Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the tendentious claims that Israel is maintaining an illegal "occupation" of Palestinian land -- claims evidently believed by the President of the United States:
A poster at Jihad Watch recently recommended that readers here acquire “knowledge of the day to day lives of the Palestinians and their experience under occupation.""Occupation"? What "occupation"? All the territories the Israelis now possess are theirs by legal right -- the right conferred by the League of Nations Mandates Commission, when it carefully defined the territory which would be set aside, from the vast territories in the Middle East that had formerly been in the control of the Ottoman Turks as part of their empire, and which had been won by the Allies. An Arab State, a Kurdish State, and a Jewish state were all promised. The Arabs got their state -- no, in the end, they got far more than their state but rather, in 2005, 22 members of the Arab League, the most richly endowed with natural resources of any states on earth, enjoying the fruits of the greatest transfer of wealth in human history The Kurds did not get their state, because by the time things had settled, Kemal Ataturk was driving a hard bargain and would not permit it. The Jews got the Mandate for Palestine set up for the express purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home, which would inexorably become, all parties realized, in time a Jewish state. It did not seem wrong then, and does not seem wrong now, that the Jews should have a state of their own. They asked only for the right to have no barriers put up to their immigration, and no barriers put in the way of their buying land. That was it. That was the sum total of what they demanded. Until the 1948 war, when five Arab armies attacked, not a single dunam of Arab-owned land (and remember that nearly 90% of the land, in any case, remained the possession of the state or the ruling authority, as in the Mandatory period) was appropriated. No one should dare to write about this subject without having done the research on demography, land ownership, and law.
The Israeli claim to the West Bank (as Judea and Samaria were carefully renamed by Jordan after 1948, in precisely the same way, and for the same reason, that the Romans, nearly two thousand years before, had renamed Judea as "Palestine" and Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina) is not that of a military occupier, though it is also that. The main legal and historic claim is that based on the League of Nations Mandate, which in turn, was based on a considerable historic and moral claim recognized by the educated leaders of the then-civilized world, who actually knew something of the history of the area, and were not nearly as misinformed as so many have been by the mass media, and the laziness and prejudice of journalists today.The notion of "occupation" of course evokes imagines of Occupied Paris, or Occupied Berlin, after the war. It implies no justification for the claims of the power with the military presence. But the claim of Israel to the lands it took in 1967 are based, for the Sinai, on the standard rules of post-war settlement, the rules which have obtained for centuries, whereby a victor in a war of defense keeps what he has won. If the Israelis chose not to, or were forced not to exercise that right, it does not mean that the right did not exist. It did, and it applies even more forcefully to Gaza and the West Bank. But the claim there is not based merely on the successful conquest of territory to which otherwise Israel had no claim. It did have a claim, a claim based clearly on the Mandate for Palestine -- and like all the other League of Nations Mandates, was formally accepted, taken over as it were, by the United Nations when it came into being. This is a matter of record. It cannot be undone.
Whatever else one wishes to say about the West Bank or Gaza, the word "occupation" is a tendentious, and cruel, misnomer. What it seeks to imply, what it seeks to implant in the minds of men, is clear: Israel has no rights here. This is nonsense. This is the very reverse of the truth. Read the Mandate, and the Preamble to the Mandate, for Palestine. Then read the records of the Mandates Commission -- and especially how they reacted when the British unilaterally announced that the terms of the mandate would not be applied to Eastern Palestine -- that is, the consolation prize given to Abdullah of the Emirate of Transjordan.
Read it, and understand it.
Mr. Spencer raises some excellent points.
The Jews of Palestine are like the American Indians. When Balfour announced the Jews could have autonomy back on their reservations, the Arabian immigrants said they would kill the remaining Indians. Actually, the occupier/occupation thing is wholly reversed. It is the other way around. Arabian Moslems had been invading the ancestral Jewish homeland since the Prophet started beheading the Jewish populations of Medina. In a certain sense, the Balfour Declaration re-established Jewish rights in their ancestral homeland of Palestine which Moslems had usurped. Balfour acknowledged for Jews a small piece of Palestine being a smaller piece of Judea & Sumeria being a smaller piece of Arabia. The Moslem Arabian nomads are the occupiers.
It is indeed ironic that the "Palestinians" demand their rights as "Palestinians." The term Palestine was give by Titus to the land of Judea & Sumeria when the Romans wanted to obliterate a Jewish connection to their homeland. He turned to his historians and asked the worst enemy of the Jews. When Titus learned the worst enemy was the Philistines, he renamed the place Palestine or Philistine. Unknown to Titus and the "Palestinians" of today is the fact that the word Philistine means invader in Hebrew. Look at the irony the invading Moslem Arab nomads are demanding their rights as "Palestinians." We demand our rights as "invaders!" We are Palestinians, we demand our rights. We are "invaders," we demand our rights. How religion plays into this dynamic of deceit is now becoming readily apparent thanks to the work of people like Mr. Spencer.
When first regularly viewing the BBC Int'l news about 5 years ago, would hear commentators incessantly talking about "occupied palestinean lands" which was infuriating, especially Olna Guerin, who sounded like the ensconced propaganda minister for the PA, her voice dripping with pathos and resentment, standing near some rubble, trying to have some hijab wearing older woman near her , wringing her hands (She actually recently received some order of the empire award for her reporting from Tony's government.Figures.)
Cut out that mainstreammedia news 2 years ago.
What a crock.
I'm perfectly comfortable with the use of 'disputed' territories as opposed to occupied.
But we have to acknowledge that 2 million people of Arab descent live on the West Bank. Another million live in Gaza. Sooner or later, the stateless status of these people must be resolved.
There are basically 3 options:
1) The two-state solution which is what the so-called 'road-map' is based on. Israeli withdrawal back to pre-1967 borders - with possible minor modifications - seems to be the only viable means to get the Palestinians on board. This would put Israeli coastal cities within range of Palestinian rockets and artillery.
2) The 'unitary' state, which is popular among Israelis who can't envision withdrawal from biblical lands and among some Palestinians because demography favors them in the long run. They will simply breed themselves into a majority.
3) Mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank. This would be a violation of international law, a human-rights nightmare and tantamount to an act of war. Palestinians who have land deeds dating back to the Ottoman empire will see their property confiscated. Should Israel pursue this tract, one could expect complete international isolation and an end to American patronage.
As unattractive as it is, number 1 is the least inimicle to Israel's identity and viability.
The right of return is where I'd draw the line. I wouldn't except even a token version of this trojan horse. Palestinians who lost their property in Israel proper in 1948 and can prove their ownership should be given the vacated property of Jewish settlers on the West Bank.
