need to work to that end but the system is not going to change. We cannot work within that system.
There’s an even greater point missed in all this–by the columnist as well.
The Palestinians are not who people think they are.
The Palestinians in this conflict are the Jews. Yes, the Jews, whether they reside in Israel or will do so in the future. A Jew is an indigenous Palestinian regardless of where he or she was born.
The other side in this conflict isn’t Palestinian and never has been. The other side is Arab. Arabs are indigenous to Arabia. Elsewhere, including Palestine, they’re no more linked to the land than Alexander’s Greek troops were to Bactria, even if they ended up settling there.
The Arab nation has not only plenty, but what it has exceeds the rights of any nation. The Arabian Peninsula is what the Arab nation is entitled to. Had the Jews set up settlements there, there’d be no dispute about it being a colonial enterprise. But outside the Arabian Peninsula, the tables are turned: it’s the Arabs who are the settler-colonists.
“So all Arabs should go to Arabia, then?” No. I’m not a Zionist counterpart of Helen Thomas. But I’m saying the Arabs have no legitimate grievance regarding Palestine. They already have plenty and more than they deserve, so any Arab complaint about the indigenous Palestinians–the Jews–returning to their land constitutes the height of chutzpah.
Fact is, they know this. That’s why, many decades ago, when they realized the struggle of 22 Arab states to deprive the Jews of their one and only state couldn’t pass muster in world opinion, they invented a nation from scratch: the “Palestinian” [Arab] nation.
For the purpose of propaganda. For that only. It’s never been anything else. The “Palestinian” Arabs have nothing to make them a nation–no distinction of their own in any sense (and no, negative facts like “resistance to Israeli occupation” do not a nation make. You need positive things like a culture and suchlike).
The Jews are the only true Palestinians, and they deserve to inhabit their indigenous land, Palestine, without restriction. That is the truth.
so…are you suggesting to pursue peace negotiations while, at the same time, allowing one side to effectively incorporate land from the other side?
or are you suggesting that peace negotiations are useless at the moment, and that Israel should continue expanding in Palestinian land until the Palestinian society becomes Westernized? Are you serious?
Since the Disputed Territories were acquired by Israel as the result of a defensive war, Israel is entitled to do whatever it wishes with the land. Because Israel wants peace and believes that the exchange of parts of that territory may bring the Palestinians to an agreement, Israel has been willing to negotiate on that basis.
Tragically and in contradiction to everything Israel has done, the Palestinians still cling to their hope that they can destroy Israel and kill off the Jewish People. Thus rather than negotiate for the best deal they can get, the Palestinians demand the Disputed Territories as well as the Land of Israel too, with their insistence on their non negotiatable(their words, not mine) right of return of all the Palestinian refugees to Israel proper.
The Palestinians do not want peace, they want to destroy Israel, and thus far at least, Israel has refused to either commit national suicide or allow the Arabs to destroy her.
When the Palestinians reach the decision to compromise with Israel, then the peace process will accomplish something positive.
Very good and solid response, Ken. It takes two to make peace, only one to make conquest and the Palestinians are out for conquest. What danger would they face if the dropped all resistance against Israel? Same argument President Reagan used against the USSR at my suggestion. Rather surprised me but at Reykjavik Reagan used the thought I had mailed hardly a week earlier.
If Russia were to lay down all her arms she would be in no danger from the United States but if the United States laid down all her arms would there be peace with Russia. It caught Gorbechev off guard and he came up with perestroika which flattened the Iron curtain but our press scoffed at Reagan. Afterwards we helped Russia.
If these belligerent Palestinians would do the same I am sure Israel would teach them how to make their own living if they wished to know.
So many questions, so few answers, sdraio. Must be a challenge going through life absent cognition. Banging your head in the nearest wall a few times might prove efficacious.
you are so smart, David. please explain me how building settlements in a disputed land is not an attempt to create facts on the ground outside the negotiating table; and how can you pretend to be negotiating in good faith while you’re already taking the object of negotiations.
either you’re against negotiations and for the settlements (like Ken Besig), or you’re for negotiations and against settlements. your position that “freezing settlements is a PR issue” is really worthy of you.
No, you’re wrong.
First of all, if you were correct, then the Palestinians should also not be allowed to build anything. After all, you admit the land is legally disputed. Why let one side create “facts on the ground” and not the other? The Arabs have been building constantly during the settlement freeze.
As for settlements and negotiations being exclusive, your assumptions are completely obtuse and ahistorical.
Israel was building settlements (in America we call them cities and towns) during the past 30 years of negotiations and it was never a reason not to negotiate. This dates back to the camp david agreement with Egypt. Israel was building on Sinai up to the treaty. It didn’t stop Egypt and Israel from negotiating in good faith.
Settlements have never been an obstacle to negotiating, until the new administration made negotations contingent on Israeli concessions. So Israel bowed to Obama, froze all building for 10 months, and it took 9 months for the other side to even come to the table.
If anything, resumed building in settlements will actually get the Arabs to negotiate since the longer they refuse to negotiate, the more they stand to lose by being obtuse.
