Fitzgerald: The situation of Israel is changing

Yea, what Hugh said.

The question begs to be answered:

What does Israel do with the 3 million Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza?

1) Expel them en mass, violating both the UN charter and the Geneva Convention

2) Perpetuate their status as stateless people devoid of citizenship living in a legal limbo

3) Grant them independence

4) Grant them Israeli citizenship

I honestly don't know the answer. Were they to behave as genuine partners for peace over an extended period of time, I would advocate #3. Given their pathological addiction to violence and terrorism, the status quo seems to be the best bet.

But it does nothing to resolve the problem. Whatever we want to call these people - Palestinians, Arabs, etc., they exist, and they are not going away of their own volition.

Cornelius

Option 1 is the only viable option, and is known within Israel as the 'Transfer Solution'. Unfortunately, few Israeli pols - even on the Likud led coalition - endorse it.

As for the UN charter and the Geneva Convention, looks like the OIC membership is exempt from it. Which is why no one ever hauled Iraq, or hauls Sudan, Syria, KSA, Indonesia, Malaysia or any other member of the OIC for violating it. Israel should ignore it while making its decisions.

IP,

I disagree with you, but I certainly agree with your second paragraph.

Most of us agree that Israeli territorial concessions AT THIS TIME would be a mistake. But the question remains: How should we resolve the legal status of the 3 million stateless people who live in the West Bank and Gaza?

My guess is that neither Robert not Hugh would be prepared to go so far as to advocate mass expulsion...(though I could be wrong). Yet, if Hugh maintains his advocacy of Israel annexing the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza, what should be done about the residents there? Should they be denied citizenship rights based upon ethnicity? Religion? Perhaps behavior?

IP is for mass expulsion. I'm for maintaining the status quo with an eventual move towards independence for the Palestinians, contingent upon the abandonment of terrorist violence directed against Israelis...which is quite obviously a huge caveat, unlikely to be realized.

Robert, Hugh, and anyone else, please chime in.

I may not be PC when I say this, but there is no solution between Israel and the Palestinians. There are problems in nature as well as mathematics where no solution exists.

In history, these types of problems were resolved by all out war. The winner had his way. In our modern society, we are not able to go there. So I would expect this problem to be with us until one side or the other uses the more historical solution.

“What does Israel do with the 3 million Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza?”

1) From where do you pull out this figure of "3 million"? And how many of the total number of Arabs – Gazan Arabs and “West Bank” Arabs – live in the former, and how many in the latter? I suspect in the "West Bank" it is a little over a million. I know that the Arab birth rate is going down, and that once the local Arabs know that the land is no longer going to be given away, that Israel is there to stay, the most alert members of that society will, as in Gaza, simply move out, and the others will adjust. Darura. Necessity. With great difficulty. With permanent rancor. Too bad.

2) Why do you assume that if Israel holds onto the parts of Judea and Samaria that it took legal possession of on May 15, 1948 (as the sole intended beneficiary of the Mandate for Palestine, to which all of the territory of Western Palestine had been assigned by the League of Nations), and actual possession of in early June, 1967, that this requires the Israelis to also take possession of, or even give a tinker's damn about, Gaza, with its self-primitivized population convulsed in hysterical hatred?

3) Why do not address your question to all the nations of the world that contain minorities that have no desire to be ruled by those in control? Should every single one of those states simply walk away from whatever discrete territories exist on which those “restive” minorities may be found? Do you think it would make sense for Thailand to sever its south, because the Muslims there want it? Or the Philippines to not only give autonomy, but offer independence, to the southern islands? In either case, would the problem be solved, be over, or would those Muslims, in those new states, work to incorporate still more of the circumambient land?

4) Do you think that questions of head-counting, mere head-counting, are more important than national survival? Those parts of Judea and Samaria that the Israelis failed to hold onto (they were so few, and the Arabs so many) in the 1948 war, but did manage to take possession of in the 1967 war, are not only Israel’s by virtue of what the Mandate for Palestine conferred (or do you disagree with the Mandate system? Do you believe that only the Arabs are entitled to inherit all the vast territories once possessed by the Ottoman domains? Your opposition to an independent Kurdistan suggests that might be, or have I misinterpreted?

Without continued control of all of Judea and Samaria, Israel will face a nightmarish situation. It will not control the historic invasion routes from the east. Terrorists holding hand-held weapons in Qalqilya, at the narrow eight-mile waist that Israel was forced to endure within the pre-1967 lines, which were the same as the 1949 Armistice Lines, could hit every airbase in Israel.

All of the aquifers on which the life of Israelis depend are under eastern Judea and Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”).

The border-to-land-area ratio in Israel, already the highest in the world, and a good indicator of a security problem, would go sky-high if the eastern border were not the straight line of the Jordan River, but the ins-and-outs of those 1949 Armistice Lines. Even Resolution 242, for what it’s worth (not much), spoke carefully of “secure and defensible borders.” Secure and defensible borders, which Israel alone must decide (it would be absurd to have those who wish to destroy it define those borders) on the east must surely include the very territory to which Israel, in any case, by both the terms of the Mandate and all the rules of post-war settlements that have ever obtained (see the map of Europe, 1914 and then 1920; see the map of Europe, 1939 and then in 1946. see the map of the Pacific, 1940 and then in 1946).

No doubt, holding onto the “West Bank” is a headache, and will be for some time, until the Arabs finally realize that they are not going to have their appetites whetted by an Israeli surrender of land, and that, as well, the entire Infidel world, now threatened from within, as so many are, with demographic conquest from aggressive and hostile Muslims, and so having to contemplate taking sterner measures, not be more sympathetic to Israel should it take measures to make clear that there will be no retreat, no surrender of rights, accompanied by an open recognition of the nature of the conflict, not as a “struggle of a tiny people…” but rather as a Jihad against an Infidel nation-states. Other nation-states, now facing the same problem, and with that problem growing, are likely to be less disapproving of sterner measures being taken should they prove necessary.

And what would you say if, in thirty years, there were, say, millions of Muslims clamoring for a state of their own in, for example, France, or England, or Italy? Would you be on the side of the so-called “realists” who would point to those burgeoning numbers, and say that there was “nothing to be done” and that “as a practical matter” such autonomy or even independence would have to be given, land – oh, say in Umbria or Tuscany – would have to be surrendered to those Muslims for no other reason than that they were there, and it was “unthinkable” to remove the permanent threat by removing, to any of the vast Musliim lands available, those same un-integrable, permanently dangerous Muslims (dangerous because of what is contained in Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, and how, over 1350 years, Muslims have received, and acted on, those canonical texts).

Final thought.

No doubt, as noted above, the Arabs of the Arab-occupied parts of Judea and Samaria constitute a security headache, but not, I think, unless one wishes to apply, as some Israelis apparently do, standards for themselves of such purity and virtue and selflessness that no other people or country on earth demand of themselves. Instead of permitting some in Israel to wallow pridefully in such phony, moral superiority, , the Israelis should get real about the mortal dangers they face.

And in a fit of folk wisdom I will leave you with this fake folk saying:

You don’t cut your head off just because you have a headache.

