The Continuing Bad Advice of Thomas Friedman: Bad for the United States and for Israel
On Christmas Day, Tom Friedman gave his readers what may possibly be his worst columns ever (having written so many bad columns, this is of course a judgment call). Here he joins the less influential John B. Judis of The New Republic in defending the status of Chuck Hagel as the leading nominee for the position of secretary of Defense.
Like Judis, Friedman argues that it is precisely because Hagel’s views are not “mainstream” that he would be the perfect secretary of Defense. He is upset that Hagel has been “smeared as an Israel-hater at best and an anti-Semite at worst.” He buys the line of the Obama administration that Hagel is “committed to Israel’s survival” but is to be praised because he, like Friedman himself, knows what is best for Israel — a besieged nation trying to defend its right to exist in a world composed of implacable enemies. Thus, Friedman writes, Hagel is to be praised for arguing that favoring Israel’s survival does not mean “going along with Israel’s self-destructive drift into settling the West Bank and obviating a two-state solution.”
Let us pause to dissect the above paragraph. Israel, in Friedman’s eyes, is the nation that is doing all it can to stop a two-state solution.
This, of course, is his first major error. Prime Minister Netanyahu has reversed the course of previous Israeli leaders in publicly supporting that goal. What really irks Friedman, however, is Netanyahu’s clear-sighted realization that the Palestinian leadership has been consistently intransigent from 1948 on in proclaiming its lifelong opposition to any agreement that recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. In the eyes of its leaders, from those of Fatah to the so-called worse extremists of Hamas, all of Israel is a settlement that must eventually return to Palestinian Arab control. A one-state solution, with an Arab majority eliminating a Jewish nation and creating a subordinate Jewish population.
As David Horovitz explains today in The Times of Israel:
Far from seeking to avoid talks with Abbas [another Friedman charge] Netanyahu has repeatedly shown a desire to re-engage — and … this is recognized everywhere from Amman to Washington. The problem isn’t Netanyahu, it’s Abbas …The PA president wants a state all right, but he doesn’t want to make peace with Israel — hence his material breach of the bilateral process and his scamper to endorsement by the UN General Assembly.
Horovitz acknowledges that the announcement of the new settlements in the E1 corridor is a “unilateral Israeli response” to Abbas’ policy, and that Israel needs to show “it does not accept the purported new ‘legitimacy’ of ‘Palestine’ and the consequent asserted international legal designation of the West Bank as occupied Palestinian territory — and will not be deterred from taking actions to underline its claims to that land.”
He notes, as does the prime minister’s office, that even in the left’s much heralded citation of Ehud Olmert’s 2008 map for Abbas of West Bank territory that Israel would retain — a map that supposedly was the most magnanimous offer by an Israeli prime minister to Abbas, and which the PA leader rejected — “Israel would retain” that portion of land for itself. As Horovitz writes: “Gaza and the West Bank are 50 miles apart, and that’s no bar to a two-state solution,” and in the E1 corridor, “overpasses, underpasses and bypasses can maintain Palestinian contiguity.”
Mr. Friedman should also take a look at Alan Dershowitz’s important column: “Hagel: The Wrong Man.” We must pause to note that Professor Dershowitz met with the president in the Oval Office before the election, and came out proclaiming the president’s commitment to Israel and to stopping a nuclear Iran — and publicly endorsed him. Now I wonder if he is having second thoughts about that decision, given that he is saying in effect that in supporting Hagel, Obama is making the wrong choice. He writes:
Were Chuck Hagel to be nominated as secretary of defense, the Iranian mullahs would interpret President Obama’s decision as a signal that the military option was now, effectively, off the table. It would encourage them to proceed with their development of nuclear weapons without fear of an attack from the United States. It would tell them that if they can endure the pain of sanctions and continue the charade of negotiations, they will ultimately be allowed to win the prize of a deliverable nuclear bomb.
Hagel’s nomination would also validate the fears of Israeli leaders who have never really believed that the United States would attack Iran’s nuclear program even if that were the only way to stop it. It would make an Israeli military attack more likely.
Hagel’s position, he argues, is “the exact opposite” of that which the president says is his announced policy. Dershowitz reasonably asserts that putting a man in the Cabinet as head of the Defense Department who is against the proclaimed administration policy is a disaster in the making. (Remember: Dershowitz is taking Obama at face value, unlike many of this column’s readers, who believe the president does not actually support the kind of policy favored by Alan Dershowitz.)
To Tom Friedman, putting in Hagel is good because it is “healthy to have [these views] included in the president’s national security debates.” Friedman says the president must hear “all the alternatives,” something he supposedly will not hear if Hagel is not secretary of Defense.
Of course, we know that the president regularly reads the vociferously anti-Israel blog posts of Andrew Sullivan, and reads Friedman as well. Does he really need Hagel present just to hear these arguments?
As Dershowitz rightfully says, Hagel in a position of major importance becomes in itself an announcement that the administration is moving strongly in a new anti-Israel direction. Which is why people like John Judis want him in that office.
Another reason Friedman wants Hagel in is because he believes it is in our nation’s interest to engage Hamas, and to negotiate with the terror group — despite the fact that its leaders consistently have made clear their sole goal, never to be abandoned, is the destruction of the Jewish state. Here, Friedman calls Hagel’s views simply “philosophical criticism,” the belief that he prefers a “negotiated solution to Iran’s nuclear program,” a “willingness to engage Hamas to see if it can be moved from its extremism,” the belief that the Pentagon “budget should be cut,” and his “aversion to going to war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“Philosophical”?
A newspaper columnist like Friedman can make these arguments. But a secretary of Defense who is against his own department? Who wants to cut its budget and to do anything to avert war, including negotiating with enemies who have sworn to do anything necessary, including terrorist attacks, to reach their goal? This reveals only a refusal to acknowledge reality, and a dependence on the delusional belief that he alone can make offers that will make the other side renounce its very raison d’etre.
Here even Friedman is a bit skeptical, and yet he writes that he wants “to test and test again whether a diplomatic deal is possible before any military strike.” But when are such tests of Iran and Hamas to stop? When they already have nuclear weapons, or when Friedman himself says it is time?
To date, it is a commentator like Friedman who continually wants to let Iran play the U.S. while it builds its future nuclear capacity, and who argues regularly for no action until Iran is again tested.
As Dershowitz writes, a Hagel appointment would be understood by Iran to indicate that the new secretary of Defense “would strongly oppose the use of force against Iran’s nuclear program, even as a last resort.” It also would send the message that only those who favor force if necessary are “the Jews.” Hence one cannot minimize, as Friedman does, Hagel’s comment that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people.” Hagel, as Dershowitz writes, “sees things in terms of Jewish interests versus American interests.” As Dershowitz concludes:
This is not the time to be sending the wrong message, or even a confusing message, to Iran and its surrogates by nominating a man who is widely seen as out of the American mainstream when it comes to support for Israel’s security.
