There is a political case on both sides
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Both sides do have grievances that need to be addressed.
It is very hard though
to sympathise with the Palestinians
because of: (a) their absurd and immoral goals
(destroying Israel,
setting up an Islamic state),
and: (b) their immoral conduct of the war
(deliberately killing civilians).
The 1920 Palestine pogrom
- The start of the modern Palestinian conflict against the Jews,
before Israel even existed.
During World War 2,
when Israel still did not yet exist,
the Palestinian leadership attempted to get the Germans
to exterminate the entire Jewish population.
In the event of Nazi victory over
Britain,
the Palestinian leadership planned to run an extermination camp for the Jews
near Nablus.
The conflict is not really about territory at all.
Rather it is driven by Muslim bigotry,
which cannot tolerate the existence of a non-Muslim state in the region.
The conflict cannot be ended by any territorial concessions,
but only by change
in the Arab Muslims.
A few points in defence of the existence of Israel:
When Israel was set up in 1947, the area designated was a clear
majority Jewish area
(538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs).
See here
(or via here).
This Jewish majority had developed peacefully (not through warfare)
over the previous 70 years.
Setting this area up as a state was reasonable because:
(a) the Jews (the majority in the area) wanted it,
and:
(b) the state would be a free democracy,
whereas the alternative was
dhimmi status
within some standard Arab Muslim tyranny.
Setting up this area as a state
does not need to be justified by "making up" for the crimes
of the Holocaust
(with the Palestinians paying for European crimes).
It was nothing to do with the Holocaust at all.
The area was majority-Jewish already, and had become so peacefully over the previous 70 years,
with no Palestinians evicted by force.
This area in 1947 had a right to self-determination,
totally independent of the Holocaust.
I see nothing wrong with setting up the majority-Jewish area
as Israel in 1947, therefore.
Whether it was sensible for Jews fleeing persecution to go to the Middle East
in the first place, however
- as opposed, say, to America -
is another question.
Apparently
(though I'd like to see a bit
more context),
Lord Curzon,
British Foreign Secretary 1919-24,
said about the idea of the Jews going to live in the Middle East:
"I cannot think of a worse fate for an advanced and intellectual community".
Still, once brave, embattled democrats are in the Middle East,
it is our duty to support them against non-democrats.
The Arabs rejected this state purely because it was Jewish.
Had it been just another Muslim group,
a separate state would have been accepted without controversy.
But it was intolerable to allow the
dhimmis
to set up a state.
Even worse, one in which dhimmis would rule over some Muslims.
This problem - and nothing else - is the root cause of the conflict.
Hence for the future:
No solution that allows the existence
of a Jewish (or any non-Muslim) state
in any form
can possibly end the conflict.
The only thing that will end the conflict
is a change of mind by the Arabs,
such that they will tolerate the existence of a non-Muslim state,
and non-Muslims in general.
The root cause of the conflict is, and always has been, Muslim bigotry.
A traitor to the West:
Englishman
Sir John Glubb,
commander of the Arab Legion 1939-56
in its wars against Israel.
All Westerners should defend Israel, because it is a democracy.
Photo from here.
In 1973, Glubb wrote the
foreword
to the autobiography of the Palestinian terrorist
Leila Khaled.
Glubb claims that Khaled was humane, and determined
"that her hijackings would not result in loss of human life, especially not in injury to children.
And in fact no one was ever hurt on these enterprises, except her own companion. The object, she explains,
was to show the world that the Palestinians were still alive".
Immediately after the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948,
a combined Arab army of
Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian, and Lebanese forces invaded
to try to destroy the dhimmi state and
exterminate the Jews.
Israel - because it is based on
western principles of freedom
rather than pre-scientific tribalism
- managed not only to beat the combined Arab armies
but in fact expanded its territory.
Many Palestinians were expelled, others fled voluntarily,
during the 1948 war that established Israel.
Clearly there has been Palestinian suffering.
Though much of it
is self-inflicted.
Had the Arabs never tried to destroy Israel,
the Palestinians would never have been displaced.
They would now live either within Israel
(and therefore would be free and prosperous),
or would be next door, as peaceful trading neighbours
(and quite likely a thriving Arab democracy due to Israel's example).
Maybe they shouldn't have tried to destroy Israel?
But even if many Palestinians were wronged,
Israel exists and it's not going away.
Many huge
displacements of populations have taken place in
the last century,
e.g.
the expulsion of German populations after WW2,
or the
Greeks in Turkey,
or, most notably,
the Jews expelled from the Arab countries. (*)
All of these were crimes,
but after a certain number of years
it becomes impossible to go back.