I think Muslims should be allowed to remain in Judea and Samaria but be forced to wear 'special clothing' to distinguish them, pay a special tax, pray in secret and 'feel humiliated'. I know, I stole my ideas.

Hugh

To re-phrase Cornelius' question - at least the way I read it -

Would you implement a Benes Decree like policy towards the 'West Bank', particularly given how the Pali (and Israeli) Arabs have proven themselves as loyal to Israel as the Sudeten Germans were to Czechoslovakia - one that only a few Israeli parties within the Likud coalition (rightly IMO) endorse?

OK Hugh....let's deal with each question one at a time...

HUGH #1: "From where do you pull out this figure of "3 million"?"

RESPONSE: Back in the early 70s, there was an estimated 700,000 Arabs in the West Bank and 400,000 in Gaza. Today's figures are commonly cited as 2 million and 1 million, respectively. Given the Muslim predilection for exaggerating their numbers, it's certainly possible these figures are inflated.

I'm not terribly concerned about the specificity of numbers; suffice it to say that there are between 1.5 million and 3 million Arabs living in the "territories", and that the fate of these people constitutes a core component to the I/P conflict.

HUGH #2:...Gaza...

RESPONSE: Absolutely valid point you've made. I only brought it up because of the legal essence of your argument, that Israel was entitled to the entirety on the Palestinian Mandate. You seem to be saying here that while Israel is legally entitled to Gaza, they are under no obligation to have it. Fair enough.

HUGH #3: "Why do not address your question to all the nations of the world that contain minorities that have no desire to be ruled by those in control?"

RESPONSE: Because in the vast majority of these cases - you cite southern Thailand and the southern Philippines, but there are many others - the disaffected minority are at least conferred with the legal status of citizenship within the country in question.

Now, it can easily be argued that legal status doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot when certain minorities are routinely discriminated against or worse, e.g., the Sudanese citizenship of the Darfurese hasn't prevented them from being murdered and raped en mass.

Nonetheless, Israel is a Democratic country with civilized values. Lowering our expectations of standards for Israel in order to comport with those of the Muslim world is as wrong as excusing the Muslim world for its dismal standards based upon the bigotry of low expectations. We can't have it both ways.

In short, the principle difference between the Arabs of the "territories" and disaffected minorities elsewhere in the world is the absence of formal legal status, i.e., citizenship, for the Palestinians.

HUGH #4: "Do you believe that only the Arabs are entitled to inherit all the vast territories once possessed by the Ottoman domains? Your opposition to an independent Kurdistan suggests that might be, or have I misinterpreted?"

RESPONSE: Yes, you have misinterpreted. My opposition to an independent Kurdistan is based on geo-politics and on my concern for the well-being of the Kurds - particularly those in Iraq, who for perhaps the first time ever, have an officially established, constitutionally-enshrined autonomy.

I don't want to see the nascent polity subsumed by Turk, Arab and/or Persian, all of whom share the desire to crush the Kurdish aspiration for self-determination. I don't believe in reckless attempts to push for Iraqi Kurdish independence, particularly within a broader prism of US disengagement and withdrawal. I want Iraqi Kurdistan to survive and flourish as a moderate beacon in a radical sea...a cause best served through autonomy in a unitary Iraq, rather than through an independence that is universally opposed by virtually every player in the region.

HUGH: "And what would you say if, in thirty years, there were, say, millions of Muslims clamoring for a state of their own in, for example, France, or England, or Italy?"

RESPONSE: While the analogy is problematic, I'll be generous and play along...if Muslims are a majority some day in France, England, etc., then the democratic nature of these societies will surely accommodate the aspirations of the new majority (with tragic consequences). The alternative is state repression (also destined to be tragic). The obvious solution is to curtail Muslim immigration while there is still time.

There.

I've responded as clearly as I could to your counter-queries. Meanwhile, perhaps I'm slow but I'm still trying to decipher your response to my own:

"What does Israel do with the [?] million Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza?"

You seem to be saying that Gaza should be cut loose, and those on the West Bank are simply destined to exist as Israel's headache.

Is that the best you can do?

The Benes Decree(that is, one among several Benes Decrees) has been mentioned here, because so few remember it, and because it is an example of an advanced, tolerant state, undertaking measures that were deemed necessary at the time, and that no one within Czechoslovakia, and almost no one outside Czechoslovakia, thought that under the circumstances was to be criticised. So few people remember this, and so many people make assumptions about things that are "simply unthinkable" but that are not only not unthinkable, but have been done, and done by states whose people inhabit the same moral universe as we do. Fault may be found, here and there, with how that decree was executed, but the justification for such a measure, given the history of German aggression, and the way in which so many of the "Sudeteners" not only allowed themselves to be used by Hitler, but -- under Henlein -- followed his directives, and during the war, as Volksdeutsche given the same rations as Germans, and many were, furthermore, happy to collaborate with the Nazis, that the Czech desire to put paid, once and for all, to what was perceived as a security threat was understood by many (Churchill, Truman, and others did not utter a peep of criticism).

The situation with large numbers of Muslims living within Infidel lands depends on all kinds of things. What has their attitude, what has their behavior been like, and are there reasons for real worry. And this question is not one for Israel alone but for those countries in Western Europe that, soon enough, will be forced to consider whether or not the pious hopes they place in "integration" are realistic, given the texts and tenets of Islam, and the attitudes of those who grow up in environments -- families or nieghborhoods or societies or states -- suffused with Islam.

It's not a theoretical problem. It's a real problem, for which there is no solution -- the very word here is permanently inapposite -- but there are mitigating measures to be taken.

Whatever else the Israelis do or do not do, they should not give up their claim to, nor their possession of, those parts of Judea and Samaria that Jordan held from 1948 to 1967, and where the local Arabs were carefully re-named "the Palestinians." The invasion routes, the strategic depths, the control of the heights of Judea, the aquifers, all that adds up to a territory that must not be given up.

When that is clear, local Arabs - if not propped up by Israeli or other Western largesse -- may find that serving as the shock troops for the other Arabs doesn't quite agree with them, and some may move away, and others quieten down. But the situation will always require vigilance. As for Gaza, I'd just let it go as a no-man's-land, a Hobbesian mini-state in the throes of whipped-up hysteria that may never come to an end.

Israel has a 20% Muslim Palestinian population living within the green line (pre-1967 borders). Given current demographic trends as reported in Israeli Universities, the 20% Arab minority will be 40% of the Israeli population in 25 years. These are the figures quoted by reputable Jewish Zionist demographic experts.

A Jewish majority in Israel in the pre-1967 borders in another 50-75 years is by no means guaranteed. When the Palestinians of the West Bank are added to the equation, the Jewish majority disappears, NOW. This is why most Israelis don't want the West Bank, and would be glad to hand it off to a secure, reliable partner.

So either Israel conducts ethnic/religious cleansing Serbian-style or they wait for the demographic catastrophe to unfold.

All the back and forth diplomacy with the USA in the middle is just designed to push the problem under the rug. There is no solution; not just because Israel is an infidel state in dar-el-islam, but because a decisive victory is unattainable. The Arabs are biding their time while their women reproduce like rabbits and the Israeli Jews practice birth control and abortion (50,000 a year).

Under the circumstances, how do we expect the Palestinians to behave?