Interestingly, Dershowitz writes that if Hagel were nominated and not confirmed by the Senate, the Iranians would “see the nomination as representing President Obama’s real views on the possible use of force against the Iranian nuclear program,” and would then see his rejection by the Senate as “a reflection of the power of the ‘Jewish lobby’ over the legislature.” Precisely.
The only questions I have are for Professor Dershowitz: Don’t you think that it is indeed possible that the president wants Hagel precisely because the former senator reflects his own views?
If you think the Iranians might consider that as the truth, why doesn’t it occur to you as well?
Indeed, Dershowitz notes that were Hagel actually appointed as secretary of Defense, that “would make military action by the United States or Israel more rather than less likely, because it would embolden the mullahs toward defying any threat of the military option.”
That last point is meant to sway those like Friedman who evidently believe the opposite: that putting Hagel in would take the military option off the table for a long, long time. Dershowitz is explaining that the path they favor will lead precisely to the end they fear most — a nuclear strike against Iran that would embroil the Middle East in a new major war.
The bottom line is that it is time to be wary of the advice given by the so-called “real” friends of Israel who regularly accuse Israel’s defensive policies of being militaristic and wrong, and who continually find hope in Palestinian obstinacy and rejectionism which they proclaim to be reasonable and meriting of a favorable response.
Yes, Thomas Friedman and Chuck Hagel may not be anti-Semitic, although Hagel’s ill-chosen words are rather borderline and most likely revealing of his real sentiments. But with their constant chastising of Israel and their pleas to deal with the likes of Hamas and to make more and more dangerous concessions to the PA, they are misleading the American public to view Israel and its elected leaders as the only impediments to peace in the Middle East.
In doing that, Thomas Friedman especially is using his perch at the New York Times, as its senior foreign policy columnist, to turn Americans against Israel, and to urge them to pressure the United States to move away from supporting its most important ally in the region. All in the name of reason and peace. With friends like that, Israel does not need its current many enemies. Its greatest danger lurks from those who give its leaders bad advice delivered in the name of support.
Related from Barry Rubin:
Readers of Eric Hobsbawm’s autobiography might be amazed that, in spite of his constant jabs at Israel and [racist]Zionism, he continues to identify himself as “a Jew.” I also learned that George Soros had partly funded two of EH’s books, which is interesting because we see how the Obama presidency and the current Democratic Party shares in an outright Leninist project. I wrote about Hobsbawm and Israel here: http://clarespark.com/2012/12/08/hobsbawm-obama-israel/. But it was in his autobiography that I found the Soros connection. And it had long been obvious that the Nazi-Soviet line that America was controlled by “Zionists” has penetrated both political parties. As late as 1986, Dmitri Volkogonov was repeating the anti-American, anti-Zionist line: see http://clarespark.com/2011/12/02/the-whiteness-of-the-whale/.
I suppose it isn’t enough that Israel has enemies on all their borders.
Well, when one is wedded to ones radical leftist dogma, then the survival of Israel is neither here nor there.
And there is no need to prove that Friedman is a bonafide anti-Zionist and an anti-American to boot. Hagel too. That ship has sailed. But there is no doubt, whenever leftists meddle in Israel’s pot no good comes of it – for Israel!
Here’s the thing – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/22/when-leftist-mega-rich-peace-obsessed-instigators-get-involved-what-can-go-wrong-everything-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki-111/
Two minor collateral quibbles, Mr. Radosh:
1) Israel is not defending its “right to exist,” but its existence. The ongoing propaganda war means that Israel must also “defend its right to exist,” but unless Israel focuses on defending its actual existence first and foremost, it doesn’t matter a whit how eloquently Israel defends its “right to exist.”
2) It is long past time that soi-disant advocates on Israel’s behalf started stating clearly, repeatedly, firmly, and intransigently that the only legitimate “two-state solution” is recognizing that Jordan, which comprises something like 80% of Mandate Palestine, is the only viable or legitimate “Palestinian Arab” state.
I realize that these two things are tangential to the primary thrust of your article, but they need to be said, and to be said in response to articles such as this.
Are you saying you support forced migration of West Bank Arabs to Jordan, or are you saying you want to give the West Bank to Jordan? I think the latter would have been an excellent idea, around 1979. All it would have taken was an invitation for King Hussein to come to Camp David with promises of billions in guaranteed U.S. aid in exchange for joining Sadat and Begin and Carter in a comprehensive peace agreement. The main party at that time opposed to that idea was Menachim Begin, who believed that G-d intended for Jews to lord over Palestinian Arab lands in perpetuity.
Judea and Sumeria are NOT muslim lands.
Can’t you Fakestinian loving islam deniers get that through your thick skulls?
Am I saying I support “forced migration of West Bank Arabs to Jordan?” Why no. Not at all. Never in a million years.
I am merely saying that I support the recognition of Jordan, with its current borders, as the sole legitimate “Palestinian Arab” state; that I support endorsement of a “right of return” by any Arab, whether in what is currently known as “the West Bank” or whether in Gaza, to Jordan—and that no other “right of return” be considered legitimate.
I am further saying that I support making one-time relocation payments of $50,000 per head to any Arabs who choose to relocate to Jordan—which means that a populous Arab family would collect quite a tidy sum—provided that any Arabs who take up this offer sign a perpetual quitclaim relinquishing any claim to any property or citizenship or other right whatsoever to anything anywhere anytime in Israel proper.
After one month, that relocation payment would diminish by $10,000 per head—and it would diminish by $10,000 per month for each month thereafter, until it expired.
Once the relocation payment expired in its entirety, I would cropdust all the Arab areas of the West Bank and Gaza with pig fat.
So if I’m a Palestinian Christian Arab living in t”Judea” or “Samaria” and I refuse to take your generous offer to move to Jordan, do I get to remain IN MY HOME with the same political rights as Israeli Arabs? If not, why?
Also, given your support for ethnically cleansing the West Bank, is there any other place in the world where you support ethnic cleansing?
Let’s just look at Markus’ total misrepresentations here, shall we?
I’ve said nothing whatever about “ethnic cleansing.” I’ve suggested that it first be made crystal clear to the Arabs—all the Arabs, that is, and the Muslim world generally—that the only legitimate “Palestinian Arab” state that will ever exist or be recognized by the world is the area currently known as Jordan, which comprises the bulk of what used to be called “Palestine” during the only period within modern times that it was so referred to. The mainstream media, during their increasingly-infrequent lapses into truth, have been known to mention that “the population of Jordan is 85% Palestinian.” Of course it is; that is why “Jordan” is the only legitimate “Palestinian Arab” state.
Once it is clear that there will be no “Palestinian Arab” state in the West Bank; that there will be no “Palestinian Arab” state in the Gaza Strip; and that there will be no “Palestinian Arab” capital in Jerusalem and no more Muslim control of the Temple Mount, the Arabs of Israel can decide whether or not they wish to take advantage of their “right of return” to Jordan. The “Palestinian Arabs” living in places other than Israel can do this too, of course—but we are here concerned about the Arabs in Israel proper, and the territories.