The Palestinians
can never go back,
nor should they ever be encouraged to.
They must give up the
dream of
destroying Israel.
(*) It is usually forgotten that Israel is home to
over 1 million descendants of Jews
expelled from the Arab countries around the Middle East.
Who on the Palestinian side cares about their rights?
Who in the western left cares about them?
HARIF - Association of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa
Was it wrong for Israel to expand its territory in the 1948 war?
No, not necessarily.
There is a long-standing principle that
those who start an aggressive war
should lose territory.
The Arab states have started repeated aggressive wars,
and should suffer for it.
It is almost impossible to define where any country's borders should be anyway,
so there is some rough justice in this.
Certainly, any Arab who finds himself within Israel's borders is lucky,
since they have the chance to live in freedom and with full human rights,
which they won't get in any Arab country.
In general,
since Israel is the only free country in the region,
I would broadly support expanding its borders
and reducing those of neighbouring countries,
in order to maximise the space of freedom in the Middle East.
For example, I think Israel should permanently acquire part of the
West Bank.
The novel
The Lemon Tree by Sandy Tolan (2006)
presents the left's view of Israeli-Palestinian history.
Negative reviews.
I love the one that says this is a "balanced" debate between
a left wing Israeli Jew
"who does nothing but "question" Israeli conduct and history"
and
a far right Palestinian Arab
"who does nothing but "question" Israeli conduct and history".
"The notion that the Palestinians want to rule themselves, that they could do it successfully, that they really accept a two-state solution is one of the most grotesque deceptions ever foisted on the West. Alas, the entire conflict centers around the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim need to restore their lost honor by destroying that which has humiliated them, the autonomous Jewish state in the heart of Dar al Islam."
- Richard Landes
sums up the right-wing view of the Israel conflict,
which contrasts dramatically with the left-wing view that the Palestinians
are rational actors with rational grievances.
I used to unthinkingly believe the left-wing view.
Now I know it is a misunderstanding of the situation.
"Whoever studies the nature of the conflict between the Muslims and the Jews understands an important fact, [namely that] this is a religious conflict, not a dispute about politics or nationality, or a conflict between races or tribes, or a fight over land or country, as some describe it".
- Saudi schoolbook
tells the truth.
But the West isn't listening.
The Palestinian nation was invented
The "Palestinian nation" is a recent invention - a tactic in the larger Arab war on Israel.
It was invented to appeal to western leftists and the like.
It succeeded.
Bruce Thornton, 15 Dec 2011:
"The truly “ignorant,” however, are those who have bought the “Palestinian homeland” propaganda. Where was all this talk about a homeland for the Palestinians in 1948, when the Arab armies invaded Israel? Their aim was not to create a Palestinian state, but rather to carve up the rest of British Mandatory Palestine ... “Abdullah [ruler of Transjordan] was to swallow up the central hill regions of Palestine . . . The Egyptians would get the Negev. The Galilee would go to Syria, except that the coastal part as far as Acre would be added to the Lebanon.” Until 1967, the so-called “West Bank” was part of Jordan, but none of the Arab nations agitated for the creation of a Palestinian state. The “Palestinian homeland” became a tactical weapon after violence failed to achieve the real aim, the destruction of Israel."
Robert Spencer, 9 Dec 2011:
"The Palestinian nation was invented as a tool of the jihad against Israel. Instead of tiny Israel surrounded by huge and hostile Arab states, the picture suddenly changed to the powerful Israeli war machine victimizing an even tinier people."
"The Palestinian people does not exist. ... In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan ... cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
- PLO leader Zuheir Mohsen
tells the truth in 1977 about the invention of
"Palestine" as part of the struggle against Israel.
Terrorism works: The Palestinians try to kill civilians - and the world loves them.
Incredibly, the Islamist way of war
does not bring universal condemnation.
Incredibly, the more brutal the Palestinians are,
the more popular they are.
The more indiscriminately
they kill utterly innocent Israeli women and children,
the more they are supported on western campuses, in demos
and in the western media.
It is very mysterious, and indicates the truth of
my bleak view of human nature.
There are hundreds of
more deserving causes
in the world.
And yet this is the no.1 international cause
- a bunch of racist,
mass-murdering Islamist religious fundamentalists
who want to set up an Islamist state in which there will be
no democracy and no human rights.