"Is that the best you can do?"
-- a poster above

You are hot for solutions, to complicated things often not susceptible of a "solution" at all but rather are seen more accurately as conditions to be endured and, over time, mitigated, made more manageable and less threatening, by the application of intelligence quickened by imagination. Certainly there is no quick and easy just add water-and-mix solution to the Judea-and-Samaria problem, but it would certainly have helped things if the Israelis, back in June 1967, had not been so eager for "peace" with a Muslim enemy that has no intention of ever making a permanent peace (how, given what Islam inculcates, would that be possible?), and had they simply quickly incorporated that area into Israel, and said that part of what they had won in a war of self-defense was no longer the subject of negotiation. By now, forty-one years later, a lot of grief might have been avoided.

And as they declared their permanent enfolding of the "West Bank" into Israel, of course, Israel should have said it was never again going to endure the nightmarish security problems it had endured in the past. Furthemore, the government of Israel should have been staffed by people well-versed in Islam, who would willingly explain the doctrines of Islam that made it impossible for Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, whose Islam was reinforced by their ethnic identity, to accept the permanence of an Infidel nation-state in their midst. Had Israel done that then, it would not only have helped Israel. It would have helped force into the consciousnesses of Western elites the nature of, the meaning of, the menace of, Islam. Back in 1967, Western Europe was still full of people who had not been idiotized by a steady diet of anti-Israel reporting, and that clever "Palestinian-people" business. The past forty years of the drip-drip-drip of Arab propaganda, ably assisted by journalists who have no context, no historical sense, no knowledge either of the area or of Islam, has had its dismal effect.

And had Israel been run by those who knew about Islam -- a certain A. Carlebach, a journalist, writing in Ma'ariv in 1951, had Islam's number -- had they understood the full scope of their problem, and grimly accepted what it meant, and had they spoken out repeatedly, think what that might have done to help alert people in Western Europe as to what admission of large numbers of Muslims might someday mean for them.

But of course almost no one in Israel was prepared. The people of Israel were delighted to have won, but very few undersood Islam, and so many thought that somehow these territories they now possesssed were simply to be regarded as bargaining chips. And of course, when those who for religious reasons spoke or wrote of the Land of Israel the with-it, up-to-date, lapsed or unobservant Jews who made up, and make up, so much of Israel's population, would dismiss that kind of argument, and the argument that could not be dismissed, that based on the nature of Islam, was never made.

No, in 1967 Israel missed a chance. It was a terrible error. It is not too late, however, either for Israel or for those in the same galere sooner or later, even if they pretend to themselves otherwise, the countries of Western Europe, to recover their common sense, and to use their intelligence, to undo what they have done, in the case of Western Europe, or to do what they have left undone, in the case of Israel.

The West still has enormous powers of recuperation, if the mind-forged manacles that too many in the Western world have insisted on wearing are slipped off, and thrown away.

That was an honest answer Hugh. Thank you. It's no crime to admit you don't have the solution.

I certainly don't.

When I hear people calling for mass expulsion, I'm mortified at the medieval essence of such thinking. When I hear others advocating concessions and accommodation, I'm incensed at their naivety.

HUGH: "The West still has enormous powers of recuperation, if the mind-forged manacles that too many in the Western world have insisted on wearing are slipped off, and thrown away."

My, my...old sparring partner, I hope to God you're right and that this is not just wishful thinking. My everyday interactions with Liberals propels me to the opposite deduction, that off-the-scale cognitive dissidence is accepted as absolutely normative...and that no amount of logic is ever going to remove those "mind-forged manacles."

"It's no crime to admit you don't have the solution."
-- from a posting above

But I did not admit "I don't have the solution." I ranswered differently, and more accurately: I rejected entirely the use of such a term here as "solution." I said there is no "solution" and the word itself misleads, here as elsewhere.

What is the "solution" to anthropogenic climate change? What is the "solution" to the collapse of our educational system? What is the "solution" to poverty? What is the "solution" to I.Q. differentials, individual and group, and what that leads to? What is the "solution" to this and to that? And so often, every choice involves a loss and a gain.

The very word "solution" when repaired to so often gets my goat.

There are things that can be done to make things better, and things that can be done to make things worse. Ditto with things that one refrains from doing.

I think the very worst thing Israel can do in the "West Bank" is to surrender any control more than has already been surrendered, to the malevolent, untrustworthy, murderous and hate--encouraging "Palestinian Authority."

HUGH: I think the very worst thing Israel can do in the "West Bank" is to surrender any control more than has already been surrendered, to the malevolent, untrustworthy, murderous and hate--encouraging "Palestinian Authority."

Clear enough.

I used to think Hugh was mad on this issue, that we had to admit the occupation and try to remedy the suffering of the Palestinians, but that was before I learned certain things. Foremost, the jizya paid by the UN to create and sustain the permanent refugee population.

Arab-occupied Judea and Samaria. It has to be said, over and over. "Jewish refugees" from Arab nations has to be said - the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, who with their millions of descendants have never been compensated for their expulsion, who have been resettled in Israel. There has to be an end to the mentality of defeat and surrender and accomodation of forces determined to destroy Israel and the Jews. It has to start somewhere.

Fatah-Hamas discuss Beatles music:

You say yes, I say no

I say fast, you say slow
You say why, and I say I don't know
Ohhhh no
You say Fatah and I say Hamas
Hamas, Hamas
I don't know why you say relax
I say hell no
Hell no, hell no
I don't know why you say Jihad
And then won't go.

Oh, no
You say jiz-ya and I say hell no
Hell no, hell no
I don't know why you say relax
I say hell no
Hell no, hell no
I don't know why you say jizya
I say hell no
Hell no, hell no
I don't know why you say Jihad
And then won't blow
Hell no

I think the problem here is that westerners see democracy as the highest good. Imagine a country of MTV watchers and Britney Spears listeners. Would you want democracy there?

The US is a republic, not a democracy. At one point, it did not grant blacks and women the vote. I am not condoning that, but before 1920, the US was a free country, and in some respects even freer, as there weren't absurd regulations on businesses and politically incorrect speech wouldn't necessarily get you fired. And before 1916, there was no income text. So the point is that a part of society can be disenfranchised and society as a whole enjoys more freedom. In this case, it would mean the disenfranchisement of Arabs which would give both the Moslems' host countries and the Moslems themselves more freedom.

In order to see this situation clearly, since so many have trouble when the word "Israel" comes up, change the country. Vary the hypothetical. Make it Italy. Imagine Italy, in 2040, with ten million Muslims and an Italian population of, say, 30 million (Italians are not replacing themselves). Or make the country in your hypoethical The Netherlands, which had 1,500 Muslims in 1960, 15,000 in 1970, 400,000 in 1997, and more than a million today. Estimate how many there will be in 2040. Or 2020.

Take either country. Now ask yourself whether or not, if there is a demand for a Muslim state on part of Italy, or part of The Netherlands, whether that state should be granted because head-counting demands it.

Is that it? Is that all that counts? Or would something else come into play? Presumably you want Italy, you want The Netherlands, to survive, coute que coute.

It should be the same with Israel.