To put all this into perspective, the “settlements” sit on 2% of the disputed land, and only 8% of the entire west bank is developed. There is plenty of room there for the Arabs, Jews, and their grandchildren to share. Unless you’re a racist obsessed with making Israel judenrein.
Do you think he would offer to return everything west of the original Louisiana Terratory to Mexico over the objections of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona since they’ve already occupied california. Maybe he could stand on the border and direct the transfer. Or stfu.
Jay, I can support and agree with both you and Adina Kutnicki. This land was given to Abraham and his seed through Issac, not Ismael. Though unbelief the Jews have been strangers and vagabonds for a long season but they have never been abandoned. The Palestinian is not aware that our God is still in control. I don’t understand all I know about this but…..
~ Ro 8:31 ¶ What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?~
….now the Palestinians are judging themselves as they attempt to judge Israel. There is no accusation against Israel that they have not performed against Israel, therefore their own works will judge them. As in the days of Noah …
~ Ge 6:11 ¶ The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.~
…. but Noah was not violent. Then we have Lot and Sodom so the Palestinians should take heed.
sdraio, if I understand you correctly, only the Arabs should be permitted to create facts on the ground by building housing and villages. Which they have been doing, at a rate that seems never to be discussed. And if I also understand you correctly, no Jew should be allowed to buy, build on or live on any land in the disputed territory, all of which should simply be ceded to the Arabs without negotiation so that they can establish more zones where Jews cannot safely go, from which to attack Israel.
Sdraio said, “please explain me how building settlements in a disputed land is not an attempt to create facts on the ground outside the negotiating table”
1) Thus, it behooves the Palestinians to come quickly to agreement to obtain the most land from Israel
2) Sdraio, it was a 10-month freeze. In the tenth month of that settlement freeze, Obama dragged the Palestinians kicking and screaming to the table. Nothing at all had happened during the first nine months
3) Sdraio, close your eyes gently and place yourself in the Palestinian position. If you see in your mind’s eye that their hope is for ’67 borders or all of Israel, then the settlement projects should not only be continued, but the land should be annexed to Israel proper, since they have made it a zero-sum game for the Jews. If their “honor” is too important to compromise for the sake of mutual benefit, then the game should be played like any other war.
Israel is not required to negotiate with the “Palestinians” to start with since the territories were acquired in a defensive war, so, in fact Israel has already made a huge concession by appearing at the negotiating table. The settlements should continue and as long as the “Palestinians” are not committed to peace the amount of land they can get grows smaller.
My opinion is that the peace talks should be frozen until the “Palestinians” change their charter to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, change their propaganda machine and stop the hate messages against Israel and Jews on TV, radio and schools, eradicate Hamas and all other terror groups, give up the right of return and leave Jerusalem to her rightful owners – the Jews.
Put that idea on your hat and take it to Mecca. Don’t worry about losing the hat. You wont need it for a return trip. If you’re lucky and your head rolls right you may be able to see your body at the source of Israel’s problem and know that your strategy was futile. Sorry, only one try per infidel.
Sorry but I’m probably not as smart as you are and I really don’t know what it is that you are trying to say.
I think he was saying that the Pals won’t ever moderate. He said it in a pretty colorful way, though.
Freezing settlements is mainly a PR issue. Pure symbolism. And Israeli idealists are right to challenge it.
Underlying the support of a freeze is the unspoken notion that Arab lands must be Judenrein. Let’s say final status talks sometime in the distant future award sovereignty of the territories to the Arabs. Are Jews forbidden to live there? Segregation for me, integration for thee–the Arab formula for Jews, Hindus and Christians. And liberals around the world support it!
You ask,
Why does the West cultivate a Palestinian narrative which is defined according to the existence and consequent actions of Israel?,
because that way they can keep grinding away without dirtying their hands.
Genocidal Jew hatred is the basis for the PA state, a state built upon the annihilation of another. This is a fact, regardless of how others twist their narrative.
That being said,NOWHERE in the civilized world is it acceptable to throw Jews out of their homes, simply because they are Jews.The fact that Jews have lived on their land longer than ANY people in the world matters not a whit to Jew haters.The fact that Israel is supposed to open its historical land to a 20% Arab population, is an article of faith, yet the PA state is allowed to be Judenrein.
Isn’t anti-semitism just grand?
To quote our friend Terry, we need a new political system, Adina. It’s not forthcoming. I am tired of waiting for the moderators to send me your email, so here is mine: spinzit3@gmail.com. Regards.
Some of Israel’s principle strategic and negotiation errors possibly are:
1) A chronic inability to declare one’s rights, including a claim to the ‘West Bank’;
2) A habit of showing all one’s cards on the table in the hopes that this will provoke Arab generosity and win brownie points from foreign govt’s and public opinion;
3) A chronic distaste for winning, wars and violence, accompanied by an escapist mind-set that seems to incorporate awareness of the lure of the Diaspora and an expectation that the Gentiles ‘will beat us upside the head’ if we dare to consider winning;
4) A lousy demographic and geographic setup vis-a-vis the Arab world as a whole that incites the mindset described in 3);
5) A Left-oriented establishment that reacts wildly to expressions of actual Jewish nationalism and suppresses right-wing opinion habitually and successfully, thus demoralizing right-wing organizing;
6) the habit of Jews to be very opinionated especially in the presence of other Jews, a trait that makes listening difficult and cooperation towards a common, sane goal also hard.