As I’ve suggested, there will be a timed-down financial incentive for these “Palestinian Arabs” to relocate—with the pig fat spraying of these areas to follow, as encouragement for them to take the incentive. Should these “Palestinians” choose to disregard all of these incentives, they may apply for Israeli citizenship, but whether it is granted or not would depend upon their qualifications—and terrorist connections, if any, would disqualify them. Israel would also be wise to impose harsh penalties for treasonous activity, whether by citizens or by resident aliens.
There is no “ethnic cleansing” here; there is no force involved. The only violence would come from the Arabs themselves, who would likely murder any of their number who applied for Israeli citizenship. Whether the Arabs want to take or forego the financial incentives, or undergo the pig fat inundation, is entirely up to them. It is a proposal far more merciful and equitable than the Arab treatment of Jews (“leave or die”) and of Jewish property in Arab lands (expropriated).
Freed of the constraints imposed by lip service to the bogus “two state solution” that contemplates dismembering Israel, the Israelis would have a free hand to deal with any Arab who engaged in terrorist activity. Israel would remain an open and democratic society, and the Arab states would remain the apartheid hellholes that the Arabs seem to prefer.
Ideally, the Hashemites would be restored to their original place in Mecca, and the Saudi “royal family” would be deposed. Neither of these colonialist relics of the now-defunct British Empire have no place in the modern Middle East.
Oops, bad sentence at the end of that last post. It should read, “Neither of these colonialist relics of the now-defunct British Empire has any place in the modern Middle East.”
“So if I’m a Palestinian Christian Arab living in ”Judea” or “Samaria”…”
Or, if I was an Irish black guy,
who happened to be the female owner of an Italian Restarant,
that only served served MEXICAN food….
See son, here is NO SUCH THING as a “Palestinian” Christian….
Because there is NO SUCH THING as a “palestinian”
To the MUSLIMS who invented the term “Palestinians”, you are a “temporary infidel” in their midst, living in fear of your very life in any “palestinian controled” area should you dare get out of line.
HAMAS runs the show in Gaza…FATTAH runs the show in the West bank…Hamas would LIKE to slaughter you today just for fun, but Fattah see’s you as uselful(ly) false “Talking Point” to project the false notion that not all “palestinians” are Muslim Fanatics.
When they absolutely are.
Phuulease
You do realize that Jordan is the last American ally in the Islamic crescent? Why not drop them in the grease too? Google “Black September 1970″ That will let you know how the current King’s father handled the PLO the last time the “Palestinians” (yes, sneer quotes) tried to take over Jordan.
Don’t be fooled. The entire Palestinian issue is about killing Jews. It is called the ‘Strategy of the Indirect Approach’. The Arabs tried several times to slaughter the Jews and got spanked every time. So a plan was developed in Cairo in 68, after the 6 day war by Yasser Rat Face’s father.Keep the threshold of violence below that which would create a conventional war and work to undermine Israel’s foreign support with diplomacy and propaganda.
It is working. Sorta…..
Jordan is the next domino to fall in the Islamist Winter.
The “clear-sighted realization that the Palestinian leadership has been consistently intransigent from 1948 on in proclaiming its lifelong opposition to any agreement that recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state” DOES NOT FRIEDMAN’S POINT AT ALL, which is that “settling the West Bank and obviating a two-state solution” is a suicidal course for the Jewish state.
At some point, after all the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem are surrounded by Jewish ones, after settlements like Ariel have grown to the point they permanently bifurcate the West Bank, after the combined population of Gaza and West Bank and the Israeli Arabs exceeds that of Israeli Jews — all it will take then is a charismatic new Fatah leader, western educated no doubt, to say “one state, one man, one vote west of the Jordan” and the whole Zionist project will come crashing down.
Israel needs draw its final boundaries, along the lines of the Clinton parameters, then state that while some settlers and military will continue remain outside those boundaries for the indefinite future, it is the Jewish states intention to withdraw the moment a non-revanchist Palestinian leadership is willing to assume control. The settlers can leave on their own or stay, but they won’t be able to count on Israeli protection since at that point they’ll be living in a foreign land.
“Israel needs draw its final boundaries.”
Quite so. From the River to the Sea.
With one man one vote? Just like in South Africa?
One man one vote west of the Jordan? Without ethnic cleansing?
At some point, a Palestinian will have the intelligence to take you up on your offer, and you’ll have to withdraw it, and explain why Jews have different rights than whites who ruled South Africa and the Rhodesian.
You state that Israel should delineate its final borders and stop settling Judea and Samaria. Israelis are settling only lands that will remain within its final borders. Jerusalem and its environs will remain Israeli, regardless of what Abbas, Clinton or anyone else says. That is non-negotiable, ie final borders. The Jordan valley will be final borders as well. The heights wich dominate the heartland of Israel are final borders as well. Syria is proving once again why the Golan is another final border. Gaza as proven beyond the shadow of a doubt about the futility, nay, stupidity of returning land without holding the security card. Sinai is another hard learned lesson of the fragility of any agreements with Arabs. So Israel is defining its final bordes and building within them. The biggest problem is not Israel building in these areas , it is well meaning “useful idiots” who keep on harping about settllers and some inane idea of imperialism in the old Europen mold. These “settlers” are Israelis who are defining and strengthening the final borders of their country.
So Rick, are you saying Israel must keep the Jordan Valley (leaving a Palestinian state permanently separated from Jordan, which I thought people like you claim is the “real” Palestinian state anyway) and none of the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem will be in a Palestinian state? That’s not a serious offer. If Israel insists upon it, which it thankfully hasn’t done yet, get ready for worldwide economic sanctions and world clamor for one man one vote one state west of the Jordan. And get ready to explain why minority Jewish population have a right to rule over majority non-Jew population while the Afrikaners didn’t.
In other words, get ready for the sort of blinkered international opprobrium, grandstanding boycotts, and rampant Jew-baiting that … already exists? As proved abundantly, there’s little Israel can do that will both a) please the likes of you, and b) secure itself against genocidal neighbors and minority populations. Your ilk is largely doing its impotent worst already; there’s no further reason for Israel not to do what it takes to secure the lives and land of its Jewish citizens. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
The “minority Jewish population has a right to rule over majority non-Jew population” because they attacked Israel three times, unprovoked and unjustified, and lost. How many times would you allow them to attack Israel unpunished?
During the 1978 Camp David peace negotiations Carter accused Begin that his insistence on building settlements makes a peace agreement impossible. He was wrong!
You can say Jewish minority rule over Arabs is necessary due to strategic necessity, or you can say Israel is a “democracy,” but you can’t say both.
Comparing Israelis and Afrikaaners show exactly where people like you are coming from. Israel will retain territories needed for her security regardless of the world’s phony outrage. Should Israel had listened to the world in 1948, 1967 or 1973 Israel would not exist today. To be a Jew is a lonely path in this hypocritical world. That which is allowed, ignored or even encouraged in other peoples is frowned upon and verbotten to the Jews. Look at the UN record. What is it with the obsession on Israel. Maybe the fact that a large portion of the so called states present there are Arab and Muslim and the rest must depend on their oil to survive?