IP is for mass expulsion. I'm for maintaining the status quo with an eventual move towards independence for the Palestinians, contingent upon the abandonment of terrorist violence directed against Israelis...which is quite obviously a huge caveat, unlikely to be realized.

It has been mentioned that prior to the 1967 war in which Isreal not merely survived but defeated those who were trying to destroy her, there were no "palestinian people." Niether palistine nor plaistinian people ever existed prior to 1967!

They were invented as the only way in which an otherwise defeated enemy could continue to wage a battle that has since been prosecuted through diplomacy if you can call it that.

These invented people and their subsequently invented "homeland" are now the basis for a future shooting war.

I say send these invented people back to where they came from in the first place prior to 1967.

Meanwhile, the self-destructive policies of the EU, the biggest booster and funder of the "Palestinians" and, hence, the willing collaborators in the scheme or dream of pretending that the war against Israel is not Jihad, continue. And few in that EU bureaucracy realize, or would care, that their insensate support for the "cause of Palestine," by delaying recognition of the nature of the Arab Muslim war on Israel, also delays recognition, in Europe, of the meaning, and menace, of Islam for the peoples of Western Europe.

Such continued support for "Palestinianism" -- because it requires one not to see the nature of that war or of other wars conducted by Muslims against other Infidels, using sometimes the same and sometimes different means, is not merely disgusting, but also, in the end, dangerous for the Infidel peoples and nation-states of Europe.

The EU, as a runaway bureacracy with its own foreign policy, is helping to render the countries of Europe, the nation-states that the EU would like someday to replace, thus more vulnerable to Islam.

The latest example of such folly was announced today:

"EU "reinforces commitment" to Palestinians with 40 million euros

The EU has given an extra 40 million euros (59 million dollars) to the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority to help ensure public services, the European Commission announced Wednesday.

The funding will be used to pay salaries and pensions, support vulnerable Palestinian families and to buy fuel for Gaza's electricity power plant, the EU's executive arm said.

The money is in addition to 440 million euros which the European Commission pledged at an international donors' conference in Paris last December.

"This extra package is a clear indication that we are continuing and reinforcing our commitment to the Palestinian people," EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said.

Commission spokesman Martin Selmayr said the EU had lived up to its earlier bigger pledge made in Paris but that "not everyone has done this".

"So we are calling upon everyone else to live up to their pledges".

The Palestinian Authority employs some 160,000 civil servants and their salaries cost 122 million dollars monthly, draining Palestinian finances largely dependent on foreign aid.

The international community has pledged billions of dollars in reconstruction aid to underpin US-backed peace talks but economic development has been stymied by Israeli restrictions on movement and access.

Delays in the payment of salaries has in the past sparked angry demonstrations by civil servants in the occupied West Bank.

The international community has paid out nearly a billion dollars in direct aid to the Palestinians in six months, officials of the International Donors' Conference for the Palestinian State said in Paris last month.

At the donors' conference in December, the international community made total pledges of 7.7 billion dollars over three years.

If the EU's fellow donors do not fulfil their pledges "the situation of the Palestinian Authority will continue to be precarious," said Ferrero-Waldner.

The commission also announced the launch of a new 37-million-euro programme funded from the original 440 million euro pot, to upgrade infrastructure in the Palestinian areas as well as security, the rule of law and power supplies.

Some of the money has also been earmarked by the Palestinian Authority and the EU to build a new security forces headquarters in Nablus, "thereby helping to strengthen the ability of the Palestinian Authority to provide security to its citizens".

The European Union is the largest donor to the Palestinian people."

Immoral. But also mad.

There is a precise real-life parallel to the situation in Israel.

Look at what is happening in the Philippines right now. The 'peace process' - perpetually stopping and starting, perpetually broken by the Muslims - between the Filipino (Infidel) government and the Muslim Moro rebels in the south is eerily similar to the 'peace process' between the Jews and the Arabs in and around Israel.

Does anyone think that if the Muslim 'Moros' - whose primary *conscious* affiliation is quite clearly not that given by their genes (ethnic Malayo-Polynesian, like all the other peoples in that region), nor by their language (ditto - Malayo-Polynesian), nor even by the fact that their ethnic pre-Islamic ancestors most likely did live in the place they now inhabit, but by Islam the Arab Imperial Religion - gain control of all the lands that they are claiming at present, that the quite large populations of Catholic Filipinos who currently also inhabit those areas, will be either free or safe? How long do you think the churches will remain standing? How long do you think any of the Christians will retain their shops, or their farms?

Does anyone here imagine that if the 'Moros' gain almost complete autonomy within and control over the very large, resource-rich chunk of the Philippines' largest island (Mindanao) which they are demanding, that they will be content with that?

Or, rather, can we not confidently predict that if they get it, they will seek 'statehood', complete secession, and then use that territory as a stepping-stone from which to conquer the *rest* of Mindanao...and then use Mindanao as a springboard from which to conduct Jihad against the rest of the Philippines?

Precisely as, for Hamas and I'll bet for Fatah also, the achievement of a Muslim-dominated 'Palestine' is merely the prelude to, instrument for, the destruction of the Jewish state, after which, alongside other Muslim entities, they continue to make war upon the Infidels as opportunity presents. For a pious Arab Muslim 'Palestine' is a means to an end (extending Muslim dominance), not an end in itself; just as for a pious Moro Muslim, a Muslim-ruled Mindanao is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

For Islam, inside Arab or Malay 'Moro' heads, controlling them, setting their goals for them, does *not* and will not allow them to say, if they get their 'autonomous region', or their 'own state', or whatever it is they are currently telling Infidels that they want: 'we have self-rule over our homeland within *these* boundaries, now we shall observe those boundaries and be content'.

NO: Islam tells them:

Ibn Ishaq:208 - “When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission.

'Now we bound themselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle.

'He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service.

' We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances.”

Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”

Qur’an 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”

George Habash, that supposedly 'Christian' (he was born to 'christian' parents and presumably baptised in infancy; there is no other evidence of any meaningful 'christian' practice in his life) and supposedly Marxist 'revolutionary' 'Palestinian' Arab terror boss (let's call him a janissary of jihad), made it quite, quite plain to Oriana Fallaci, more than thirty years ago, that the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel was intended merely as a sort of hors-d'oeuvre within a much bigger campaign for World Domination by Muslims, that is, by Arab imperialists and those whom Islam has coopted and Arabised and taught to subserve Arab imperial goals.

Various Hamas preachers, some of them discussed at this very site, have made those ambitions abundantly plain.

As the MILF (and other Muslim entities) to the government of the Philippines, so Hamas and Fatah and their various wholly-owned franchises, to the Israelis.

As Mindanao (and other smaller islands with large and aggressive Muslim populations) to the Catholic Philippines, so Gaza and Judea and Samaria to Jewish Israel.

Even for JihadWatch, this thread -- in particular, the conversation between Cornelius and Hugh -- was really fine.

WITNESS: "I say send these invented people back to where they came from in the first place prior to 1967."

My God. Here we go again.

Prior to 1967, these people - call them Arabs, Palestinians, whatever, lived where they live today...in the cities, towns, villages and refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza. Attempts to deny their remind me of the comparative attempts on the part of the Arabs to deny the existence of Israel.