This is why partial Israeli withdrawals are counter-productive; the Jewsish state is essentially giving away its cards before a final settlement is negotiated.
"...enjoying the fruits of the greatest transfer of wealth in human history..."
-- posted by Hugh Fitzgerald
Apparently, Mr. Fitzgerald, you weren't paying attention when the most holy Ayman al-Zawahiri (pbuh) released his recent video proclaiming that all young Moslems should join the Jihad to avenge the fact that the colonialist West has been stealing Moslem oil for deacades.
One should ask every Muslim (and every non-Muslim supporter of the "Palestinian" Jihad) who complains about the Jewish "occupation", what they think about the occupation of Cyprus by Turkey. Somehow it seems that while it is legitimate for the Arabs to demand that Jews leave the "occupied territories" and to blow them up if they don't; for the EU to demand the recognition by Turkey of Cyprus is to demand "too much", and no one even dreams about demanding the end of the occupation or the forced removal of Turkish inhabitants from the island. Also, none of the Western leftists arranging solidarity marches with "Palestinian" terrorists ever expressed any solidarity with the Soviet-occupied peoples of the Baltic states and Eastern Europe. Apparently, "occupation" is only condemnable when its alleged victims are Muslim and "desperate" (or just violent) enough to blow up the children of the alleged occupiers.
"3) Mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank. This would be a violation of international law, a human-rights nightmare and tantamount to an act of war. "
Unlike, of course, blowing up children on school buses, lobbing rockets upon villagers, kidnapping and murdering people who happen to be Israeli Jews. We certainly wouldn't want anything like a human-rights nightmare tantamount to an act of war, now would we?
Infidel,
Absolutely valid point you've made. I'm looking at this from a realistic prism, devoid of the emotionalism that so characterizes the pages of these comments section.
There is a standard for proportionality. Uprooting 2 million people (3 million if you keep Gaza) would be a massive and historically infamous undertaking. Thousands - maybe tens of thousands - will resist and be killed.
I knew I was going to catch some flak for what I wrote, but I stand by it. Mass expulsion is the chimera of extremists.
Please don't misunderstand me. I totally support Israel, up to and including the wall, which seems rather like a humanitarian act to me.
However, I wonder what is the purpose of appealing to the Mandate? The Muslims will just say that it is some imperialistic fraud. What even constitutes 'legality' in the resolution of border disputes between nations? (A vast and naive question, I know. Perhaps just answering the first question is enough.)
Hugh,
Thank you very much for responding to my post. I feel priviledged to be a part of this site and this debate, which I believe is the fundamental question of our time.
I am an American. Imagine, a now-defunt international body promised the land I live in to the Indians (yeah, that's right, let's get non-PC here). It is perfectly just; long before my family migrated here, they were here.
Accept Indian military forces, quartering in my town, my home even.
Accept that Indians will settle around, and between, American cities, and Americans' movement will be restricted. Building new homes for Americans will be restricted, while Indians can build where ever they wish.
Accept that their population will be armed. If they kill me or a member of your family, no questions will be asked.
I would fight like hell against any sort of arrangement. So would you. So would any rational atheist, Chritian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Animist, Flying Spaghetti Monsterist, anything. Even Muslims.
The problem is not Israel. It is not Palestine. It is Islam and its pernicious doctrine of Jihad and expansionism. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a horrible irritant, which drives many Muslims to sympathize with Jihad, people who might otherwise question its doctrinal justifications.
We on this site, indeed this entire movement that is growing online and all over the world, to unmask Jihad and its roots in Islam, cannot win this conflict; we can only bring about a policy of containment, like the US pursued during the cold war. The inherent stupidity of communism is what won that fight. It was not any specific event, anything a western leader did, such as Reagan's military buildup (though they of course did contribute). Islam today is like communism. Its internal contradictions, exposed to the light of day, are the most potent weapon against it.
That light is obscured, however, by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Reaching back into history to the Mandatory period in the 1910's, to the Islamic conquest, to the Jewish uprisings against Rome and the Roman response, the etymology of the very word "Palestine", accomplishes less than nothing. It insists, against all the material reality of the situation, that the oppression, intimidation, expropriation, and yes, occupation, are justified on historical grounds. The "fog of war" from this conflict, more then anything, is what obscures the evil of Jihad and the disastrous effect of Islam, on Muslims and the world.
Quijybo
That light is obscured, however, by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Quijybo, you seem to have a problem with Jews, don't you? The problem of Jihad is not "obscured" because Muslim's are killing Jews. It's only "obscured" because you obviously believe that the death of Jews by Muslims is of a different order than the death of anyone else killed by Muslims in their Jihad.
You want to justify Muslims killing Jews in this Jihad because "the situation, that the oppression, intimidation, expropriation, and yes, occupation, are justified on historical grounds" while at the same time separating this Jihad from what you believe is the world Jihad.
You are blind to the fact that it is your kind of fuzzy thinking which "obscures" the reality of Jihad. As Hugh wrote in response to you anti-Israel nonsense yesterday, "The notion that we should convince ourselves that a Jihad is not a Jihad because of the particular Infidel victim in question, is curious, and dangerous."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008624.php#comments
Judgment of the Sword:
Hugh:
You are of course aware of the three conditions offered by Muslims to infidel dhimmies according to the roles of Jihad:
1) Convert to Islam
2) Surrender and accept the humiliation of a dhimmi status and pay the Jizzya
3) Refer judgment to the sword, whereby God confers victory on whomever he wells, and to the victor goes the spoils of war.
Since Muslims have resorted to the third Shar’ia-sanctioned option, then it was the well of Allah that the Jews prevailed. Therefore, it is the Jews right to hold the territory as long as they maintain military superiority, in any case.
"One should ask every Muslim (and every non-Muslim supporter of the "Palestinian" Jihad) who complains about the Jewish "occupation", what they think about the occupation of Cyprus by Turkey."
-- posted by rahel
Hey rahel, don't forget about Kashmir!
"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a horrible irritant, which drives many Muslims to sympathize with Jihad, people who might otherwise question its doctrinal justifications."
Posted by: Quijybo at October 21, 2005 11:19 AM
a "horrible irritant"? Hardly. The Arab nation and so-called Palestinian leadership have done everything they could have to maintain Arab Muslims in "refugee camps" (I doubt there are any Christians living in these camps, but could stand to be corrected)for political and economic purposes. As Anwar Sadat put it around the time he signed the peace agreement with Israel, "They shed crocodile tears for the blood of the sons of Egypt and raise the price of oil."