Obviously, the basic precepts of the ‘peace process’ are bogus in any modestly sane framework. Thus they endure. And here I would add another important factor in all this, though it’s not a Jewish deficit per se (though it contributes to the demoralization): the fact that the entire Muslim world and much or most of the non-Jewish world beyond the Ummah is constantly engaged in, or predicated upon, various forms of Replacement Theology (Judaism is considered illegitimate, so how could Jewish settlements or Israel actually be legit); and of course there is the knee-jerk anti-Semitism that automatically classifies ‘Jewish expansion’ as something gnarly and unpleasant.
jews, especially iraelis, are not at all averse to winning and they have. each time the arab mongoloids pursue war. the united states is the one who puppeteers the exit “strategies”. it is always counter to israel’s best interests.
israel, however, is not north korea. it is a democratic, thriving, western nation state that is very much part of the world economy and trade.
as far as what cards are being shown, i wouldn’t even get into that since only a yiddisha kup should know that.
Well, judy, I think we are both right in the sense that what has always happened is ‘win militarily and then give away the farm after.’ Part of this is US pressure, absolutely, but what helps create the opening is a lack of conviction in terms of belief and principle (from the ‘elites’ in Israel, not so much the people). For instance, we have the photo of the paratroopers at the Western Wall at the end of the fighting in ’67; we don’t see the photo of Dayan ordering the Israeli flag to be taken down from the Temple Mount. So I do see an establishment that wanted to create a ‘Hebrew state’ but threw out approximately half the Jewish bathwater with the new Israeli baby – and continues to do so. Fortunately, the Arabs are dumb and the Israeli people are tolerant of their leaders, so they keep sacrificing and joining tough units, etc. On the economics, you are absolutely right.
Cards? What cards….
I recently attended a lecture by Professor Mitchell Bard involving his book THE ARAB LOBBY. It goes a long way to explain the Palestinian narrative. It’s a good read and I recommend it.
If they’re no big deal, then why doesn’t israel stop building them?
It’s about land, significant sites and facts on the ground. As much as I don’t personally think israel has a single, coordinated policy on anything (let’s face it, it’s the wild west over there – governing israel must be like riding a bucking bull), it does seem to the sensible observers that it is intent on gradually taking over the rest of jerusalem and shoving out anyone without israeli citizenship. The arabs know that and the rest of the world can see it. Unfortunately, the arab insurgents are also stupid enough to be guaranteed of doing something idiotic and violent every time israel fences off another piece of east jerusalem. It’s no surprise that israel lifted the “freeze” when it did (not that there was any actual freeze – the building continued regardless, and approvals were simply brought forward). It was a demonstration of who has the upper hand, and a poke in the eye to hamas et al to try to get them to blow something up give israel an excuse to kaibosh the whole process (understandably, of course). It didn’t work. That’s gotta burn – so what now?
Trying to make out that the dispute isn’t over land is just silly. It’s obviously over land. It’s always been about land.
I sincerely do believe that israel wants peace. Unfortunately, a big chunk of israel wants the arabs gone even more. They spoil the view. I’ve heard a settler say as much.
And leave out the anti-semite garbage. That’s past its use-by date now. It’s meaningless. This is about peace and security for millions of people on both sides.
Matthew,
“I sincerely do believe that israel wants peace. Unfortunately, a big chunk of israel wants the arabs gone even more.”
For nearly 130 years*, Israel’s enemies have been doing their darnedest to convince us that the former can be achieved only by the latter. (No, I’m not calling for genocide; mass expulsion, as with the Sudetenland Germans after WWII, is the ideal, non-genocidal solution.)
* This conflict began in 1882; not in 1967, not even in 1948. It began when Jews embarked on setting up a sovereign state of their own instead of consenting to live under the apartheid regime of dhimmitude. The Muslims would have none of this.
“No, I’m not calling for genocide;”
Just ethnic cleansing, then?
“mass expulsion, as with the Sudetenland Germans after WWII, is the ideal, non-genocidal solution.”
Just to settled on some details, who exactly are you proposing to expel? Do you include arabs living within the 1967 borders of israel? Including israeli citizens? You know – the ones who’ve been paying taxes and voting? Or do you just think the west bank should be cleared of arabs? How about gaza? Are you going to allow TV cameras while you’re driving all these people out at gunpoint? On what basis do you think these people should be deprived of their property, and are you intending to pay compensation? Do you think arabs should have any rights at all? By chance, have you ever come across the following sentence:
You don’t think that applies to arabs? Interesting. Are there any other founding documents you want to shred?
“This conflict began in 1882; not in 1967, not even in 1948. It began when Jews embarked on setting up a sovereign state of their own instead of consenting to live under the apartheid regime of dhimmitude. The Muslims would have none of this.”