The "Palestinians" exist. They are certainly mired in a culture of pathological hatred and sociological dysfunction. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. What to do with them is the issue. They live in a stateless limbo....owing both to historical factors beyond their control...and to their own intransigence and lust for violence.

How to resolve the problem of their existence is the issue I'm working on. For very logical reasons, Hugh and others believe the conflict is irreconcilable. I'm hoping against hope that we can find a way...perhaps an international trusteeship for "Palestine" that will allow the international community (there's that vapid phrase again) to effect a complete restructuring of Palestinian society into something remotely functional.

I'm just brainstorming here....not content to say "fuck the Palestinians" (even though emotionally, that's certainly how I feel) and just let the problem continue to fester indefinitely.

HUGH: "Now ask yourself whether or not, if there is a demand for a Muslim state on part of Italy, or part of The Netherlands, whether that state should be granted because head-counting demands it."

RESPONSE: Ask yourself if Muslims eventually constitute a majority of people in the Netherlands and Italy...(as is likely)...do we advocate the repression of the majority and their aspirations?

I'm not playing devil's advocate here. The question is genuine.

"call them Arabs, Palestinians, whatever"
-- from a posting above

That's it? "Whatever"? You don't see the difference between calling these people, accurately, Arabs and calling them -- by promoting the word "Palestinian" to a factitious ethnic identity? You think that's trivial? And you go on, in utter illogic, to claim that to identify these people as Arabs is to deny that they exist? How does that follow?

Would you agree that if, anywhere in North Africa or the Middle East, any non-Muslim or non-Arab people were to have a state of their own, that state would include, given the way populations are mixed up, a great many Arabs? Would not a free Berberia contain Arabs? An independent Kurdistan, contain Arabs? Wopuldn't even southern Sudan and Darfur, if they were together to become independent of Arab-ruled Sudan, also by this point contain a large number of Arabs? So what? Are the Arabs never to be a minority anywhere, but they expect everyone else in the MIddle East and North Africa, whether Copts, Maronites, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Greek Orthodox, or Berbers, Kurds, African blacks, or many others, to accept meekly their often-perilous position in Arab-ruled domains?

Your anguish over this "stateless limbo" business is really quite absurd. There are hundreds of millions of people, possibly billions, who are not the favorite spoiled children, the recipients of all kinds of aid, and the attention of the world that makes them the cynosure of all eyes at so many international fora -- my god, come to your senses, at least about this if not about so much else.

And as for your curious faith -- you surely know exactly what this would lead to -- in something you offer, thinking aloud, as "perhaps an international trusteeship for "Palestine" -- that would be a disaster for Israel, and would involve Israel's worst enemies, in the person of the malevolent U.N. no doubt, supposedly taking "control" of land that rightly belongs, for legal, historic, and moral reasons, to Israel (not that Israel has been good about articulating its claims). Look at the U.N. peacekeeping forces ordered by Nasser out of the Sinai in May 1967. Look at the U.N. "Peacekeepers" in Lebanon, and how they have performed. Have you learned nothing from such arrangements? Do you believe that the words "international trusteeship" don't send shivers down any sensible Israeli's spine?

And here you are, talking away about those "Palestinians" and bizarrely describing them as "certainly mired in a culture of pathological hatred and sociological dysfunction. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. What to do with them is the issue. They live in a stateless limbo....owing both to historical factors beyond their control...and to their own intransigence and lust for violence."

Their "culture of pathological hatred and sociological [sic--the word "societal" is meant] dysfunction." Not a word, not a syllable, about Islam? Not a word about what minds on Islam naturally tend to think about Infidels and Infidel nation-states? Nothing about Islam?

Why do you come to this site? What have you learned, what, in all your years of coming here, reading here, posting here, being reminded that you have been answered on a particular point a dozen or a hundred times over? When will your learning curve ever rise from the goddam ground?

An excellent book on the remaking of Yasser ("I just want to kill Jews and obliterate Israel") Arafat into Yasser ('I struggle with the Palestinian people in their war of liberation against an occupying colonial power") Arafat, please refer to HISTORY UPSIDE DOWN by David Meir-Levi, published Brief Encounters, NY London, 2007. General Giap, (one of a number of strategists to Arafat, including the KGB and progadandist non pareille Nicolai Ceausescu) counselled the PLO leader to "Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war inot a struggle for human rights. THen you will have the American people eating out of your hand."

When I hear people calling for mass expulsion, I'm mortified at the medieval essence of such thinking.

I recall Robert once being confronted on the issue of expelling Mohammedans, and then asked his Mohammedan interlocer whether he was opposed to the creation of Pakistan, which was done precisely be expelling huge numbers of Hindus and Sikhs out of Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan - a question which worked to silence the Mohammedan. Any Mohammedans who complain about the mass expulsion of their ilk should be asked to put Pakistan on the chopping block. Not that India would want it.

It should be obvious to any thoughtful person that the future of the Middle East is saturated in violence. There is nothing more. There is nothing less. Talking about 'solutions' and 'mitigation' and even 'status quo' is hopeless and helpless. What is waiting in the Middle East is the increase in violence and within a decade the use of nuclear weapons. My disappointment is that all of you know I am correct. You simply cannot tolerate the horrible truth.

R. Kyle

HUGH: "You don't see the difference between calling these people, accurately, Arabs and calling them -- by promoting the word "Palestinian" to a factitious ethnic identity? You think that's trivial? And you go on, in utter illogic, to claim that to identify these people as Arabs is to deny that they exist? How does that follow?"

RESPONSE: I never claimed that calling these people "Arabs" is to deny their existence. I merely state that they exist...and they lived in these lands before 1948, before 1967, and they live there today. Short of mass expulsion or genocide, they are not going away.

HUGH: "Are the Arabs never to be a minority anywhere, but they expect everyone else in the MIddle East and North Africa, whether Copts, Maronites, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Greek Orthodox, or Berbers, Kurds, African blacks, or many others, to accept meekly their often-perilous position in Arab-ruled domains?"

RESPONSE: There-in lies the crux of the issue. The Arabs won't be a minority - at least not for long - were Israel to annex the West Bank and confer upon them citizenship similarly to the Arabs of Israel proper. If the West Bank were populated by a mere 20,000, 50,000 even 250,000 Arabs, the Israelis probably would have annexed it long ago. But Israel refuses to take that route because they don't want to become a minority in their own country.

So, the issue is not Arabs living as a minority in Israel, but Arabs as the potential future majority in an expanded Israel that encompasses the West Bank...or Arabs living in a self-governing entity called Palestine....or Arabs living as stateless people.

HUGH: "Your anguish over this "stateless limbo" business is really quite absurd."

RESPONSE: On the contrary. The statelessness of the Palestinians continues to be the legal and moral basis for which they have successfully legitimated their cause in the eyes of much of the world. We can say "fuck the world" (as I often do), but fact is, this problem is a festering sore that continues to be a source of conflict in the world. I don't know how to resolve it and I don't think anybody else does either. I certainly lay blame for the perpetuation of the conflict squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinians.

As for UN trusteeship, your point is well made and I concede it completely. The UN is a disaster. As you know, I qualified that suggestion as "brainstorming". Perhaps there is another mechanism we could use to re-order Palestinian society.