The cause of those Arab peoples displaced pursuant to the establishment of the State of Israel has had few greater or more articulate friends than Christopher Hitchens and even he has come to conclude that the Palestinians and their supporters have opted for violence when adequate, honourable political solutions have been offered them.
Just one tiny strip of land, the homeland of the Jews. The whole of the middle-east for arabs. Why can't the arabs leave the Jews in peace?
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/resources/ngo/maps/view/mideastm.html
"Mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank. This would be a violation of international law, a human-rights nightmare and tantamount to an act of war. "
Cornelius, Cornelius, Cornelius.
#1) Are you even remotely aware of the number of Jews that have been forcibly expelled (or worse) from Islamic nations?
#2) I guess the forcible expulsion of Jews by armed troops in Gaza two months ago doesn't come under the category of a "violation of international law, a human-rights nightmare, and tantamount to an act of war"?
#3) Do you have any knowledge of the history of the Pakistan/Indian partition? How about the Korean conflict? The partition of Germany after WWII? The Arab/black conflict in Darfur? Has there ever been a conflict that did not have refugees? Just like the myopia of the Administration that can only focus on rooting out terrorists from one country (Iraq), there is a myopia that the Israeli-Arab conflict is the only one in history that cannot possibly have any refugees.
I could go on, but what is the use? If you are even an occasional reader of JihadWatch, with even a minimal awareness of history, and you still think that the Jews (with their
Oops, didn't like the "less than sign".
Continued....
... (with their less than 0.5 percent and shrinking, of the ME) are on a jihad to forcibly take land from the poor peaceful Muslims, then nothing I say can make the slightest bit of difference.
Quijybo writes, Islam today is like communism. Its internal contradictions, exposed to the light of day, are the most potent weapon against it. That light is obscured, however, by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..... The "fog of war" from this conflict, more then anything, is what obscures the evil of Jihad and the disastrous effect of Islam, on Muslims and the world.
Absolutely brilliant points! You hit the nail on the head with that. Islam and Islamists have become adept at hiding their quest for global domination by artificially manufacturing and stage-managing 'conflicts'. They do this by duping the World press with their 'spin' on the news, and by making use of the fact that most people have a very short attention span and are unlikely to dig deeper in order to check for the 'reality' that lies under all their spin. This is true of almost all the Islamic hot-spot regions of the world: be it Palestine, Kashmir or Chechnya.
I come from Kashmir and can tell you for a fact that the Indian government there treats Kashmiri Muslims far more preferentially than it does Kashmiri Hindus or Buddhists (none of whom, by the way, want to have anything to do with the 'azaadi' (i.e., freedom) that the muslims are clamoring for). And yet the commonly held view (in Europe and the USA) is that the 'poor' Kashmiris are struggling under the high-handed 'occupation' of India. This impression is based on the heavy presense of the Indian army in Kashmir and through interviews with Kashmiri muslims who have become adept at presenting a 'sob' story. But what exactly is the azaadi that the Kashmiri muslims are asking for and how does it differ from what freedoms they already have? Dig deep enough and you will find that the Kashmiri muslims share the same goals as the terrorists in wanting to create an Islamic state of Kashmir with sharia as the law of the land (under which, of course, they will have far less fredoms). I am continually amazed by how the World is so taken in by the duplicity of Kashmiri muslims. And then when I myself have dug deeper into these other conflicts (e.g. Palestine, Chechnya) I find the parallels astounding.
As Quijybo points out it is important that we dispel the "fog of war" and turn our focus on Islam itself. We need to recognize that Islam is no different than communism in that its aim is global conquest through curtailing of all the human rights we take so much for granted. Unlike communism, however, Islam is far more insidious since it cloaks itself in the garb of religion.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Bush Sucks Up To Abbas
In a display worthy of a vomit bag, President Bush showered Fatah terrorist organization chief Mahmoud Abbas with gushing ass-kisses at a White House rose garden press conference yesterday. A more pitiful act of dhimmitude would be difficult to imagine, so I have decided to share with you some of the more nauseating moments of this disturbing spectacle.
Read the rest at Madzionist Blogoff
-MZ
MJ,
I'm a Jew, as are my entire family, most of my friends and about 20% of the city I live in (NYC, sadly host to a disloyal Muslim population as well). I'm no Avram "Noam" Choamsky. I care about Israel and want it to be secure and free or Jihadist terror. I have the same goal as everyone here. To do so, Israel needs a winning strategy, just like the US needs a winning strategy against the global Jihad.
Like it or not, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the axes about which turns the whole Jihad and its adherents today. Palestinians come back time and time again to the occupation as the primary source of their suffering NOW. We cannot resolve all historical grievances, but we can build a defensible position NOW. That is to separate the populations. The eyes of the world are there, like it or not; it is not Cyprus, or India in 1947, to which the eyes of the world are turned.
My whole point is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a war even if Jihad did not exist. This is what I mean when I say we have to decouple our fight against Jihad from the occupation.
Waterdragon,
I am well aware of the vicous cynicism of the Arab response to Israel and the Palestinian refugees. I cannot dispute that they have been universally unreasonable. It is best to separate from people like this, not doom oneself to having to deal with them forever. This is what the settlement/resettlement of the remaining Arab-majority hinterland of Judea and Samaria (or whatever one wants to call it) will accomplish. Separation, an end to the day to day friction between the IDF and the Palestinian population, is a better strategic option.
Quijybo
Quijibo said "That light is obscured, however, by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Reaching back into history to the Mandatory period in the 1910's, to the Islamic conquest, to the Jewish uprisings against Rome and the Roman response, the etymology of the very word "Palestine", accomplishes less than nothing."
Yes, let's not muddy the discussion with the relevant facts. Let's rely on bias and innuendo: calling Judea/Samaria "the West Bank", calling Jewish inhabitants "the settlers", equating "Palestinian" terrorism that kills unarmed citizens on a bus and the Israeli response that kills the "Palestinian" terrorists afterwards as a "circle of violence", and describing 20+ year old "Palestinians" dropping cement blocks from a freeway overpass onto Israeli cars below as "unarmed stone-throwing boys".
Did you read Hugh's article? If you did, you'd realize that your stirring description of valiant citizens protecting their homes and lives applies to the Jews of Israel, not to the "Palestinian" immigrants. It's not the "fog of war" that is making the Israeli fight for survival from jihad cloudy in your mind.
Special Guest,
I challenge you to rent and watch the movie "Gaza Strip". Everyone who wants to resist the global Jihad should. It is a very candid look at the life of a young boy in Gaza, a documentary.