I’m not sure what version of history you’ve been subscribing to, but by 1882 the “dhimmitude” wasn’t being handed out by arabs. The arab world didn’t have a heck of a lot of power over anything at that time. The ottoman empire was broke, and trying not to collapse. The arab world was fractured and chaotic. At the end of the 19th century, arabs were the LEAST of the jews’ problems.
Jews were trying to emigrate to israel primarily from europe, russia and from their colonies. The “dhimmitude” you’re trying to conflate with the arab/israeli conflict was persecution primarily at the hands and laws of european and russian christians.
Sure, the locals in palestine weren’t happy about all those foreigners arriving, but sheesh – that’s hardly a unique phenomenon. Look at the fuss over muslims living in the US now. The difference with the jews moving to palestine is that they really DID intend to take over.
“Just ethnic cleansing, then?”
Yes. Not only is that not genocide, it’s often the only way to prevent genocide. The idea that two nations can live on the same land in peace has failed. We can see this everywhere.
“Just to settled on some details, who exactly are you proposing to expel?”
Any Arab who refuses to accept Israel as the sovereign state of the Jews.
“Do you include arabs living within the 1967 borders of israel? Including israeli citizens? You know – the ones who’ve been paying taxes and voting?”
And engaging in sedition against the Jewish State at least since Land Day 1976.
“Or do you just think the west bank should be cleared of arabs? How about gaza?”
Pre-1967 Israel, Judea and Samaria (what the anti-Zionist revisionists term “West Bank”) and Gaza.
“Are you going to allow TV cameras while you’re driving all these people out at gunpoint?”
No. No Marxist news agency will be allowed to operate in the Jewish State. Marxism, being anti-Zionist by nature, will be outlawed.
“On what basis do you think these people should be deprived of their property,”
On the basis that this isn’t their property. See my post above (the reply to “Whit”): On the basis that the Jews are the indigenous Palestinians, while Arabs are settler-colonist invaders.
“Do you think arabs should have any rights at all?”
They can do anything they wish on their own indigenous land–the Arabian Peninsula. In Palestine, the indigenous Palestinians–the Jews–are the sovereigns.
“Are there any other founding documents you want to shred?”
The US Constitution isn’t a founding document to me. My Constitution is the Torah, and the Torah agrees–actually exhorts–the course of action I advocate.
“The arab world didn’t have a heck of a lot of power over anything at that time.”
But the Arab/Muslim world kept, and keeps to this day, to the dhimmi ideal, and that’s what brought it to resist the return of the indigenous Palestinians (the Jews) to their land.
“Jews were trying to emigrate to israel primarily from europe, russia and from their colonies.”
The motive is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that the Arabs had no right to obstruct the Jews from returning to Palestine. And your attempt to portray Zionism as a White European Colonialist Movement is duly noted.
“Sure, the locals in palestine weren’t happy about all those foreigners arriving,”
Jews aren’t foreigners in Palestine. By nature, every Jew is a Palestinian. It’s the Arabs who are foreigners in Palestine, no matter how many generations they’ve been here.
“The difference with the jews moving to palestine is that they really DID intend to take over.”
That should be, “Take back what’s theirs.” What never belong to the Arabs, so they have no right to complain. The Arabs/Muslims have absolutely no legitimate grievance in this conflict.
Anti-Zionism is the denial of the Jewish connection to Palestine. It is worse than Holocaust Denial, for it denies not 70 but 3000 years’ worth of history.
I’m not quite sure where to start with that. If you tried to apply that sort of reasoning to any other ethnic dispute, you’d be called a racist.
But let’s try. By your reasoning, the united states should go back to the indians and all europeans should be forced out. Am I right? If not, explain how that’s different. Thanks.
“leave out the antiSemite garbage…”
Don’t like being called an antiSemite,huh? Oooh, pouty!
How about Jew-hater?
Israel is building and has a right to build on its own land.East Jerusalem is Israeli. Gaza was israeli but Israeli gave it to the thugs. Stupid.
the “Wets Bank” otherwiese known as Judea and Shomron, is Israeli.
Jordan and Egypt invaded and took these territories in the 1948 war, and they were allotterd to israel at the time. That makes them invaders and thieves.
The entire Arab Islamic world is a bunch of cultural appropriators and they’re invading every Western country and changing it to suit themselves, plus claiming it as Allah’s. Israel is just the most prominent target becauser Islam hates Jews more than Christians although if you’ll notice there are tons of Christians being happily massacred and forcibly converted by Muslims all around the world.
I don’t actually mind Muslims, you understand. I just hate Sharia law.
Footnote. That “antiSemite” comment of yours was transparent garbage. Don’t be a smart ass and learn some history and you might get some respect.
“Don’t like being called an antiSemite,huh? Oooh, pouty!”
Actually, I don’t much care. The term has been watered down so much that it basically means “I disagree with you”. It’s just annoying and weak.
“How about Jew-hater?”
That’s just incorrect. And irrelevant to anything I wrote, and indicative of the legitimacy of your arguments. If I call you a Nazi – does that mean anything? I didn’t think so.
“Israel is building and has a right to build on its own land.East Jerusalem is Israeli. Gaza was israeli but Israeli gave it to the thugs. Stupid.”
That’s sort of begging the question. You’re claiming it’s israel. Nobody but israel agrees with you. Just saying it doesn’t make it true.