I blame the Jews partly for having a overly developed morality and taking too much into account what the hypocrites say.
Unfortunately, there only seems to be two sides on this issue – either Israel gets everything it wants (which seems to be popular among commenters here) and the Palestinians get relocated (or stay in increasing smaller portions of land as more settlement occurs) or the opposite, Israel gets wiped out.
The people who want to compromise (like yourself) are few and far people
There are two types of ethnic nationalism: toxic and nontoxic. Nontoxic seeks self-rule only. Toxic seeks rule over others, in the name of security and/or divine right. I support nontoxic nationalism only.
Then you should support the Israeli nationalism. Israel has offered about 100% of the territories (including the necessary land swaps to connect Gaza with Judea and Samaria), a settlement in Jerusalem, and compensations to the descendants of the 1948 refugees, though the Jewish refugees (a larger number) from Arab states should get compensations too. The Arabs rejected these offers, and refuse to negotiate. Instead they have been teaching their children all this time that Israel has no right to exist, that it will be exterminated in their hands, that they should grow up to be jihadists and fight Israel, that Judgement Day (end of time) will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them (that’s from Islamic sources much older than the State of Israel), that the Muslims once ruled the world and will rule it again, and many such other niceties. That is who and what you support. Either study the subject well, including watching their media and education system, and what they say in Arabic, what were the details of the Israeli proposals and what the Arab demand, what is the Muslim attitude to Jews, and particularly to self-rule of infidels in lands once conquered by Muslims, when did the Nazi themes first enter the Middle East and how well-spread they are, and many other issues rarely covered by your compromized media, or stop pressing on the gas and pushing that car into the abyss.
I do support the Israeli nationalism that you describe, Pnina. Unfortunately, lots of Israeli nationalism is of the more toxic variety and you see that toxicity on display on this very thread: saying Jordan is Palestine and any Palestinian seeking basic political rights must physically leave land they are on in order to secure those rights; suggesting that Israelis have a right to cut off the West Bank from Jerusalem in order to prevent parts of the latter from being part of a future Palestinian state; saying that Israel is justified in building settlements (Ariel, Malle Adanum, Gush Etzion, Jordan Valley) designed to surround and slice and dice the West Bank into bantustans or tribal reservations. Or simply saying that Judea and Samaria must be part of Israel forever, and the Arab majority on these lands have no political rights on this land, end of story.
Wrong, Markus.
First, to speak of Israeli or Jewish nationalism you should follow the Israeli mainstream rather than comments on this or that website. Look, for instance, on voting patterns (voting for the left or center-left [Labor/Kadima] when peace seems attainable, then voting for the center-right or right when there’s a massive terror campaign, then voting for the left/center again and unilaterally leaving the Gaza Strip, then voting for the right/center when withdrawal results in a 1000% increase in rocket fire from Gaza), polls conducted over the last two decades, or what the politicians say as indication of what they believe their public wants to hear. For instace, if Netanyahu, a center-right politician, said before and after being elected and ever since that he invites the other side to negotiate and that Israel is ready to make painful concessions for peace, it means that Netanyahu believes that he has to say that to get elected (based no doubt on public opinion polls conducted by Likud). That reflects the Israeli mainstream. The Israeli mainstream is that we’re ready to compromise for peace, but that means FOR PEACE. The rest of the world has forgotten this part of the deal. Conversely, if Fatah people repeatedly say in the Arab media that they’ve never really recognized Israel, that Tel Aviv belongs to them, that it’s all a part of Yasser Arafat’s Phased Plan (look that one up if you don’t know what it means), that they will never give up the “right of return” (the demand that all the descendants of the 1948 Arab refugees be resettled INSIDE Israel) etc., it means that they believe that’s what THEIR public, i.e. Arab-Palestinian mainstream, wants to hear.
When Netanyahu was elected he invited Abbas to negotiations in his first post-electoral speech. Abbas refused and demanded to stop any kind of building even inside existing settlements as a precondition to even negotiating. Note that: 1) that means one can’t even build a second bathroom inside one’s house or a shelter to protect one’s family from rockets, 2) in previous negotiations there was an understanding that there would be land swaps in which Israel will retain the large settlement blocs and the Arabs will get lands from within the green line, including lands to form the corridor between the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria, 3) that was never a precondition for negotiations in the past or part of any agreement. Still Netanyahu agreed to a 10 months moratorium on any building in the settlements, but yet Abbas refused to negotiate for 9 months. Then in the last month he finally agreed to come to the negotiation table, but only for one session every two weeks. After that last month passed the moratorium expired and Abbas demanded to renew it. Netanyahu said he would renew it if the Pal-Arabs would recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Abbas refused.
Then we had the silly Dutch ambassador to the UN in an interview on our TV, telling us to let go of the notion of being recognized as a Jewish state. “Are you going to let two words [i.e. Jewish state] stand in the way of peace?”, he told the Israeli public. I was stupefied. Just how dumb can those Westerners be? Isn’t that the very heart of the matter? Didn’t the two-state solution mean two states for two peoples, one of which is the Jewish one? How can there be peace if the Arabs don’t accept the existence of a Jewish state in any borders? How many ways do they have to say they will not accept a Jewish state for you to understand? It’s not two words that stand in the way of peace – it’s the Arab (and Muslim) refusal to accept a Jewish state in any borders that stands in the way of peace.
Wrap your minds around it. This is THE problem. Not the settlements. Didn’t Israel destroy all the settlements in the Sinai AFTER reaching a peace agreement with Egypt? Didn’t Israel destroy all the settlements in the Gaza Strip when we unilaterally withdrew from it? Didn’t the negotiations in the past talk about land-swaps in which Israel will keep the large settlement blocs? If there will ever be a REAL peace agreement wouldn’t Israel destroy all the settlements not included in the land swaps just like it did in the Sinai and the Gaza Strip? But don’t expect us to do it BEFORE there is an agreement. The territories are our bargaining chips. It doesn’t make sense to give up your bargaining chips before being able to get anything in return. If the Arabs are so desperate for a state there’s a fairly easy solution – recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and forget about settling millions of Arabs inside it to turn it binational and then another Muslim-Arab state. They attacked Israel in 48 and also kicked out the Jews from all the Arab states, where the Jews preceded the Arab conquest of the Middle East by centuries. Most of these Jews resettled in Israel. The Arabs have almost the entire Middle East. Now let us live in peace on this little part of our fatherland. Jordan already got 80% of the Palestine mandate. The Arabs refused to split the rest. Still now they also have the Gaza Strip, can get nearly all of Judea and Samaria plus additional land in land-swaps, and part of Jerusalem. Just let us have Israel and leave us alone already. But no, they want every last bit of it.