I'll read/watch/study anything you recommend, in exchange. Bear in mind, I'm already reading, simultaneously, the Quran, RS's new P.I.G. to Islam and the Crusades, and after that Bat Ye'or's Decline of Eastern Christianity. No one can accuse me of being uninformed. Do not mistake me for a doe-eyed bleeding heart.
I support, 100% Israel's right to exist and defend itself, against suicide bombers, brick droppers, bloodthirsty people, be they immigrants, or born there. Let's not pretend, however, that all Arabs in Israel arrived after 1900.
Quijybo
Special Guest,
I did not see all of your response to Cornelius. Can you recommend a decent history of Islam in India, and the India-Pakistan partition? I am very interested in this. I know it was a bloody conflict, instigated by Muslim leaders to create a "clean" country. I guess blood is a great cleanser - I should use it on my kitchen floor!
Quijybo
Quijibo said "Palestinians come back time and time again to the occupation as the primary source of their suffering NOW."
You honestly think that if Israel disappeared in a puff of smoke tomorrow (which Iran is working on as we speak), that the jihadists would not have another 10 excuses lined up for continuing the jihad? Holy Shi'ite! It sounds like someone is swallowing the PLO mythology hook, line, and sinker.
"My whole point is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a war even if Jihad did not exist."
If it was a simple conflict over land and was distinct from the jihad, then the Israeli concessions and compromises would have ended it decades ago.
"This is what I mean when I say we have to decouple our fight against Jihad from the occupation."
I wish that it was decoupled from jihad since that would lead to an easier solution, but that's not what the jihadists believe. That asymetrical application of hope is what keeps this conflict going.
BTW, the ancestral home of Jews is not NYC, contrary to popular opinion. ;-)
Quijybo, I see I had completely misunderstood your 'fog of war' quote. You seem to say that we need to separate out the 'legitimate' concerns of muslims in their various conflicts from the issue of Islam itself. I totally disagree with that viewpoint since it is Islam that is coloring the 'conflict'. The 'fog' as I see it, is that muslims cloak their so called 'conflicts' as legitimate right to self-determination, when in fact all they are trying to do is to make Islam the law of teh land. My question is simple... in what way are the Palestinian, Kashmiri and Chechen muslims being discriminated under their present status? And when these muslims clamor for freedom, what exactly do they mean? It turns out they don't want freedom, they want sharia.
"a decent history of Islam in India...."
-- from a posting above
K. S. Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India (recently reprinted by Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi), Indian Muslims: Who Are They?, The Legac of Muslim Rule in India, Muslim Slave Systems in Meideval India.
Sita Ram Goel and others (Arun Shourie, Harsh Narain, Jay Dubashi, Ram Swarup), "Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them."
Western writers: google Koenraad Elst, and Francois Gautier.
On that Gaza movie:
Any movie such as that you refer to above (A Day in Gaza) is going to be context-less propaganda. How did the Arabs get there? Why are they still in camps, virtually alone of all refugees after many decades -- why didn't the Egyptians from 1948 to 1967 do something for them? And how were they treated under Israeli rule in comparison with the Egyptian rule before, or the rule by "Palestinians" after? Do we have statistics on education, infant mortality, access to modern medicine, and standard of living, for both Gaza and the West Bank? We do. And all of those statistics not only exonerate the Israelis, but absollutely astound. The Israelis have nothing to apologize for, in Gaza or the West Bank. And the more you study the whole matter, the history of the area, the demography, the land-ownership, the behavior of the Arabs toward the Jews in their midst historically, and more recently, in pre-Mandatory and Mandatory and post-Mandate Period "Palestine," the more one realizes this.
There have been a lot of atrocities committed, to the Jews and to the Christian Arabs, and even to the Muslims being manipulated for various purposes by their own or outside Arab rulers. Many atrocities -- but not by the Jews in Israel.
"I challenge you to rent and watch the movie "Gaza Strip"."
I welcome your challenge. A little propaganda never anyone.
I am not authoritative enough to have recommendations for you. It sounds like you are reading the right sources, although they don't seem to cover earlier Jewish/Islamic history.
For India/Pakistan, there's "Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India" by Gyanendra Pandey. Or the basic facts are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India. Here's a relevant quote:
"Once the lines were established, roughly 13 million people crossed the borders to what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority. Approximately 7 million Muslims went to Pakistan from India while about 6 million Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan."
We saw the same thing when Transjordan (now Jordan) was created, except that it was only in one direction. The Jews were forcibly expelled from Jordan (obviously not a gross violation of human rights nor a virtual act of war), but Arabs were and are welcomed as citizens in Israel.
There is an excellent article in the New Republic today by Benny Morris. Benny Morris, as most folks on this list probably know, was one of the key intellects behind Israel's "New Historians" or, as they are sometimes called, "post-Zionists". Many are known to be extremely hostile to the State of Israel and Benny Morris was no exception. However, unlike some his compatriots, Benny Morris has spent time re-thinking his positions.
My object in presenting this to you is what Morris writes in a refutation of a recent work of Palestinian propaganda parading as scholarship:
"...the U.N. General Assembly voted by more than a two-thirds majority in favor of partition and the establishment of Jewish and Arab states. The Palestinians and the Arab states rejected the resolution and vowed to prevent its implementation. Throughout the Arab world the cry went up for "jihad."
Quijybo writes that, "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a war even if Jihad did not exist. This is what I mean when I say we have to decouple our fight against Jihad from the occupation."
There was no "occupation" when the Jihad war of annihilation first surfaced unless you call the 1947 partition an "occupation". Jihadis, of course, do that all the time as does anyone who claims that Israel has no right to exist. But how does one then make the claim that they " support, 100% Israel's right to exist and defend itself"?
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051031&s=morris103105&c=1&pt=zVfr518w0XPWkTwpnM3YSC%3D%3D
Hugh said "why didn't the Egyptians from 1948 to 1967 do something for [the "Palestinians"]?"
And what happened in 1970 when King Hussein allowed his bretheren "Palestinians" to come to Jordan?
Black September. Arafat tried to overthrow Hussein, and war broke out. Hussein wisely expelled the "Palestinians". But it was not a gross violation of human rights, nor a virtual act of war.
Special Guest,
Let's get beyond polemics.
Are you advocating the mass expulsion of 3 million Palestinians from the disputed territories?
Quijybo says: Palestinians come back time and time again to the occupation as the primary source of their suffering NOW. We cannot resolve all historical grievances, but we can build a defensible position NOW. That is to separate the populations.