“the “Wets Bank” otherwiese known as Judea and Shomron, is Israeli.”
Not according to the 1947 partition, no.
“Jordan and Egypt invaded and took these territories in the 1948 war, and they were allotterd to israel at the time. That makes them invaders and thieves.”
There’s a lot of that going around
“The entire Arab Islamic world is a bunch of cultural appropriators”
Jeeze – who isn’t? Ever studied the history of the english language? You’d be surprised. All of the most successful cultures have been appropriators. Heck – even the romans were incredible at just adopting whatever was going around.
“and they’re invading every Western country and changing it to suit themselves, plus claiming it as Allah’s”
No, not really.
“Israel is just the most prominent target becauser Islam hates Jews more than Christians”
Actually, it’s because 3+ million arabs are living there, inside walls, without proper self-determination. Or didn’t you notice that bit?
“although if you’ll notice there are tons of Christians being happily massacred and forcibly converted by Muslims all around the world.”
No there aren’t. Unless “tons” is a lot smaller than you think.
“I don’t actually mind Muslims, you understand. I just hate Sharia law.”
It doesn’t sound like that to me. And I very much doubt you’re affected by anything resembling sharia law.
“Footnote. That “antiSemite” comment of yours was transparent garbage. Don’t be a smart ass and learn some history and you might get some respect.”
Hmm.
I don’t see either side ever agreeing to allow the settlements not to belong to Israel. This being the case, it is hard to see them as anything else than an effort to sabotage the idea of a two-state solution. But what is the alternative to a two-state solution?
Problem is Israel is trying to make peace with the wrong people. There is literally no benefit in accepting a peace deal for Abbas and co, they have it nice and comfy with the West and the other Islamic countries all chipping in. Abbas doesn’t need to build an economy, the Faekestinians are living off hand-outs! If peace was to be declared then he’d have to get down to the hard work of building a state that could stand on it’s own two feet – what a Nakbah for him and his chums that would be! No, until the massive amounts of aid stop flowing into the Falestinian mnisters’ bank accounts there is no incentive for them to make peace. If Abbas wants to demand a settlements freeze then I don’t see why the West can’t impose an aid freeze to make the Fakestinians a bit more eager to negotiate
Actually, things are going a bit better in the west bank than you might think. Maybe it’s due to the wall, maybe it’s due to all the more violent nuts tunneling their way to gaza to join in the turkey-shoot, but it’s probably due to fatah getting its act together, and the US and jordan helping them sort out their internal security arrangements.
I can actually see why the west bank could benefit from a peace deal. If things keep going the way they are, they might actually be in danger of being able to stand on their own two feet.
“The Palestinians and their many Western supporters seem to have manufactured a reality where truth has become irrelevant and perceptions”
Well, duh!! It’s in the EuroArab Dialogue!
The EU gets cheap oil, access to Arab/North african Markets.
The Arabs get Wetsren technical aid, European hatred of Israel, cultural parroting of Islamic Jew-hatred and Muslims getting a free pass into EU societies with the same rights as EU citizens. And of course, the foregrounding of the Palestinian “narrative” which is just the cultural appropriation of Israel’s Jewish nature.
Can we please stop buying into this “Palestinians” nonsense?
It’s the Arab world trying to smother Israel and the Pali Arabs are just the figurehead. they are a bunch of Arabs in an Arab world being used as a bullet to Israel’s heart.
“…are you suggesting to pursue peace negotiations while, at the same time, allowing one side to effectively incorporate land from the other side”
You’re absolutely correct. Chuck out the Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Shomron, and in East Jerusalem. Both these territories were invaded, taken over and rendered Judenrein by Jordan in 1948.
The Palis are occupying Jewish land.
This is not about land. It’s not about settlements. It’s not about a “two state solution”. It’s not about dividing Jerusalem. There is only one issue at hand in the Middle East between the Arabs and the Jews and it’s pretty simple. The Arabs refuse to accept the right of the Jews to have a national homeland in the Middle East. Period. They then go one step further and state over and over they want to see the destruction of Israel and the death of all the Jews. So where is the problem with defining the issue? The Arabs will never negotiate in good faith as long as the agenda item that drives them is the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews. Israel should and must continue to build new housing. Scratch that annoying itch enough and it’s going to get infected. Then maybe we can get the infection out.
Matthew,
“If you tried to apply that sort of reasoning to any other ethnic dispute, you’d be called a racist.”
Just a few posts above this, you asked people to “leave out the anti-semite garbage.” Yet you have no problem using the race card.
My ideas are not racist, they’re common-sense. But the Left’s use of the race card to cover anything outside the multicultural ideal means I inevitably get tarred with this brush.
We see how everywhere, from Belgium to Rwanda, the multicultural* idea of having various nations living under the same political roof has failed, sometimes in a relatively benign way, more often catastrophically. This idea, pursued for the sake of it, can cause and has caused enormous grief and bloodshed. It is best to let go of what has been tried and proven not to work.