So second, you can’t talk of any issue involved in this conflict without first recognizing that the other side isn’t interested in peace – that is the starting point for understanding any Israeli position. If you look at the map and take into concideration that the other side intends to continue a war of annilation against Israel indefinitely, then you would understand why certain areas are of vital strategic importance for self defense. For instance, sites from which the Arabs can easily target strategic points in Israel (such as the airport, ports, vital transportation roads, densely populated regions etc.) even with small cheap rockets. Or areas that allow them to easily smuggle weapons in, such as medium- and long-range missiles. This is a very small land, it doesn’t have any territorial depth – if in addition you give them the hills nearby Tel Aviv to fire rockets on central Israel at will, it will put us in quite a desperate position.
Look, even during the Mubarak rule you could see on Egyptian TV (nevermind Hamas TV) programs where an imam would show some horrific scenes from the Nazi death camps, plus explantions on how when you tie two Jews together on the bank of a river you can kill both with just one bullet because the one who dies from the shot will fall in the water and drown the one tied to him, and then the imam would say “next time in the hands of the believers [Muslims]“, all the while denying the Holocaust ever happened. That was going on even during the days of moderate Mubarak in a country with which we have a peace agreement. Now those imams are in power in Egypt. And in the Gaza Strip. And as it seems, soon in Syria too. Westerners don’t seem to have even one little bit of a problem with the fact a Jewish genocide is openly discussed in the Arab media (and have been at least since the 40s, when the Nazis set up a radio station that broadcasted the cermons of Amin al-Huseini to the entire Middle East), but we have to actually live here in this environment and survive. The least you can do is pretend you give a damn and pay some lip service to the notion of peace, i.e. demand that this crap stops, rather than just demanding us to unilaterally withdraw and give the Arabs another state, right in our belly, to attack us from. At least pretend the 6 million Jews here matter too. During the Nazi rule the rest of the Euros at least pretented to give a f–k. Now nobody even pretends.
Oh, and one other issue. You talk about toxic nationalism. The only toxic nationalism in the region, – the one that wants to take over everything, rule over others, and eradicate all other national identities, – is Arab nationalism. Don’t take my word for it – listen to what the various peoples in the region, peoples preceding the Arab conquest, say. The Kurds, the Amazigh people (“Berbers”), the Assirians, the Nubians, the Copts, the Samaritans who are on the verge of extintion. Look up their websites and forums – there are some available in English and French. Take it from them. I guarantee you these peoples are not Zionists and were not set up by Mossad (that’s what some Arabs actually claim). Study the region a little, aside from the prevailing dogmas in the West. Then you might develop some idea of what actually went on in the Middle East in the last century. Arab nationalism was the dominant ideology here right before Islamism became the dominant ideology. It’s still pretty strong. The truth is there for anyone who’s willing to face it.
If rule over others is the only means of preventing genocide at the hands of those “others,” then long live toxic nationalism.
that’s the same thing the hardline Afrikaners said. today, many of them wish they had formed a smaller white settler state that didn’t rule over blacks when they had the chance.
in any case, a Palestinian state will reduce the slim possibility of genocide against Israelis even more. It is only when you have nothing that you have nothing to lose.
Markus,
In the Middle East the hegemony is Muslim-Arab, and all the others (non-Muslims and non-Arabs) are the “blacks”. Please try to understand that, Westerners. The Muslims are not poor powerless Africans. They control vast territories, dozens of states, huge amounts of natural resources, they invest huge sums of money in Western economy and universities (which buys them influence), have the largest state-bloc in the UN (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC), which allows them, together with their allies, to use the UN as an instrument to attack their enemies, and also have growing minorities in much of the world, which gives them electoral power in the West, India and elsewhere. In addition they have the unconditional support of the left. They can do whatever they want with their “blacks” and the West just turns a blind eye. The only option the “blacks” have is to be strong enough to defend themselves. Most of the “blacks” aren’t, which is why they’re persecuted, killed or flee the region. Islam was imperialist from its cradle. Arab nationalism was directly influenced by fascism and Nazism. That’s the truth no one is allowed to utter in any mainstream publication. But even if the West isn’t capable of changing its mind, it still doesn’t change the truth, unfortunately.
If the ANC had favored and widely engaged in the same tactics as the “Palestinians,” and if native blacks had been reared en masse to consider the genocide of whites a moral/religious imperative, then the Afrikaners would have had a point. I’ll go further: if that had been the case (which, of course, it wasn’t), then apartheid would have been a wretched half-measure, and nothing short of mass disenfranchisement, deportation, or worse would have been reasonable. So what’s your point?
There are only two types of individuals in this world…the decent and the indecent. Those that are decent do not side with the dark forces behind Israel’s hatred in this world
Wrong.
As I replied to Markus, Israel has offered the concessions necessary for a Palestinian-Arab state. The majority of Israelis supported a compromise peace, and would continue to do so if we believe there could be real peace (there is no other kind of peace, is there?), but most of us don’t believe it anymore since the other side proved time and time again, in word and deed, that they don’t mean peace at all. The majority of Israelis are centrists and support concessions for peace, but will vote according to the availability of this option on the ground rather than in the heads of some blindly dogmatic leftists.
The two-state solution means two states for two peoples, that is one state for the Jews, which is Israel, and a 23rd Arab state NEXT to Israel. It doesn’t mean a 23rd Arab state next two Israel and a 24th Arab state INSTEAD of Israel. I supported the two-state solution in the original sense (i.e. when one of the two states is for the Jewish people) and the “peace” process when I believed it meant peace in the regular sense rather than the Orwellian sense, but I was bitterly disillusioned since the Arab side isn’t willing to accept a Jewish state in any borders.
I don’t know what about you, but when someone points a gun at me, says I don’t have a right to exist and he’s going to kill me, refuses any compromise or peaceful settlement, and pulls the trigger, I believe him that he really wants me dead. Of course, we can’t read other people’s mind, so theoretically there’s a 0.000000000000000001% chance that deep down inside what he means by “I’m gonna kill you” is that he really wants peace, but I’m not gonna bet my life on it and neither should you.
Things are going so wrong because all this time you have been pressuring the wrong side, the one side that is willing to compromize and make concessions, which is Israel. The one “concession” the Arabs have to make is to accept the existence of a Jewish state and commit not to make war against it and not try to annihilate it ever again by any means. That is a concession the Arabs refuse to make and that is why there is no peace. You should have pressured the Arabs to make that one concession that is required of them with all it involves in return, – and as a condition, – for the Israeli concessions and an Arab-Palestinian state NEXT to Israel. Instead you let the Arab do whatever they want and pressured Israel to make concession after concession in return for more and more violence directed at her. And after making so many concessions and taking so many risks – agreeing to an Arab-Palestinian state right in our belly, leaving the Gaza Strip, large swats of Judea and Samaria, founding the Palestinian Authority, arming them, proposing various final agreements and more – and in return being blown up in our streets and fired at ever since, while still making concession after concession, you still claim it’s Israel who refuses to compromise and make concessions, and continue pressuring us and rewarding the Arab rejectionsim and aggression. And that is the reason why things are going so wrong. It takes two to make peace. We can’t do it alone. Get it into your head. Tell the Arabs that either they accept the two-state solution, which means one state is and will remain Jewish, or they won’t get their own state either. But no, you will give them their state unconditionally so they could continue their war against our existence from an ever improved position, and yet you’ll continue to blame Israel for it. You are complicit.