I couldn't agree with you more completely, Quijybo. To insure both sides are given a viable nation of their own, where they both can succeed economically and still leave room for the sprawling population growth of both moslems and Jews, we simply divide everything east of the Jordan River for the "Palestinians" and west of the Jordan River for the Israelis.
End of conflict.
-MZ
Cornelius, can you draw or describe a map of Israel that will be acceptable to Israel's Arab neighbors?
It's nice and generous to treat Gaza and Judea and Samaria as peace offerings to the jihadists.
But what do the jihadists say about the possibility of a smaller version of Israel existing peacefully in the Middle East?
The issue of 'what strategy to accept to treat the 'conflict' between Israel and the so-called 'Palestians?' (two-state, one-state, explusion, or perhaps others) seems to presuppose that some treatment of the 'conflict' is possible through policy, political agreements, or military action. But is the assumption warranted? Hugh Fizgerald has argued here before, rather convincingly, I think, that the so-called 'conflict' amounts to nothing more than Jihad against Israel in the end (the Lesser Jihad). And, like the Jihad against all non-Muslims (the Greater Jihad), this war against Israel is perpetual, without end, and will exist as long as Islam exists. And the jihad is messy; there is no simply way to define it, or capture it conceptually; jihadist attacks morph in unpredictable ways, from indiscrimate mass murder to UN resolutions, to demographic invasion, to threats against non-Muslim institutions, cultural values, to political protests, like, in the case of Israel, political pressure about the right of return, to God knows what next: as long as the jihad against Israel exists no policy maker will be able to say, 'this is it, the jihad, and here is a way to stop it'. The jihad springs from Islam itself and as long as Israel exists and Islam exists the jihad will exist. Hence, it seems to me the question is not 'What is the best way to end the 'conflict'? but rather 'What policies and military strategies now, in this particular context (i.e. the current state of the Jihad) are most prudent to defend the people of Israel and diminish the threat of Jihad, to the extent one can?'
These are very different questions. The latter assumes that there will never be a solution, and there will never be a single strategy or policy that will solve the problem; there can only exist policies and strategies in a particular context that adapt to current conditions that aim at the best results that can be obtained.
It seems to me this is the best that a little country like Israel can do. The more important issue, of course, is what big powers, like the US, the Europeans, Russia, China, perhaps also India, will do about the global jihad, of which, the lesser jihad is a part. The problem can only be effectively treated on a global scale, and such a global treatment of the problem, of course, presupposes that major powers recognize the problem for what it is. And, until this very day, they obviously don't. Hence, the tiny nation of Israel, like the Jews in Europe in the 1930s, are left to fend for themselves against a monster, a monster whose defeat, or in this case perhaps containment, will only come once that monster has caused sufficient pain and harm to others and is identified for what it is.
But the Jihad is more of a chameleon than the National Socialism, hiding at the core of Islam itself, a belief system thinly coated with a peaceful, non-threatening veneer; it is a threat that even many Israels seem to have difficulty grasping. It exists, not as a person or as a state, but as an eternal idea whose instantiations are various, unpredictable. Such a source for facism, Islam and the core doctrine of jihad, such a force for violence, destruction, the death of culture and humanity, the world has never known.
JTF,
Thank you for your eloquence. I believe you have hit the nail on the head.
Quijybo
Special Guest,
I have no illusion that after an Israeli withdrawal from disputed territories there will be uninterupted peace in the Middle east for the rest of eternity. In fact, I've written in this very forum more than once my belief that after the consolidation of a Palestinian State, Arabs inside Israel will be incited to begin their own campaign for national liberation and an entirely new intifada of agitation and violence will begin.
This doesn't change the fact that 3 million Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza are living today as non-citizens in a stateless limbo. The situation is untenable. This is why Sharon pulled out of Gaza.
There are Arabs - Palestinians among them, who have expressed a willingness to accept Israel as part of a two-state solution. Turkey, Jordan and Egypt have embassies in Tel Aviv. Pakistan, Morocco, the UAE, Oman and Qatar have all engaged the Israelis diplomatically.
Again, I have no illusions. I'm just trying to put context on this. Things are bad. They could be much, much worse.
Mass expulsion would bring the world down on Israel's head. The US would be compelled to terminate its generous aid (and I guarantee this would happen), Israel would find itself completely isolated, facing economic sanctions and the prospects for a general war with its neighbors, something it hasn't had to face since Egypt opted out of the military equation.
Mass expulsion would precipitate an existential threat to Israel, either through war, economic strangulation or both. The hope of peace, though muted with a justifiable skepticism, is still preferable to such a scenario.
As for your analogies:
The removal of the Gazan settlers was an ugly spectacle, but
1) it was carried out by their own Democratically-elected government
2) it only involved the removal of humdreds, since the majority of settlers had already left
3) no one was killed and to my knowledge, no one was even injured
There's just no comparison to what will happen if Israel expels 3 million Palestinians.
The population transfers after WWII must be seen in the context of that moment in history; Germany had visited unimaginable suffering on its neighbors, killing millions, and was completely vanquished with not a friend in the world.
Meanwhile, the terrorist violence of the jihadis is repugnant and indefensible, but lets keep a sense of proportion here. Less than 1000 Israelis have been killed accumulatively in the two intifadas. And the Palestinian cause is supported by 1.2 million Muslims, not to mention millions of non-Muslims. The two situations are entirely different.
As for the Janjaweed in Sudan, surely you don't advocate Israel imitate the behavior of these genocidal monsters?
That should be 1.2 billion Muslims.
There are a lot of Posts here so it may have been mentioned.
The "Palestinians" didn't exist until the ultimate terrorist Arafat created them with his "big lie" which so many idiots have bought.
One must not also forget all the archelogical evidence of the Jewish people from Bilical times in Israel.
Corny,
The only sensible course is expulsion, (the insensible course is genocide).
Its the Euroscum who prevented the expulsion hitherto, and they paper tigers going down the tube of history.
For a start Gazastan should be emptied into Jordan or into anywhere else but the West.
duhgene,
Mass expulsion may just create the global psychology to countenance genocide.
"Mass expulsion would bring the world down on Israel's head."
Just like the mass explusion of Jews brought the world down on the 22 Arab states. Just like the mass expulsion of "Palestinians" brought the world down on Jordan. Just like the mass expulsion of Hindus brought the world down on Pakistan. Just like ... well, you get the idea.
"it only involved the removal of humdreds, since the majority of settlers had already left"
Right, the majority of Jewish "settlers" left of their own free will. Right. And thank you for pointing out that it's a matter of numbers. Expelling thousands, that's morally acceptable. Expelling hundreds of thousands, that's a gross violation of human rights and a virtual declaration of war. Oy vey.