I believe in the idea of the State As Its Nation’s Castle. Ethnic exclusivism is something I think is good for every nation, not just my own, though naturally I’m concerned only with my own nation. With each nation in its enclosed indigenous space, granting citizenship only to its members, the atrocities resulting from multiculturalism can be prevented.
The Arabs need to be booted out of the indigenous Palestinian (=Jewish) territories, because otherwise the ending would be the same as in Rwanda. The Arabs cannot complain of dispossession, because they already possess territories well beyond their entitlement (the Arabian Peninsula).
“By your reasoning, the united states should go back to the indians and all europeans should be forced out. Am I right?”
The United States is none of my business. My comments on various forums have one thing in common: they are responses to anti-Zionist opinions. I do not poke my nose in affairs that do not concern me.
* Not “multiracial.” Multiracial societies can work if there strong enough a cultural or ideological unity to cement the members. Multiculturalism can never work.
“Just a few posts above this, you asked people to “leave out the anti-semite garbage.” Yet you have no problem using the race card.”
And you ignored me. Fair is fair.
“My ideas are not racist, they’re common-sense.”
Hmm.
“But the Left’s use of the race card to cover anything outside the multicultural ideal means I inevitably get tarred with this brush.”
Not at all. Your proposal says that one group of people has an unassailable claim to chunks of land currently inhabited by other people, purely on the basis of identification with a group that lived there 2 millenia ago. My position is that I want to see the nonsense end, and peace and security created for the millions of people who’re living right where they are, right now. I don’t care if they’re arab, polish, russian, morroccan, muslim, jewish, christian or rastafarian. You, apparently, do. That’s the difference. I don’t believe that’s an “anti-semitic” position. Just end the nonsense on both sides, is what I’m saying.
On the other hand, when somebody starts talking about one group’s mythical connections with a piece of land that can trump a couple of thousand years of history, and which allow them to run roughshod over the lives and wellbeing of millions of people who happen to be living there now, I’m happy to call that racist. You want to take their stuff without compensation, then give it to another group of people entirely on the basis of your prefered “ethnicity”. You don’t think that’s racist? No? Why not – because god said it was ok? Like I said – if any OTHER group of people tried claiming something like that, they’d be howled down for it. If you feel like engaging with that argument, please do.
“We see how everywhere, from Belgium to Rwanda, the multicultural* idea of having various nations living under the same political roof has failed”
Uh-huh. And we can see from places like the USA, australia and the UK that it can work quite well.
“I believe in the idea of the State As Its Nation’s Castle”
It was tried after WWI. It was a disaster.
“Ethnic exclusivism is something I think is good for every nation, not just my own”
Ethnic, eh? So … what to do with beta israelis, then?
“With each nation in its enclosed indigenous space, granting citizenship only to its members, the atrocities resulting from multiculturalism can be prevented.”
Actually, history shows that your proposal guarantees it.
“The Arabs need to be booted out of the indigenous Palestinian (=Jewish) territories, because otherwise the ending would be the same as in Rwanda.”
But … your proposal is trying to achieve the same THING as rwanda.
“The Arabs cannot complain of dispossession, because they already possess territories well beyond their entitlement (the Arabian Peninsula).”
When – those arabs personally? Well, why didn’t you say so? Not a problem then. All 3+ million israeli arabs can go live in their OTHER houses – the ones they own in yemen and dubai and wotnot. Simple. No?
“My comments on various forums have one thing in common: they are responses to anti-Zionist opinions. I do not poke my nose in affairs that do not concern me.”
I think most of your post just did that. You’re proposing a couple of quite distinct general principles to justify yout position. They’re either principles or they’re not. Either a mythical historical connection trumps modern-day property rights or it doesn’t. Either multiculturalism leads to annihlation or it doesn’t. Which is it?
“purely on the basis of identification with a group that lived there 2 millenia ago”
On that basis and on the basis that that group is the only one with a rooted connection to that land. Jews are the only ones who can truly call themselves Palestinians. Arabs aren’t Palestinians, no matter how much they try to present themselves as such. I’ll come back to that point later.
“My position is that I want to see the nonsense end, and peace and security created for the millions of people who’re living right where they are, right now.”
Then your position, since you seem to hold only Israel and Zionism to your standard, is a pipe-dream. You think I’m an extremist? On the Arab/Muslim side, the position is far more extreme–unabashed calls for genocide–and it’s held by the majority. It’s them you should address, not me and my like. Especially since my position concerns only a small region on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, while theirs concerns the entire globe.
“one group’s mythical connections with a piece of land”
I just knew the word “mythical” would figure into this somewhere.
I can give you reasons outside my own beliefs. I can give you the Hebrew language, and the Jewish lunisolar calendar, the multitude of Jewish requirements that this material and that fruit be grown in Palestine and in no other place, not to mention the 3,000 years of unbroken Jewish history in this land. Concrete, objective reasons.
What can the Arabs give you? The Arab language is from Arabia. They use either the Gregorian or the Islamic calendar, neither of which has any connection to Palestine. They have nothing to tie them to this land, not just historically but here and now.
But I have no doubt you’re going to dismiss these truths as irrelevant to “peace and security created for the millions of people who’re living right where they are.” Can’t let good reasons get in the way of holding Israel to an impossible standard.