HUGH: "Not a word, not a syllable, about Islam? Not a word about what minds on Islam naturally tend to think about Infidels and Infidel nation-states? Nothing about Islam?"

RESPONSE: I assumed the Islamic component - which is obviously paramount - was a given.

HUGH: "Why do you come to this site? What have you learned, what, in all your years of coming here, reading here, posting here, being reminded that you have been answered on a particular point a dozen or a hundred times over? When will your learning curve ever rise from the goddam ground?"

RESPONSE: No need to get testy, Hugh....and by the way, you mis-spelled god damned.

I'm looking for solutions (there's that word again). You've offered none on this issue except maintaining the status quo. Who knows, all things considered, perhaps maintaining the status quo is the only viable course of action available. Personally, I always take issue with those advocating Israeli territorial concessions. My thoughts range more towards an outside imposition of order on the Palestinians, coercive, perhaps even violent...at least initially. But as you've pointed out, there is no agent capable of such an endeavor except Israel, and they've been there/done that.

Perhaps over time, the infidel world can sufficiently unite to either prevail upon the Arabs to clean up their Palestinian mess...or to forcibly do it ourselves. Or perhaps such notions are entirely naive...and war - perhaps nuclear - will be the only final arbiter in the region.

But is it so wrong to want to avoid such a cataclysm? Is it so wrong to try and generate discussion? Is it so wrong to offer ideas on how to lance this festering boil on the buttocks of mankind, even if for no other reason than to have such ideas successfully refuted - as you did the trusteeship suggestion - so that we can look beyond them for other potential solutions?

Infidel Pride,

Your last post was interesting and merits due consideration.

As a historian, Cornelius should be particularly interested in reading Joan Peters's book FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL. Its principal theme is that the Arabs' claim to have lived in Judea and Samaria from time immemorial is false. The vast majority of the Arabs who lived there at the time of Israel's Declaration of Independence were immigrants and children and grandchildren of immigrants from all the Arab countries. They came to Israel because the Jews had built industries and made farms and orchards, and there were job opportunities there that were not to be had in those Arabs' home countries. Therefore there is no analogy between the Arab population of Judea/Samaria and those other minority populations cited in this thread's argument, for the Arabs have no long historical heritage in that region, as do the Jews. The proposals to "exchange populations" or whatever euphemism is appropriate should therefore be evaluated with this historic fact in mind: all but a few of the Arabs who would be encouraged to leave are the third or fourth descendants of Syrians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Arabians, Yemenis, etc., and not descendants of historic denizens of "Palestine."

Well there isn't going to be a solution from the roadmap to nowhere. There just isn't. So don't waste your time looking for one.

nabi ZK (pbum)

Sheesh...

"and by the way, you mis-spelled god damned."
-- from a posting above about my query -- "When will your learning curve ever rise from the goddam ground?"-- directed sweetly at him

Nonsense.

"Goddam" is a perfectly acceptable variant for "goddamn." And "god damned" would be too stilted, and consisting as it does of two words, would not fit. Just imagine if I had written "When will your learning curve ever rise from the god damned ground?" That would not have done the trick. Something much more colloquial was called for. It is, rather, your proferred "god damned" that is nowadays a curio. It is you who need to learn how to orthographically reproduce the vivid demotic.

Aileen,

I actually have 'From Time Immemorial'...(somewhere in my library).

...I've read the 19th century accounts she documents of the Holy Land being "empty"...and I believe them. I believe the narrative that Jewish immigration and the subsequent flowering of the desert attracted Arab immigrants from neighboring lands who were looking for opportunity....(though there were also other Arabs living in the Holy land for centuries).

All this doesn't negate the existence of those who did (and do) live in the territories. And what to do with them and their stateless status remains the crux of the issue (along with the institutional imperative of lessor Jihad).

As Draconian as mass expulsion is, I don't entirely reject it out of hand. It is certainly preferable to the destruction of Israel, if those were the only two options available.

But living in the real world - instead of the world of advocacy - it appears Israel is very unlikely to engage in such a course, for both ethical and strategic reasons. Therefore, other options must be explored...including - perhaps - the re-ordering of Palestinian society, imposed from outside. It would relieve the Israelis of the burden of responsibility for the Palestinians.

Of course, the Pals would most likely object, their violence would probably be re-directed at the "new occupiers" (NATO, a collection of US-allied countries, or some other multinational entity), blood-shed would ensue and the problem might become magnified. Israel could have its hands tied by the new multinational presence, complicating its efforts to defend itself.

Yes, there are a myriad of variables.

I'm just trying to float some ideas here on how the problem might be moved to a resolution of sorts, even a temporary one that just 'interrupts' the violence and the pathologies of the Palestinians while the world gropes with the larger issue of Islam and global Jihad.

It's difficult for me to accept the notion that a problem is intractable and there is simply nothing we can do but let it fester.

"It's difficult for me to accept the notion that a problem is intractable and there is simply nothing we can do but let it fester."
-- from a poster above

Well, that is very much an American schoolboy's view of the world, where everything is a "problem" and "problems" are there just to be "solved" if we only roll up our sleeves and try hard. Nothing Yankee ingenuity can't fix.

But while the imnage may be inspirational for some -- that Can-Do Spirit and all the rest -- it is also dangerous. It makes people think, for example, that no matter what damage is wrought by men or by Man(say, on the environment) there is necessarily a "solution" that will "fix things."

Some may believe that, while peoples and states and individuals have been warring since the beginning of time, we, nous les americains, with that Can-Do stuff, can somehow provide the "solution" to what are often misleadingly described as "problems" (and thus to be "solved"). Look at the messianic sentimentalism that has caused such squandering in Iraq. Look at the wasted hundreds of billions designed to "solve" the problem of poverty in the so-called "Third World" or, alternatively, to "solve" the problem of this or that disease, which only leads in turn to skyrocketing increases among the very peoples who cannot treat themselves, but rely on us to do it for them, to come up with the treatments, the "solutions," for them.

A skyrocketing world population, consisting more and more of those who are allowed to multiply in such numbers because of the efforts and medical advances of heedless do-gooding problem-solvers in the advanced West, is not a good thing, and does not help to make a better world. Severe restraints on population growth among those who are multiplying like mad (see, for example, the birth rates in the Muslim and Arab world, see the birth rates in Western Europe among both the indigenous non-Musliims and the Muslim immigrants) are called for. Every time I read about some foundation that is spending its money to cure some disease in the "underdeveloped world" instead of buying and distributing birth control devices, I wonder. What are they thinking of? What kind of world do they envision? When the world's population plummets, as climate change distrupts everything and the mad struggle for food and natural resources commences, what will happen?

HUGH: "Every time I read about some foundation that is spending its money to cure some disease in the "underdeveloped world" instead of buying and distributing birth control devices, I wonder. What are they thinking of?"

QUESTION: So you'd rather people die of diseases for which cures are available or possible...as a form of population control?

You obviously don't have children.

You have guessed things about me before -- "retired military man" etc. Not a single one of your guesses has been anywhere close.

Oh, I think I'm right about this one.