"Mass expulsion would precipitate an existential threat to Israel"
You do realize that there have been multiple wars of aggression by Israel's Arab neighbors with the stated goal of destroying the Zionist Entity, right? Sneezing too loudly would precipitate an existential threat to Israel.
UEST: "Just like the mass explusion of Jews brought the world down on the 22 Arab states. Just like the mass expulsion of "Palestinians" brought the world down on Jordan. Just like the mass expulsion of Hindus brought the world down on Pakistan. Just like ... well, you get the idea."
CORNELIUS: I understand your point. From a moral standpoint, it's completely valid. But you and I and everyone here knows that Israel is held to a different standard than the rest of the world. It is outright bigotry, perhaps even racism, but it is true.
Israel is demonized around the world as is. Can you imagine the global hysteria that the mass expulsion of Palestinians would bring about. It would likely precipitate an oil crises and most certainly UN sanctions. Israel's enemies DO have cards to play. Diplomatic isolation is one thing. Economic isolation another. How long before, under the weight of sanctions and the threat of general war, Jews begin emigrating from Israel en mass?
However hypocritically, mass expulsion WOULD bring the world down on Israel's head, in a way that didn't happen in the other examples you cited. Now you can say "fuck the world"...that's fine. That's how I feel on an emotional level. But I'm trying to get past such emotionalism.
The repercussions of mass expulsion would be existentially threatening to the Jewish state in a way that the Palestinian terror campaign is not. This is why no Israeli government will engage in such a policy.
GUEST: "Right, the majority of Jewish "settlers" left of their own free will. Right. And thank you for pointing out that it's a matter of numbers. Expelling thousands, that's morally acceptable. Expelling hundreds of thousands, that's a gross violation of human rights and a virtual declaration of war. Oy vey."
CORNELIUS: Invert your own logic. You're suggesting that the expulsion of 4000 Jews from Gaza was immoral, but the expulsion of 3 million Palestinians from the territories is not? Perhaps two wrongs make a right? Please dispense with the "moral" argument; there's nothing moral about expelling 3 million inhabitants from their homes.
Christ, on an emotional level, I wish we could expel all devout Muslims living in the world from planet earth. But obviously that's not realistic. What I'm trying to do here is to approach this problem without polemics; face it on the level confronting policy-makers in Washington and Tel Aviv.
I reiterate, not a Jewish soul was even injured in the evacuation of Gaza (or at least none that I'm aware of). Now if you think 3 million Palestinians will go quietly in the night, you're not being rational. I think tens of thousands of deaths are possible - many of them women and children (you know how Palestinians enjoy using their own as human shields).
GUEST: "You do realize that there have been multiple wars of aggression by Israel's Arab neighbors with the stated goal of destroying the Zionist Entity, right? Sneezing too loudly would precipitate an existential threat to Israel."
CORNELIUS: There hasn't been a general war of agression committed by Israel's neighbors since 1973. That's 22 years my friend. Things being what they are, that 22 could easily become 44. Now a warm peace is certainly preferable to a cold peace, but a cold peace is preferable to war. Do something epochally infamous like expelling 3 million people from their homes, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is re-ignited as the Arab-Israeli conflict...but this time, add the efforts of the entire Muslim world into the mix.
Israel might survive such a war, but at what cost?
Please appreciate what I'm writing here in the spirit that it's intended. I'm not trying to score debating points. I'm genuinely looking for answers.
Eventually not only Israel, but a number of countries in Western Europe are going to have to consider, as the lives of their citizens become ever more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous, and efforts at "integration" prove to be merely temporary, vain, and akin to setting up KGB spy camps not for your own spies, but for those of the enemy, what was done by a number of European countries in the aftermath of World War II -- that is, the expulsion of large numbers of those whom, it was felt with reason, had identified with the enemy, had been treated by the enemy as allies (fellow Volksdeutsche), and whose continued presence, it was felt, would be a permanent risk. This not require following, in every respect, the Benes Decree, but it does mean to cease to recoil, without thought, even from mention of the Benes Decree and similar acts. It means being rational rather than striking attitudes.
As for the comments by the poster immediately above, he fails to understand the full and deep malevolence of the Arab view of Israel. Not surprising. So have a generation of so-called peace-makers. Why, just the other day perhaps the stupidest of them, one Dennis Ross, contributed his mite in The New Duranty Times, suggesting that the Israelis would be better off if South Africans came to explain to the "Palestinians" how to reconcile with the enemy. No understanding, by Ross, not a glimmer, of the ideology of Jihad, or the vast differences between the situation in Israel and that in South Africa. And of course, not the slightest idea that just possibly such a suggestion only reinforced the worst Arab propaganda about Israel being an aparatheid state, a repressive little Sparta, instead of what it is, a country that has managed, despite being the victim of the Lesser Jihad, a Jiihad pursued militarily, diplomatically, economically, demographically, propagandistically -- by not only all of the circumambient Arab states, but all the members of the Arab League, and many of the Muslim states (such as Pakistan) and now, the Muslim populations within Europe and America that naturally wish Israal ill -- for they can believe, and do, no other -- has manged, to repeat the verb, to stave off that Jihad.
But for how long? The demographic problem does not go away by lopping off bits and pieces here and there of the land Israel rightfully possesses (by the Mandate for Palestine, and by the proper interpretatio of Resolution 242, which requires "defensible borders"). It stays. It simply develops within tinier and tinier bits of Israel. Isn't that clear? Isn't it clear that by ignoring this, by not discussing it, one is showing that one realizes this but just doesn't know what to do -- and instead offers the kind of absurdities and baseless hopes, and crazed fears (this business of the whole Arab and Muslim world being "angered" by any mass expulsions -- what? They can't be any more angry than they are; such a signal from Israel that it was definitely not going to go, quietly or otherwise, would in fact calm things down, and force a begrudging realization that there was nothing they could do. Remember that Israel does possess several hundred nuclear weapons -- such weapons can do nothing internally, as demographic conquest proceeds, but a lot to stave off external enemies.
It simply has to be thought about, rather than one country after another in the advanced West, its population taught not to think but instead to respond "Oh, that's unthinkable" -- to start, instead, like Benes and Masaryk in 1946, to think. Art, science, and freedom deserve to be protected.
It's an extreme viewpoint Hugh...which doesn't necessarily delegitimize it.