“that can trump a couple of thousand years of history”
And trumping three thousand years of Jewish history is all OK with you?! Hypocrite!
“and which allow them to run roughshod over the lives and wellbeing of millions of people who happen to be living there now”
Good description of the Arab imperialists’ aims regarding the Jews of Palestine.
“Uh-huh. And we can see from places like the USA, australia and the UK that it can work quite well.”
The U.S.A. is multiracial, not multicultural. It’s worked fairly well for nearly sixty years or so, barring the Marxists’ attempts to sabotage it by pitting one racial group against the other for their nefarious ends.
Australia and the U.K. aren’t enjoying multiculturalism very much, especially not the latter. Cronulla and the Islamization of Britain are something they’d like to talk with you about whenever you mention the benefits of multiculturalism.
“It was tried after WWI. It was a disaster.”
No. No! That’s a common, Marxism-educated mistake. Nazism wasn’t just nationalism, it was imperialism. The Nazis didn’t think just Germany should belong to the Germans, they thought all the world should belong to the Germans. A crucial difference.
Imperialism: the whole world belongs to a particular nation (the Germans) or adherents of an ideology (the Marxists) or religionists (the Muslims).
Multiculturalism: a nation shouldn’t expect the state to offer it any protection. A nation isn’t entitled to a state of its own even on its indigenous lands. (Britain as the prime example).
Between these two extremes, both of which have had catastrophic results, stands my proposal. Each nation enclosed in its own land, neither encroaching nor encroached upon.
“Actually, history shows that your proposal guarantees it. … But … your proposal is trying to achieve the same THING as rwanda.”
The above two quotes stem from your misunderstanding of the difference between imperialism and sane nationalism, so I already addressed them.
Finally, I wish to make it clear that my position on the right of the Jews to a sovereign state in Palestine is axiomatic. It’s not Zionism and myself on trial, it’s anti-Zionism and its advocates. The reasons I offered you (in my third response, above) are a courtesy, not an obligation on my part. Anti-Zionism only cloaks itself in the mantle of reason, peace, security and justice; it has nothing to do with any of them. Winning or losing a debate on Zionism on an online forum is immaterial; what matters is that a government in Israel shall rise that will outlaw anti-Zionism, and then this sterile discussion will be over.
This discussion is over. In fact, it never even started. This topic (of the Middle East Conflict) is not amenable to reasoned debate.
I’m a Zionist, but the Israeli’s building homes on Palestinian territory just hurts their cause. It ruins their image and looks too blatantly like imperialism and land stealing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m entirely aware of the absurd double standard where muslim arabs are allowed to build and own homes within Israel but not a single Jew is a allowed to live on Palestinian lands. But I still think settlements are ultimately unproductive. The leftists and islamists are constantly looking for reasons to demonize and blast Israel. Why give them easy ammo? Besides, we all knows those homes will just have to be abandoned some day in some bogus “peace” agreement – just like with the homes built in Gaza. You’re also causing a lot of misery for the Israeli families who have to be uprooted. Israel is at a real risk of losing their only real and loyal supporters – right-wing Americans. Even right-wing Americans will start to think less and less of Israel if Israel makes it too easy for the international media to demonize them. Be smart and way the pros and cons of settlements more wisely.
“I’m a Zionist, but the Israeli’s building homes on Palestinian territory just hurts their cause.”
If you believe Judea, Samaria and Gaza are “Palestinian territory,” then you’re no Zionist. A Zionist rejects the Phakestinian Nation fraud and the idea that the Land of Israel (including Judea, Samaria and Gaza) belongs to any nation but the Jewish nation.
“It ruins their image”
Israel’s image has been on a downward slide, not since 1967, but since the signing of the Oslo Capitulation Accords in 1993. You know why that is? Because, by signing those accords, the Jewish State gave official sanction to the Phakestinian Nation fraud.
“The leftists and islamists are constantly looking for reasons to demonize and blast Israel. Why give them easy ammo?”
They’ll find such reasons no matter whether the ammo is easy or hard. The best course of action is to deprive them of ammo completely, by outlawing the operation of any and all news agencies in Israel that have not proved themselves to be pro-Zionist. The Marxists have abused freedom of the press far too long.
“Besides, we all knows those homes will just have to be abandoned some day in some bogus “peace” agreement – just like with the homes built in Gaza. You’re also causing a lot of misery for the Israeli families who have to be uprooted.”
Not if a true Zionist, Jewish government arises. Your attitude is defeatist and galut-ish, as if we were still living unarmed, defenseless in a Moroccan or Iraqi mellah or Eastern European stetl.
“Israel is at a real risk of losing their only real and loyal supporters – right-wing Americans.”
Israel’s only real and trustworthy supporter is HaShem. And don’t give me that “Where was God in the Holocaust?” stuff – HaShem is above all criticism!
“Even right-wing Americans will start to think less and less of Israel if Israel makes it too easy for the international media to demonize them.”
If the international Marxist media can sway them, then they’re not reliable to begin with. The fact is, right-wing Americans are disappointed by the concessions and capitulations we keep making toward the Arab imperialists.
“Be smart and way the pros and cons of settlements more wisely.”