Why don't you put on your smoking jacket Hugh, pour some cognac, fire up your pipe, put on some classical music, and sit there reveling in your superiority, nurturing your contempt for people like me - a parent who loves his children to such an extent that he would go to the ends of the earth to save them from a life-threatening disease - and who in the process could completely empathize with a parent from the "under-developed" world facing a similar crises.

Yes, what fools we are, not to willingly accept the death of our children as part of the larger fight against over-population and resource-scarcity.

What kind of man are you?

Should the world rename the Lebanese “Phoenicians” and give their Muslim majority a separate ‘independent state’ of Phoenicia because they clamor for it? But isn’t Muslim clamoring for their Dar-al-Islam the normal condition per their Islamic mandate to have the whole world submit to Mohammet’s Allah? Is the world now obliged to submit to every arrogant aggressive ethnic group that demands its own ‘independent state’? Should Lebanon be split into a ‘two state solution’, same as called for with Israel and the “Palestinian” territories? Have we been there before?

The ‘war between the states’ settled that issue here in the United States with a Civil War, where those whose mandate was a constitutional ‘state of slavery’ for some (same as mandated by Sharia) was soundly defeated. Islam’s call for ‘slavery’ in submission to their Islamic mandate for all humanity must be dealt with the same way. Bullying supremacy is not an acceptable strategy for independence. And the “Palestinian” or “Canaanites” who clamor for their own state have done nothing to deserve it, but have done everything to be looked upon with suspicion and disgust: suicide bombings, lobbing crude missiles at civilian populations, a complete breakdown of internal civil order, tragically failing economies and political corruption, and perpetual hostilities to those who are not part of their world vision of a permanently dominant Arab Ummah in the Middle East. So what does it leave us? A mega-Civil War between Arabs of Muslim and non-Muslim descent, like those of the other two Abrahamic faiths? This is not a recipe for an independent state, but one for social world chaos.

We are not living in some barbaric times of the 7th century to defer to their primitive (quasi-religious) tenets of social conquest as a model for a modern state’s independence. Can Israel cope with its internal population of “Palestinians” who may be at various times more or less hostile to their nation? They have done so to date, with internal citizenship granted to those who do not seek to destroy her. There is at present no need to mass-emigrate Arabs from Israel, though forced emigration for those individuals hostile to the state should be open ended. Regardless of how the ‘two state solution’ plays out, any citizen within Israel who is hostile to her existence should be dealt with summarily. For those Arabs in the buffer states of Gaza and West Bank, their choice of either cooperation and prosperity, or a perpetual Jihad state of war (with the whole world) is in their court. If they choose the latter, than no ‘two state solution’ is possible, and like the ‘war between the states’ a final outcome will be defined by victory over those who call for slavery. This is the 21st century, not Mohammet’s 7th. No ‘independent state’ in our modern times can ever be legitimized for those who call for another’s slavery.

Actually, a moment's thought would have told you that someone without children might not give a damn at all what the world will look like in 20 or 30 or 80 years, and that it is not only plausible but likely that those with their own children and conceivably, grandchildren, in mind, who have a personal stake in posterity, and so are likely, if they see things steadily and whole, to be more alarmed, and more impassioned in their alarm.

And, not surprisingly, you also misunderstood my original, if cryptic, point. It is schizophrenic to spend money on curing diseases, so that populations skyrocket, and the resulting numbers are more miserable, more prone to famine and diseases of all kinds (save perhaps that for which a vaccine has been distributed), than they were before. The key is to not blindly shell out money for this or that do-good effort without figuring out what the result will be, and where that money can best be spent. I think that nowadays, if one wished others well, one would attempt to reduce their family sizes from 20 and 15 and 10 to the size that is manageable without reliance on the outside. That would do far more good than anything else.

And I suspect that, given what is happening in the world, if one is in a helping-humanity mood, the most effectrive thing to do is not to send money abroad at all but to invest in alternative energy projects, for there will be no hope for the world's poor, I suspect, if nothing is done to at least slow down the rate of anthropogenic climate change. The rise in the price of energy has more than undone whatever small economic progress may, despite the ravages of foreign aid, has been achieved in various places, including almost all of sub-Saharan Africa.

"reveling in your superiority."
-- from a posting above

I don't revel in it. It drives me crazy.

"pour some cognac"

I hardly drink, and when I do, it is almost always wine with meals. I own some bottles of cognac, inherited from an uncle, and sometimes I serve it to guests. You are confusing me with Prince Bandar.

"put on your smoking jacket"

I don't own one. Will the T-shirt someone gave me that says "Texas Is Bigger Than France" do?

"put on some classical music"

I listen to classical music when it comes on the radio - as for example in yesterday's tribute to the Beaux Arts Trio, which today is giving its last performance at Tanglewood.

But I don't "put on" some classical music.

Try clicking, to the left, just under the photograph of Orianna Fallaci, on "Jihad Watch Interludes" for my musical tastes.

Or google, at the same time, "A Musical Interlude" and "newenglishreview."

That should clear up at least a few of your many misconceptions.

HUGH: "...you also misunderstood my original, if cryptic, point. It is schizophrenic to spend money on curing diseases, so that populations skyrocket, and the resulting numbers are more miserable, more prone to famine and diseases of all kinds (save perhaps that for which a vaccine has been distributed), than they were before. The key is to not blindly shell out money for this or that do-good effort without figuring out what the result will be, and where that money can best be spent."

RESPONSE: By all means. Let us not save those dying from curable diseases, lest we upset the balance of nature. And worry not, it won't be your kid who dies - (if you actually have one, which I sincerely doubt), because you're privileged enough not to have been born in the "under-developed world".

I think you were perfectly clear sir:

'let them eat cake'.

Cornelius:

Your surmises about what Hugh is like are almost as amusingly wide of the mark as the imaginings of the fantasists who insist that he and I are one and the same.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Cornelius: I'd like to respond to your post that you address to me, first because it's worth responding to and second because the personal remarks between you and Hugh, and anthropogenic global warming (aka Al Gore's favorite hoax), and the fast-waning population explosion (a possibly legitimate issue of 50 years ago), do not throw light on Israel's situation.

When I mentioned Joan Peters's book I had in mind, inter alia, the fact that Israelis have an excessively developed conscience when it comes to dealing with their enemies. (See, e.g., Ruth Wisse's latest book JEWS AND POWER.) A recognition that the local Arabs' claim to the land is historically weak and in fact owing largely to Jews' development of empty scrubland, could help make it easier to face the need to take drastic action. Second, although humanitarianism is a fine thing, the hard fact is that there can be no such thing as a two-state solution; any Arab state in Judea/Samaria will be a dagger pointing, not only geographically but also psychologically and militarily, at Israel's heart. Several opinion-leaders in Israel have been trying to get their compatriots used to the idea of expulsion, using euphemisms such as population exchange (the Jews' part of the exchange having occurred a generation ago when far more Jews had to leave Middle Eastern countries than Arabs left Israel). One great virtue of their op-eds and blog entries is the frank recognition that Israel cannot depend on the U.S. or any other country to solve its Arab problem. Its acceptance of client status, and willingness to be led by its false friends Bush and Rice, have caused what may turn out to be mortal psychological damage. Maybe the problem can't be solved; no one knows, and perhaps Israel won't survive another generation.