I would disagree mainly with one point, that the Arab/Muslim world can't get any angrier than it already is. Right now, several Muslim countries have relations with Israel; several others have established a dialogue. The Arab/Muslim world is today not on a war footing (Palestinian jihad notwithstanding). There is no oil embargo.
Things could get much, much worse.
The Bibi Solution.
I have no idea who Quijybo really is. But he/she needs to learn a great deal of history and stop believing propaganda. Arabs massacred Jews in Israel before there was a state. Consider the massacre in Jerusalem in April 1920 and the massacres in Hebron, Tiberias, Safed, and Jerusalem in 1929. Further, the first people driven from their homes in Israel's War of Independence were Jews driven out of the Shimon haTsadiq neighborhood in Jerusalem [northeast of Orient House and the American Colony Hotel] and Jews living in south Tel Aviv which is adjacent to Jaffa whence Arab snipers were shooting at Jews on the streets of Tel Aviv from the minaret of the Manshiyah mosque. This was happening in December 1947, while British troops were still in the country in force. The Jews could return to south Tel Aviv after the war. However, the area around Shimon haTsadiq was captured by Arab forces with British help, and Jews also fled from the nearby Nahalat Shimon and Siebenbergen neighborhoods. These people did not return to their homes after the war. The so-called Mandelbaum Gate passage between Israeli Jerusalem and Jordanian-occupied Jerusalem was mainly built over the ruins of the Siebenbergen Houses.
Now, before quijybo asks us to view any childish pro-Arab propaganda --such as the tale of a boy in Gaza-- he should learn about the 68 Jews massacred in Hebron in 1929 and how the bodies of living and dead were mutilated, that is, limbs and breasts cut off, etc. There are still photos of the victims available, although I am not aware of any skillfully manipulative technicolor films. Certainly nothing to compare with the fake filmed "death" of Muhammad al-Dura [see the seconddraft site]. For Hebron photos try www.hebron.org.il
Of course, there are no films of the persecution and oppression by Arabs in Jerusalem and Hebron of Jews in the 1830s, before these Arabs were aware that the country was supposed to be called "Palestine." They thought that it was just part of bilad ash-Sham. Christians too were oppressed as dhimmis in Israel under Muslim rule, whether Mamluks or Ottomans, or Arabs before the Crusades.
Some contemporary accounts of persecution and oppression and exploitation of dhimmis in Israel can be found at http://ziontruth.blogspot.com
If quijybo wants to us to feel sorry for suffering kids, he ought to meet a kid who lived in my neighborhood and got a lot of metal in his head from the bombs of one of the poor "Palestinians" protesting alleged "occupation." The kid has not been right since, although he has recovered much of his functioning. By the way, he was bombed at an outdoor cafe here in Jerusalem while celebrating his birthday with his twin brother and their friends. Two of the friends died.
Even as a wildy pro-Israel, anti Jihad hawk, I feel that the expulsion of "Palestinians" is completely untenable. This is not to say that I favor giving in to terror, however. I belive that the battle now is primarily one for demographics. Areas in the west bank that are primarily arab should be part of an arab state or quasi-state. What no one is mentioning however, is that the Jews of Israel have tried many, many times to give the "Palestinians" a state, and reasonable offers have been rejected many times. Also, The arabs feel entitled to the entire west bank. Unfortuantely for them, being on the losing side of every major war in last 60 years has made that demand unreasonable - the loosers of wars do not dictate demands.... Large cities such as Maale adumim, Gush etzion and others will be part of Israel. Israel keeping those cities (please don't give in to the Arabs and call them settlements) and even a major part of the Jordan Valley as a military buffer is possible, even probable. No, this will not "cure" the conflict, but will make it more quite for a while.
For the record, any solution is dependent upon a cessation of the terror campaign directed against Israel.
But the jihad will never end and there will never be 'a solution'; all reasoning must procede from these assumptions.
Hence, the question is not 'how to achieve peace' but rather 'how to conduct a war of self defense under these particular circumstances, a war that will never end?'
All Infidels under Islamic attack require this mental adjustment, particularly political leaders in the US and Europe: peace is impossible. Perpetual self defense is the issue at hand.
What is irritating about quijybo is that he employs psychological warfare tricks. Note that he doesn't try to argue any point except to pronounce a slogan or a simplistic one-liner. When Hugh Fitzgerald makes an informed, rational argument, quijybo responds by trying to shift the ground to atrocity stories and tearjerkers, plus his slogans that spread more heat than light. Of course, if he wants to play atrocities and tearjerkers, I can give him plenty. I live in Jerusalem and I have heard the big booms of big bombs. Since Quijybo is likely to consider him/herself a "leftist," and "leftists" are supposed to love the poor, I can tell him about the poor people who ride buses here in Israel. Who rides the bus in most places? Here busriders are more likely to be the poor, women, kids, the elderly, foreign workers. People who had cars stopped sending their kids to school by bus --and for good reason. So we have a lot of heart-rending tales here in Israel, although you are not likely to hear them on NPR or PBS or BBC. What about the pregnant woman who was joyfully coming home from her obstetrician when a mass murder bomber got in her way? Well, I won't go on with all these painful memories. Just bear in mind the psy war tricks that quijybo uses.
One more thing. What were the local Jews doing to the Arabs in 1854 when Karl Marx -that Marx!- wrote that: "Nothing equals the misery and the suffering of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, in the quarter of dirt, between the Zion and the Moriah, where their synagogues are situated -- the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance..."[New York Daily Tribune, 15 April 1854]. Why were the Arab/Muslims oppressing the Jews in Jerusalem at that time? There was no Jewish state, no Jewish army, no "occupation"? Yet Marx --and other 19th century writers-- report that the Jews in Jerusalem were oppressed, indeed at the bottom of the social pecking order, low man on the totem pole. How does quijybo explain the traditional Arab/Muslim oppression of Jews, or of the Christians dhimmis too, for that matter?
It is not an expulsion for the Palestinians to be transfered to their own country in Palestine/Jordan. They would be sent to a homeland of their own, to begin a life and a national identity of their own, mercifully sending them out of refugee camps and into a real home.
This is not an expulsion, but an act of kindness. Certainly more kind than giving them insufficient bits of disconnected land that doesn't even belong to them. To say moving the Palestinian people to their own country would be an expulsion is heartless and hateful toward these long suffering Arabs who've been treated as second class by their own brethren since Israel was made a state in 1947.
The international community must redirect the Palestinian "land for peace" process to the Jordanians, rather than unjustly targeting Israel as the scapegoat for this exclusively arab problem.