Sorry, Pnina, but you might as well pack it in. Markus, Friedman, Hagel, etc. will NEVER be so crude as to say that the Jews’ role in the world is to be homeless wanderers at the mercy of the great, so as to provide a cautionary example and all-purpose abuse absorber for the rest of humanity as punishment for their arrogant claim to know The Truth. They probably think that this plays no role whatsoever in their position, and consciously, they’re right about that. But the way they accept automatically the assertion that the loss of any sacred Palestinian soil is a wound that cannot heal, that the “despair” and suffering of the “helpless” explains if not entirely excuses any savagery, that jihadism is not and CANNOT be an issue, and that the Arab birthrate is always and forever an irresistible tsunami regardless of any changes (http://quitenormal.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/israels-jewish-birth-rate-rises-by-nearly-20-arab-rate-drops-5/ is interesting) leads to a bleak conclusion about the worth of evidence and argument.
no werewolf, I support Jewish nationalism, i.e. a jewish majority state. The people who want to hold on to the West Bank forever don;t want this — whether they admit it or not, they want a Jewish minority state in which Jews rule supreme. They may get it for a little while, followed by the inevitable demand for majority rule, just like what happened in South Africa.
so…if the arab birthrate is going down so much, and the west bank belongs to israel, why not annex and give the arabs the vote?
meanwhile, the GCC just announced more centralized military command because of the threat from Iran.
If all this fuss over Hagel hinges on Iran, then maybe all the pundits need to add a few dimensions, paying closer attention to what the Sunni monarchies, including Jordan, are doing, follow all the threads of Syria, especially Syria’s Kurds, and stop giving Tom Friedman echo.
“Quisling” is too generous an epithet for Friedman. And if Obama goes with Hagel as his choice to head state at a time when the epicenter of international cataclysm lies clearly over Israel and its capital, Jerusalem, well, we then now know *exactly* who this fellow truly is.
“Quisling” is too generous an epithet for Friedman.
“Coprophagist for profit” springs to mind.
Takes a ‘ell of a set of choppers to do that. Who is his dentist? I had them figured for marriage candidates, sort of like Dodd Franks.
I had kind of hoped to avoid reading any more claptrap from ole Tom but you made me read this one.
I don’t understand Friedman’s connection of the US SecDef with Israel’s settlements in the WB. I get that Friedman likes Hegel because Hegel would be available to give Israel some tough love on the settlements, but I don’t see that as the SecDef’s job. Friedman’s like of Hegel reminds me of James Watt, SecInterior under Reagan, who was known for being an anti-environmentalist. Sure, hire Hegel if your intention is to shut down the military.
Friedman’s statement that he knows that the vast majority of US senators hold the same opinions as Hegel is ridiculous. Friedman goes on about the coming elections in Israel and how the right wing is going to take over, make Netanyahu look like a dove. Friedman fails to mention the reason why Israel’s politics have moved right virtually destroying the left and the peace camp. The reason is that every time the left said to take risks for peace the Pals never gave any quid quo pro. It is the Pals that have destroyed the peace camp in Israel. It the Pals that will cause a hard right govt in Israel to be elected. Basically it is people like ole Tom that say lets test the Pals, lets make them an offer, lets let them prove what they’ll do for peace that have destroyed the left and the peace camp in Israel. Look in the mirror Tom.
Ultimately the president want’s cabinet members that agree with him, mostly. It seems like Kerry fits that bill. Hegel may also but Hegel has more of a track record than the President and has made more impolitic remarks and has a clear voting record against Israel. I wouldn’t be surprised if the President puts Hegel’s name in but I expect there will be a fight over his appointment if that happens.
@Ron, where you say “a nuclear strike against Iran…” don’t you mean “a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities?” I don’t think that a nuclear strike against Iran would be the inevitable outcome of appointing Hegel as SecDef.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting diferent results, each and every time.
The tough love needs to be applied to the Palestinians, by ending all Western humanitarian aid.
He also praised terrorist mastermind Marwan Barghouti, now serving five life sentences, for the murders of numerous Israelis. According to Friedman, Barghouti is a real Mahatma Ghandi, but those evil Israelis are imprisoning him to prevent Peace from breaking out. http://bit.ly/12GJPsS.
Ah, picking a worst Friedman column is like Sisyphus’ plight. If you think you found the worst, he will write a worse one tomorrow.
So Alan Dershowitz endorsed Obama pro-Israel (as we all knew he would). And now, as Mr. Radosh points out, now Dershowitz is accusing Obama’s apparent pick as anti-Israel.
I have four words for Mr. Dershowitz. Shut up and go away. You are an embarrassment.
That’s eight words. All of them true, of course. How many times must any journalistic/academic celebrity get it wrong in order to lose his “expert” or “sage” credentials?
Maybe they will have a change of heart and go with Dennis Kucinich, instead.
Tom Friedmann is a Charles Lindbergh type of anti-Semite. Lindbergh would say that the Germans are doing terrible things to Jews but it doesnt warrant the US going to war. The dilemma was solved when Germany declared war on the US. Friedmann wants to incite anti-Semitism in the US by declaring that Netanyahus applause in the US Congress was bought and sold by the Israel lobby. I think that Friedmann borrowed the “zionist occupied government” line from the white supremacist group Stormfront, without giving them proper attribution
Over the last ten years the share price of NYTimes stock has gone from about $50 to about $8. The billionaire broad he married has seen her Papas company go bankrupt. Sure they still live in a nice house but for how long? Everything Friedman touches turns to garbage. He is a mighty mouse that has lost its roar.
“As Dershowitz writes, a Hagel appointment would be understood by Iran to indicate that the new secretary of Defense “would strongly oppose the use of force against Iran’s nuclear program, even as a last resort.” It also would send the message that only those who favor force if necessary are “the Jews.” Hence one cannot minimize, as Friedman does, Hagel’s comment that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people.” Hagel, as Dershowitz writes, “sees things in terms of Jewish interests versus American interests.”
Iran is the key to the problem. Without Iran’s full support, Hamas, Hezbollah, and maybe even the Palestinian Authority couldn’t survive. Iran provides them with weapons, funding, and political support throughout the region and if the Palestinians were to lose that, it would make it a lot harder for them to not only fight Israel, but also to maintain their own grip on their own people.