Anti-Semitism and Ethnicity in Europe
by John Rosenthal,
on the mystery of left-wing support for the killing of civilians
- "while the escalation of the suicide
bombings should have led to increased solidarity with the largely Jewish victims
and a taking of distance from the
organizers of the attacks, on the left exactly the opposite transpired:
the more indiscriminately Palestinian commandos
killed Israeli civilians, the more frenetically was the intifada covered
with "anti-imperialist" applause."
There is a naive and popular idea
that Israel's response to terror
(such as the post-Munich assassinations in the 1970s)
may have led to more terror.
In other words, that attacking your terrorist enemies makes them stronger.
There is very little evidence for this theory,
to say the least.
There is a lot more evidence for the opposite view
- that appeasement of international Palestinian terror in the 1970s and 1980s
led inevitably to Al Qaeda and 9/11.
Arafat
hijacked airplanes and slaughtered civilians -
and instead of being hanged,
he got invited to address the UN.
The "oppression" and "injustices" the Palestinians have suffered
are rather mild
- and hardly worth even noticing - by historical
and world standards.
There are dozens of
really oppressed peoples
in the world - peoples that are being killed by the thousands
or even by the millions - such as in
North Korea
and the Sudan.
The Palestinians are not the most oppressed people
in the world (far from it).
Rather they are the most violent people in the world.
This is why everyone loves them.
Many
of the haters of western freedom
claim they represent the "impoverished"
of the earth,
and their killers represent an attack on the "rich" of the west,
who, in this bizarre world view, apparently
"exploit" them.
The black reality, of course, is that the leaders
of the killers are often immensely rich,
while their people are poor and unfree
not because of the west
but because of
their own leaders.
The
King of
Saudi Arabia
- $20 billion.
His country has no human rights, and
his Islamofascist citizens,
allegedly representing the "impoverished"
of the earth,
bombed New York, killing thousands.
The
Sultan of
Brunei
- $11 billion.
Incredible wealth, and yet he runs
a country without human rights.
Saddam Hussein of
2003 Iraq
- $2 billion (before the liberation of Iraq).
His people were poor and unfree, allegedly
due to UN sanctions (rather than due, say, to his rule).
Yasir Arafat of
2003 Palestine
- $300 million (before his death).
Leader of Islamofascist killers
who also allegedly represent the "impoverished"
of the earth.
His people are poor and unfree, allegedly
due to Israel (rather than due, say,
to his rule).
Fidel Castro of
Cuba
- $110 million.
His people are poor and unfree, allegedly
due to America (rather than due, say, to his rule).
Osama bin Laden of
Saudi Arabia
- $100 million (before Sept 11th).
This disgusting playboy,
instead of doing something decent with
his inherited wealth, used it
to murder thousands of innocent people
for no reason.
For comparison, consider the estimated wealth
of the "rich" leaders, who, of course,
tend not to hold power for anywhere near as long
as the above
rulers either:
Bush
of the
USA
-
$17 million.
(Also here.)
Runs a free society, in which thousands of ordinary citizens
are richer than him.
Saddam Hussein had 100 times the wealth of Bush.
Blair
of the
UK
-
upper middle class,
perhaps $2 or 3 million.
Runs a free society, in which thousands of ordinary citizens
are richer than him.
Olmert
of
Israel
-
middle class,
perhaps less than $1 million.
Runs a free society, in which thousands of ordinary citizens
are richer than him.
This genocidal thug
expresses well how the Israel-haters in the
Islamic world
are the heirs to the Nazis,
with the same goals
but (thank heavens) not the power to implement them.
Israel, thank heavens, won in 1948
and prevented the Arabs carrying out their genocide.
But Israel cannot afford to lose even once,
or Holocaust II will happen under the eyes
of an indifferent world.
There will not be peace until the
Islamic world
reforms.
It must
forget about Israel,
abandon anti-semitism,
and embrace democracy, free speech,
freedom of religion,
a secular state
and free markets.
Iraq
may be the first hopeful step along that road.
It is the
Islamic world
that must change, not Israel.
Azzam Pasha's grand-nephew is the Al Qaeda butcher
Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel."
- Egyptian thug Nasser
in May 1967.
"We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants,
and as for the survivors - if there are any - the boats are ready to deport them."
-
PLO head Ahmed Shuqayri
at the start of the Six-Day War
in June 1967,
when the Arab world tried yet again to finish the Holocaust.
"Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters.
Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters.
Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one."
- Sheik Ahmad Bahr,
Acting Speaker of the
Palestinian Legislative Council
and top Hamas official, Apr 2007 (just in case anyone thought the situation was any different today).
Since 1995.