-MZ
Cornelius writes about his third option to solving the "Palestinian" issue:
"3) Mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank. This would be a violation of international law, a human-rights nightmare and tantamount to an act of war. Palestinians who have land deeds dating back to the Ottoman empire will see their property confiscated. Should Israel pursue this tract, one could expect complete international isolation and an end to American patronage."
I would like him to consider that the international community has accepted the mass movements of people in SEVERAL instances.
With the creation of Pakistan out of a section of India literally MILLIONS of people moved, with Hindus moving to India and Muslims moving to Pakistan.
Futhermore,in 1922, Fridtjof Nansen at the request of the Greek government and with the approval of the League of Nations, Nansen tried to solve the problem of the Greek refugees who poured into their native land from their homes in Asia Minor after the Greek army had been defeated by the Turks. Nansen arranged an exchange of about 1,250,000 Greeks living on Turkish soil for about 500,000 Turks living in Greece. In 1922 he won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.
Additionally, in 1945 after WWII,Chechoslovakian, Hungarians and Poles had 10 million enthic Germans move to their native Germany.
So the idea of populations transfer is not without internationally approved precedent (as seen by Mr. Nansen's Nobel Peace Prize).
The overwhelming Jewish population has been already been transfered from ALL of the Arab countries. It is time for the Arabs to complete the second half of the transfer by taking in their brethren (and their descendants)into their huge many states.
Well, the prevailing consensus surprises me not.
MZ suggests that the inhabitants of the West Bank all live in squalid refugee camps. In point of fact, there are farmers and merchants there who have Ottoman-era property deeds. Interesting how one of the methods we legitimize the Jewish presence in the Holy Land is by pointing out how Jews legally purchased land from the Ottomans in the late 19th and early 20th century. Rightly so.
Conversely, as we argue over the future of that coveted strip of land, similar deeds and claims possessed by Arabs are somehow considered null and void. Sorry folks, doesn't wash.
Our exhortations to push the Arabs into the desert sound earily similar to the cries from the other side to push the Jews into the sea. Our clever machinations here to delegitimize even the existence of the Palestinian people is earily similar to the efforts of the other side to deconstruct any Jewish claim to the Holy Land.
Whatever you want to call the Arab inhabitants in the disputed territories, they exist.
I'm on record here as being opposed to mass expulsion. I maintain my position. As imperfect as the two-state solution is, it is the only one that entails mutual compromise and recognition. I agree with JTF and others that jihad is a permanant construct. But history proves there is an ebb and flow in its conduct.
There are 1.2 billion Muslims on this planet. Unless someone has designed sinister blueprints for the greatest genocide in human history, we have to find a way to co-exist with them. That doesn't mean appeasement, but neither does it entail a blanket delegitimation of every Muslim grievance.
We have to fight them when fighting them is in our interests...and engage them when engagement serves our objectives. We have to relentlessly expose the fallacies and barbarities of their doctrine at the same time that we reach out to them as human beings.
OK folks. I've said my piece. Have at it...
The banking systems are different. Christians once used a non usuray system like Islam. Now they have sold out to the jewish usurors and the Islamics are not budging, That's the problem
The idea that one believes it is wrong to give the Palestinians a nation of their own east of the Jordan River indicates a puzzling hatred for both the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Regarding all those successful Ottoman farmers allegedly living in Judea and Samaria, well, let's just say even if this dubious claim is true it is not relevant if one is interested in making the peace. If these moslems prefer to be Israelis living in a Jewish State, fine, let them be fully participating citizens, but odds are they would much prefer living in their own country to this undesirable option.
-MZ
MZ: "If these moslems prefer to be Israelis living in a Jewish State, fine, let them be fully participating citizens, but odds are they would much prefer living in their own country to this undesirable option."
I respectfully disagree MZ. I think, given the choice, most Palestinians will prefer to stay where they are...(why haven't they emigrated to Jordan up to now, no one is stopping them?).
Which means that the unitary state you envision - minus forcible expulsion - remains the projected demographic nightmare for Israel that it has always been.
My point is this : that the war now is primarily a demographic one. Israel, by virtue of its strength, will be able to consolidate its demographic hold of pre-1967 Israel, with some gains like Maale adumimim, gush etzion etc, but will relinquish its hold on most (however not all) of the west bank. If ya'll don't like it, you should convert to Judaism and move to the west bank, but lacking such demographic shifts the dream of "greater Israel" is not feasable. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to abolish the UN, too.
Corny:
You're still all wet.
Our willingness to discuss and influence policy is what allows us to be successful.
We must not be hidebound by allowing our thinking to be stuck in a box (to mix metaphors).
Send these people to their own country at least, which is Jordan.
Good riddance.
Cornelius
If there are 1.2 billion muslims in the world, could you list some of their contributions to the world.? Anything that has made the collective world a better place to live..inventions..inovations..cultural contributions?
There is only one thing Israel can do to make muslims happy and that is for all Jews on the earth to disappear. No rearranging of boundries, no matter how large, will placate muslims. They will take the inch and scream for the mile and it will continue until the non muslim world wakes up and gives them nothing..nothing at all.
Cornelius erroniously said: I think, given the choice, most Palestinians will prefer to stay where they are...(why haven't they emigrated to Jordan up to now, no one is stopping them?).
So, you think the Palestinians are permitted to emigrate to Jordan if they so desired Cornelius? My, how naive. This is one common misconception that those who are only peripherally familiar with the Israeli/Arab conflict seem to think, yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Not only are Palestinians forbidden to emigrate to Jordan, or ANY Arab country for that matter, but the ones who are there now are living as virtual slaves: not permitted to work, have homes of there own, participate in the government, or even choose wives from among the indigenous poplulation.
In addition, you seem to confuse my point about Palestinians who live in Refugee camps vs. those who have PROOF that they've been living where they are since the Ottoman era. The Arabs who are refugees MUST be moved to there new home in Jordan, as their continued presence in the Jewish State would be detremental to all parties.
-MZ
MZ,
I don't know where you're coming from in terms of familiarity with the Israeli/Arab conflict, but Muslims living in the West Bank marry all the time; wedding ceremonies there are a common occurance. They also not only work where jobs are available in the West Bank, but some are even employed inside Israel proper. I'm not familiar with Israeli immigration policy vis-a-vis Palestinians in the territories, but I would venture to guess that Israel would have no problem allowing them to leave.
duh-gene,
You're very deep.
Cornelius, are you intentionally misrepresenting my words and changing the argument? I clearly was not implying that the 'Palestinians' are forbidden to marry among themselves in the West Bank.
Please read my posting more carefully.
-MZ