I never quite understood this fetish Obama has for trying to “negotiate” with Iran. The mullahs in Iran have done nothing but laugh at Obama’s peace overtures and they probably consider him a fool for not grabbing the opportunity in 2009 to support the riots and rebellion that took place within Iran after their “elections.” The Iranians see Obama as an appeaser and as being very weak, wanting to avoid a military confrontation at all costs, even if it means throwing Israel under the bus to do it. THAT is why Iran continues working on a nuclear bomb and THAT is why they will not stop until they GET a nuclear bomb.
And as for those pathetic economic “sanctions” that Obama keeps bleating about, they may cause hardships within the Iranian economy, but it will not stop Iran from getting a bomb. Why? Well, how many “sanctions” does North Korea have against it? And the North Korean people are literally starving in the streets, eating grass. Yet North Korea is a nuclear power and even just recently fired a rocket that proves they could probably hit the United States with ICBM. So sanctions didn’t do much to stop the North Koreans, despite all of the misery and pain they caused the North Korean people.
Dictatorships rarely care about their own people. They have a political agenda that they want to follow and they will follow it unless physically stopped by another country. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, to name but a precious few, all knew that it was either their way or the highway and anybody that disagreed with them had to be eliminated. Only a bullet, a rope, or even natural death would stop them. So if anybody thinks that these “sanctions” will stop the mullahs, they’re sadly mistaken.
Now is not the time to go soft on the Iranians. It would send the worst possible message at the worst possible time. At a point in Middle Eastern history where we should be standing shoulder to shoulder with the only real democracy in the region, Israel, we are instead distancing ourselves from them at an even faster pace with Obama. But always, ALWAYS, remember that when Iran is through dealing with “The Little Satan,” Israel, they will be coming after “The Great Satan,” the United States. And once they have their nuclear bomb, they will be able to do it, either directly or by supplying the weapon to a terrorist group that will do the dirty work for them. Obama’s appeasement will be about as successful as Chamberlain’s was of Hitler, and we’re about to discover that sad fact probably within the next year or so.
And what will we do when that happens? Why give in, that’s what. It’s what all faded powers eventually do, like Great Britain.
“Yes, Thomas Friedman and Chuck Hagel may not be anti-Semitic…”
WHY GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT????? Their views are more anti-Semitic than anyone short of David Duke. And you ought to know the power of name calling. They should be called just what they are. Fed up that we on the right are always called names and then we give the left a pass. They don’t deserve your tenderness.
Hagel was quicker to walk back his gay comments than his anti-Israel comments.
Take that for what you will.
why are so many obsessed with friedman?
i dont think the libs even care and most obama voters dont even know who he is
yet those one the right foam and froth over what this deluded imbecile says
just apply the “costanza” principle – whatever friedman says the exact opposite will be the truth
he is a troll- little else
I don’t know what has happened to Tom Friedman in the last 15+ years. He’s gone off the rails. I read his book, “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” more than 15 years ago. I thought it contained the best brief and easily understandable history of what happened in the Middle East after WWI, and it explained why there is so much strife in that part of the world. Then I read “The Lexus and the Olive Tree,” which contains glowing praise for the U.S. Then it was “Longitudes and Attitudes,” which again was very positive about the U.S. Sometime after writing that book, he completely changed.
I had been reading his NYT articles during those years, but he started to become anti-American and anti-Israel, and I finally stopped reading his columns. He’s become a nutcase. Every time I read anything about him now it’s about him making looney statements like his statement that China runs China better than the U.S. runs the U.S., or something to that effect.
He’s now just as nuts as his colleague Maureen Dowd.
I have zero use for the waffling, overrated, mealy-mouthed Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz is as useful to the plight of Israel as he was to seeking justice for Ron Goldman. Dershowitz can mouth about all the “support” he wants, but Dershowitz is nothing but a water boy for the liberal Jew haters in Washington and across this country.
If the idiot extraordinaire doesn’t understand that the real problem of the ever softening American support sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, then Dershowitz is guilty of omission by emulating Mr. Magoo, and guilty of commission in helping the Abomination sitting in the White House get reelected.
Creeps like Hagel, a worthless bastard and abject phony, are simply a testimony to who President Flunky feels comfortable.
Amen!
“That which is allowed, ignored or even encouraged in other peoples is frowned upon and verbotten to the Jews.”
Can you name me another state made up primarily of settlers from Europe that is allowed to maintain permanent occupation of a land without the peoples residing on that land being given the vote?
“Should Israel had listened to the world in 1948…would not exist today.”
You may well be right but not in the sense you mean. Fact is, if the Arabs had never started any of their wars against Israel, particularly in 1948, the State of Israel likely wouldn’t exist today as a Jewish majority state, since most of today’s Palestinian “refugees” (the ones who would spell demographic doom for Israel if their claims were accepted) descend from people in towns and villages WITHIN the boundaries of the tiny JEWISH state provided for in the 1947 UN partition plan, who were promised Israeli Arab citizenship by Ben-Gurion. The key to Israel’s viability was the stupidity of Palestinian Arabs not staying put in 1948, a mistake they didn’t make in 1967.
Interesting comment “primarily of settlers from Europe”. In the first place it is a false statement. Jews came to Israel from all over the Arab world. Iraq, Egypt, Syria,Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and others. If you would have any real “on the ground” knowledge of Israel and its population you would know this to be true. Secondly why mention the ethnicity of the pioneers? Is it because in your world things are determined by the color of the skin ? If the Israelis would have been black from Africa then in your eyes things would be different? ( by the way if you knew Israel then I wold not have to explain about the numbers of African Jews living there.) You corroborate my premise where I state that it is hard for Jews. Judging by your beginning statement the ethnic composition is of primordial value.
Following that line of thought then you would consider Turkey’s occupation of Cypress to be quite allright, after all they are not Jews, European or Western. China’s punishing occupation of Tibet? Ok in your book? Again they do not fit your colonialist mold. Turkey and the Kurds? or Iran and the Kurds? or Syria and the Kurds? Again does not fit your pre conceived mold. Russia and Chechnya , maybe Russia is too powerful a foe to condemn, or at any rate they don’t give a damn about what “human rights protectors” like you think. Amazing that all these conflicts that involve true occupation are not mentioned in the UN at all, instead Israel is vilified and condemned time after time after time. The UN’s whipping boy!
The Syrians murder their own population including hundreds or thousands of so called Palestinians and mum is the word. The Iranians kill thousands in putting down demonstrations. Who cares? The Jews are not involved. In Rwanda hundreds of thousands are slaughtered , well no Jews there so why worry about it. In Sudan hundreds of thousands of Christians are slaughtered by the religion of peace.. Well again no Jews there so let it go. In Egypt Christians Copts are murdered by followers of Islam, but that is an internal matter. Terrorists from Pakistan murder Hindus randomly and no big deal. Bombs kill dozens in London, Madrid, Bali again guess who is behind it? Not the Jew so forget it. Athletes killed at the Olympics, children slaughtered in Maalot, missiles shot by the thousand into israel’s population centers. Does the UN meet for any of these outrages? No! But let the Israelis kill a terrorist leader that promises to slaughter them and all hell breaks loose. Within hours the Un is buzzing with meetings ,condemnations,threats. One country tries to outdo the other in the ugliness of the language directed at the only Jewish state in the world.Maybe they will get better price on their oil deliveries.