We’ve been smart for too long. It’s time to be right as well. In the Middle East, if you aren’t right then you aren’t smart either.
“The Marxists have abused freedom of the press far too long”
You really are something.
“This discussion is over”
Like heck.
“This topic (of the Middle East Conflict) is not amenable to reasoned debate.”
I think I’m doing ok. I’m not the one appealing to exceptionalist “axioms” that only apply to one group, then ducking around the logical consequences.
“On that basis and on the basis that that group is the only one with a rooted connection to that land.”
A few questions:
(1) Exactly which land? If you’re claiming ancient israel and judah, then you’ve got no claim on gaza. That was philistine terroritory. Likewise everything south of dimona. I assume your claim will eventually extend eastwards into jordan as well?
(2) Exactly which group? Israel wasn’t the only group living in the boundaries of modern-day palestine. What about the canaanites? If I claim to be a canaanite can I move in? You want to focus on one historical era (one which happens to be well-documented, absolutely) to the exclusion of whatever went before or since.
(3) Who exactly is IN that group? Are you? Are you descended by birth? Even if you ARE directly descended (which is probably not likely) you can’t prove it. You CLAIM to belong to that group because you identify with its modern-day equivalent. You believe (more or less) what they did back then, therefore you think you have an unassailable right to claim the land they once inhabited (plus a bit extra). That’s what I mean when I say “mythical”. I’m not disputing the archeological record.
“Jews are the only ones who can truly call themselves Palestinians. Arabs aren’t Palestinians, no matter how much they try to present themselves as such.”
Americans are people born in america. Australians are people born in australia. The british are people who’re born in britain. That rule tends to apply right across the democratic world. I think it’s a good rule.
“But I have no doubt you’re going to dismiss these truths as irrelevant”
They’re no different to the justifications given by the likes of milosevic. He came up with a history that said group A deserved to take the stuff that group B had then chuck them out. He (and you) completely ignored the rights of the people on the downside. You know – that stuff jefferson wrote about.
“to “peace and security created for the millions of people who’re living right where they are.” Can’t let good reasons get in the way of holding Israel to an impossible standard.”
Not at all. The muslim world needs to seriously get a grip and pull its head in. And the the nuts living in the two arab bits of palestine need to be brought to book and taken out of action. But … israel needs to stop trying to take other people’s land. That is what this thread is about (check the title). Is that REALLY an impossible standard?
“And trumping three thousand years of Jewish history is all OK with you?! Hypocrite!”
Does that include the 2000 years when the land was inhabited by other people, or not? I think you meant to say 1000 (and a bit) years of history that more or less ended just under 1900 years before modern-day israel. The land was muslim for just as long (in between invasions of christianity)
“Good description of the Arab imperialists’ aims regarding the Jews of Palestine.”
Agreed. But there’s a difference. The arabs aren’t actually DOING it, and they never will as long as the world won’t let them. But Israel IS doing it. See the problem?
“The U.S.A. is multiracial, not multicultural.”
So … you’re saying the amish are culturally indistinguishable from mormons, new orleans africans, LA hispanics or new york jews. Nice try. Multiracial, my butt – america is multicultural, in fact if not in policy.
“It’s worked fairly well for nearly sixty years or so, barring the Marxists’ attempts to sabotage it by pitting one racial group against the other …”
I think you meant to say “barring those pesky slave descendents demanding their rights”.
“Australia and the U.K. aren’t enjoying multiculturalism very much, especially not the latter.”
Hmm. Interesting. I’m actually sitting in australia right now, and I can assure you you’re wrong. Cronulla was a whipped-up event promoted by various talkback radio stations looking for ratings, egging on adolescent morons to head to the beach for a bit of racist biff and strutting. That was an embarrassing day, absolutely. But not for me – for the idiots who pranced around with stupid slogans on their chests. Most australians are getting very sick of race-baiters. But it is still profitable for a few who like to pander to them.
“”No. No! That’s a common, Marxism-educated mistake. Nazism wasn’t just nationalism, it was imperialism.”
No, I’m talking about the nationalist principle applied at the paris peace conference in 1919. They attempted to redraw europe along “national” lines. It didn’t work.
“Multiculturalism: … A nation isn’t entitled to a state of its own even on its indigenous lands …”
You’re confusing nation with ethnicity.
“… Each nation enclosed in its own land, neither encroaching nor encroached upon.”
But your nation just happens to be allowed to expand its borders at the expense of somebody else. How is that not “encroaching”?
“Finally, I wish to make it clear that my position on the right of the Jews to a sovereign state in Palestine is axiomatic.”
I agree with that position, although I don’t regard it as axiomatic. I support israel because it’s there. It’s a fact on the ground. 6 million or so people live there, successfully and (basically) peacefully, in a stable democracy. I’m even basically ok with the “jewish state” aspect. The justification for its creation was sound. It was (rightly) recognised by the world. I have absolutely no beef with israel existing within its current borders. I want israel to stop trying to expand them on the sly, though, because 3 million or so arabs ALSO have a right to live within their own borders. So KNOCK IT OFF.
Hey. ZT. You’ve gone very quiet.