Only a handful of nations that understand the hypocrisy that is rampant on the world, such as the Czechs, who felt this on heir own flesh will stand up and speak the truth.
As far as your “beloved” Palestinians and their sacred state. Boulderdash! Difficult to understand by a brainwashed outsider, but one of the last priorities for them is a state of their own. There are after all 22 Arab states that share the same language, religion,history and ethnicity with them. Their first priority as part of the Umma is to destroy Israel and slaughter her people. This is the 800 pound gorilla that is not talked about in the halls of the centers of power. I is not about state building, it is about state destruction. Making the Middle East Judenrein. Establishing a homogeneous Arab area where no one different from them or with other beliefs will be allowed even to step foot in. Take agood look to what is happening to Christianity in Arab lands…disappearing. The only place in the whole Middle East where Christianity is not going away is in Israel. The only place where they can freely worship. The Sunday people will be erased and after them the Saturday people. So state the Friday people.
In summing up, you are so barking up the wrong tree with your Palestinian state and their sacred lands for it. The basic problem has nothing to do with it. It is simply a Darwinian struggle to survive. Believe me my friend, when it comes to survival the jews have a thing or two to teach the world. It would be stupid and suicidal to do as you say and give them more area, leaving Israel wide open to their designs. You are living in Oslo time. Today your average Israeli understands perfectly the foolishness of Oslo and gaza. It ain’t gonna happen again!
You misunderstand many of my comments and seemingly assume I’m making some sort of typical liberal or radical defense of Palestinians. Rather, I’m a consistent supporter of ethnic nationalism and humane rational balkanization as the best available solution to dealing with peoples with irreconcilable differences living in close proximity to one another. I mentioned “european settlers” because that was what the original zionist movement was. Non-ashkenazi Jews had no interest in returning to Israel prior to its establishment, and they only became Israeli citizens as a result of the arab stupidity of kicking them out of their countries in response to the expulsion of Arabs during the war of independence (an action which further solidified the Jewish state demographically). And my question asking what other white-majority state to maintain permanent occupation of a land without the peoples residing on that land being given the vote was simply acknowledging a double standard: western nations are held to a higher standard requiring them to implement liberal universalist principles like universal sufferage than non-western ones are.
You ask me about Cyprus and you could have mentioned instead a wide variety of other ethnic disputes where minority groups seek self-determination and independence and are not granted it. The point is, in all of those countries, the “out-group” is given the same basic citizenship rights as the majority. Kurds in Turkey for instance, are considered Turks by the Turkish government and given the same rights as other Turkish citizens. And Turkish Cypriots, though they reject the offer, are being offered full Cypriot citizenship by the Greek Cypriot majority seeking to reunite the island. This is DIFFERENT from what those who want Israel to both hold onto the West Bank and remain a Jewish state are offering the Arabs living there.
Also, I never described Palestinians as “beloved.” The only word I’ve used to describe them in earlier comments has been “stupid.”
My point is simply factual, not judgmental: if you want to preserve an ethnic state within a given land mass, your ethnic group needs to have a strong majority within its boundaries. If you don’t have one, which Israeli Jews DO NOT HAVE or soon WILL NOT HAVE west of the Jordan, then you are simply SHIT OUT OF LUCK. You choices if you insist on maintaining the hegemony of your people are either withdrawing to an area in which you in fact do retain your majority, OR ethnic cleansing. Or ceasing to be an ethnonationalist state for Jews. Partisans of “Eretz Israel” and the settler movement are simply advocating a course that will put Israel in the position of having to make one of these last two terrible choices, and so it is they who are the real enemies of the Zionist project.
The statement “Non-ashkenazi Jews had no interest in returning to Israel prior to its establishment” is incorrect. For thousands of years Jews have longed for a return to Eretz Israel. To this day, we say “Next year in Jerusalem”. Additionally, until the Biluim, the majority of Jews living in the Land of Israel were Sephardic. In the early 20th century, there was a group of Yemenite Jews who settled in Jerusalem. My own cousin migrated from Egypt to Eretz Israel in 1946.
Thank you. Markus is stuck in some sort of fantasy world where he gets to re-write history to suit his ideas of how it should have been. I think he is a 3rd worlder or a Marxist. Both have issues with the concept of property. One does not “own” land because one lives there. One owns land when one has legal title to that land. Who lives there doesn’t enter into the picture. Renters have rights but those rights are personal and not directly related to the real estate.
Basic concept. Real estate rights stay with the land and belong to whoever has title to that land. Personal rights go with the person, no matter where they live.
The only time the Arabs have ‘owned’ the Levant was right before the First Crusade. Christians took it from them, which was the accepted, normal and legal method of land transfer before 1948. The Christians established the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which lasted a century or so before falling to the Kurds.
There has never been a Nation called Palestine. There is no nation called Palestine, there never will be a nation called Palestine.
It is all part of a propaganda campaign. Don’t think so? Provide the Name of the first King of Palestine and the city his Palace was in.
King Abdullah (the great-grandfather of the current Abdullah) originally wanted to call his entity the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine. His British puppet-masters vetoed that.
” Partisans of “Eretz Israel”
This statement alone shows that you have no idea, besides the theoretical mumbo jumbo of what you are talking about. I would do some serious research or just ask any 6 year old Israeli child what is (“Eretz Israel”.ארץ ישראל)
You’ll realize the stupidity of your statement “partisans of Eretz Israel”. It is like saying “partisans of the U.S.A”.
While Kurds in Turkey are Kurdish citizens, and Tibetans are Chinese citizens, Markus ignores the fact that Kurds in Turkey only seek independence for themselves. They do not seek to destroy the rest of Turkey and annihilate its ethnically Turkish population. Tibetans only seek independence for themselves in historic Tibet. They do not seek to destroy the rest of China and annihilate its Han Chinese population. The Inventedstinians don’t seek sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The PLO charter, which was ratified 3 years before the Six-Day War, specifically states that the Inventedstinians have no claims on Judea, Samaria or the Gaza Strip (which were under Arab control at that time) and only seek to liberate the territory that was currently occupied by the Zionist entity (as of 1964). Only when those areas came under Israeli control, did they change their tune. Markus ignores the fact that the Arabs started several wars against the Jews and lost each time and that the Inventedstinians continue to maintain a state of war. When you start a war and then lose, you don’t get to dictate terms to the victor. Japan and Germany were under Allied occupation for several years and that was after the Japanese and Germans surrendered. The Inventedstinians haven’t surrendered yet.
I meant “While Kurds in Turkey are Turkish citizens”
Since drones are essential for “self defense” according to a so-far anonymous DoJ attorney who wrote this, I suppose that these drones will fall under the protection of the 2nd-A when possessed by civilians for their “self-defense” too.