And I suspect that, given what is happening in the world, if one is in a helping-humanity mood, the most effectrive thing to do is not to send money abroad at all but to invest in alternative energy projects, for there will be no hope for the world's poor, I suspect, if nothing is done to at least slow down the rate of anthropogenic climate change. The rise in the price of energy has more than undone whatever small economic progress may, despite the ravages of foreign aid, has been achieved in various places, including almost all of sub-Saharan Africa. - Posted by: Hugh

Standing back from the whole world problem, and indeed our reliance on ‘dirty’ energy is a major part of the problem in trying to raise the world’s well being and quality of life, from ecological degradation to funding Islamic Imperialism.

World health in and of itself is not the problem, since we all wish ourselves and others a healthy life, even a long life, and subscribing to some Darwinian culling of the human species is not any kind of acceptable solution. Look at small densely populated island states like Singapore, or larger island states like Japan and England, and it obviously not the size of the population per square kilometer that is the problem. What is the problem is a mental attitude, the belief system based on conceptual errors and institutionalized aggression, like Sharia and Islamic Jihad, that degrades humanity from achieving its higher ends of peace and well being. We see this glaringly in the retardation of humanity (even secularized humanity) throughout the Middle East and other Muslim states. Whether measured in terms of universal health or economic well being, or cultural attainments of a desirable way of life, or ecological awareness, failed belief systems will yield social failure, which in itself becomes Darwinian ‘culling’ as they continue to war on themselves and others. The real problem is not medicines allowing for a larger population but what those populations do with their new found health. If they raise babies to blow up, or cut each other up, what can we do? Take away their petrodollars ‘mother’s milk’ and watch the world take a dramatic turn for the better. We need to get off dirty energy, big time, and bring back our civilizational values once more to the fore.

What makes Israel's condition so interesting is that it raises a problem of biblical proportions: Which Abrahamic faith will come out of this family fight the victor? God is on the side of the victor, as it had always been. But the quality of life is surely not on the side of Allah’s chosen.

Cornelius:

However, I would like to borrow Hugh's smoking jacket. It is extremely natty.

How about it, Hugh?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert,

I was having fun with the cognac, smoking jacket, etc., because that is the image Hugh playfully cultivates here from time to time.

And perhaps I'm wrong about his not having children, but if I am, that only introduces the element of hypocrisy to his argument and magnifies its moral poverty...that curing the diseases that afflict the third world is somehow short-sighted in lieu of larger issues.

I love my kids, as I'm certain you do yours. In my ethos, it is a tragedy for any parent anywhere in the world who needlessly loses a child from preventable causes.

Oh, a P.S. to my previous post:

I enthusiastically endorse doing all we can to bankrupt the oil sheikdoms by developing our own energy resources. But let's try a thought-experiment: say the Saudis and Iranians no longer have a market for much of their oil; and since the infidel West no longer needs it, we stop sending our technicians to maintain the wells. Now, what effect does that have on the Arabs in Israel and Judea and Samaria? Not much. Who is now supporting them, and their cousins in Gaza? Not the oil billionaires in Saudi Arabia and the oil ministates. No, WE and the equally gullible Europeans support them, as well as paying the salaries of the PA's thousands of employees. Will this change? Will the Arabs in and near Israel stop diverting our largesse to arms and explosives? Will they stop planning the destruction of Israel and using our donations as the means to that end? End of thought-experiment. I think it's pretty clear that our ending our energy dependence on Israel's enemies won't solve Israel's Arab problem.

Aileen,

Your comments are poignant and I agree with many of them. Certainly, Israel's long-term survival is tenuous at best. Europe's prognosis is equally dark.

Another thread sidetracked by anthropogenic global warming? Hugh, not again!

Also, please tell me those wines aren't French. Or did you bypass the boycott of France that was called in response to Dominique de Villepin pulling a fast one on Colin Powell? For someone who's been 98 for the last 8 years, you do sound like you have a smoking jacket - one that you wave over your barbeque to blow off the smoke.

Also, I used to believe that over-population was a problem, until it was mentioned that the world's entire population could be comfortably fitted in TX, each with a good sized house and living conditions, while the rest of the world could be declared a federal reserve. The real population problem the world has is not overpopulation, but infidels not breeding like rabbits, but making do with 1 or 2 kids, which is barely replacement level. In the meantime, the ummah threatens to grow exponentially (and here is where the free spread of desease in the ummah, courtesy Allah, could do without Western philantropic intervention, particularly since Mohammedans see vaccines as an infidel conspiracy to sterilize them).

In the name of ZK, the compassionate, the merciful...

to proceed...

Let's remember that the fool palestinian arabs have been offered their state on many occasions and that the official solution being worked on from all sides is to get them up to snuff society wise so they can be an independent state. They have been given land and authority to practice being a reasonable self governing people. They have been given money. All international players are aiding them in this hoped for transition including Israel who has been hoping and praying for this "peace partner" to appear. So far no luck on that score.

For my entire lifetime I, the nabified one, peace be upon me, have waited for these fools to get reasonable. Instead what I, nabific, wise, etc., behold is deep seated idiocy on the part of said palestinian arabs and a psychotic taking of their side by mohametans world wide. Taking their side to an extent of political violence such as we have seen recently almost everywhere. Just read any newspaper on any day.

Thus, at this stage it becomes clear that the model of the national struggle for independence does not seem to apply.

We should treat all human beings with care and loving kindness until such time as it is demonstrated, on an individual basis, that said person is an enemy actively struggling (jihadi style even) for our destruction. No one should be prejudged on the basis of having self identified as a mohametan, although this should definitely merit a closer look given mohametan precepts if you know what I, nabi ZK, (pbum) mean. But the enemy is the enemy and we should be realistic about that and Israel should be realistic about that.

Since total annihilation has been removed from consideration, for purposes of discussion on this blog, we are down to containment and thwarting at every reasonable turn. The mohametan world is thrust into chaos and terrorism now stalks them more than us. And also for the Israelis who see their palestinian arab enemies/"peace partners" fighting and brutalizing each other as a kind of mohametan sport. Works for me, but I'm just a nabi, praise be upon me and all of my companions.

And you say we need to seek a solution as opposed to the one we are applying? You have a problem with the status quo? Or you have a plan to make things better as opposed to much worse?

nabi ZK (pbum)

...never say never the nabified one was heard to say...

"I used to believe that over-population was a problem, until it was mentioned that the world's entire population could be comfortably fitted in TX"
-- from a poster writing from Cold Comfort Farm

Maybe over-population is not a problem for you, but it is a problem for me.

And I'm not the only one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Dr9Ypayd4&feature=related

And the question to ask is not merely that of "How Many People Can The Earth Support" (the title of Joel Cohen's 1995 study -- he himself does ask all the right questions), but of what kind of earth, and what kind of life, those people who constitute today's 6.5, and tomorrow's 7, and the next decade's 8 or 9 or 10 billion, have, what the possibilities for the things that most matter -- more than mere existence -- are, and who constitutes those 6.5 or 7 or 8, 9, 10 billion. A world that looks like one big Saudi Arabia is not to my taste.

You're not worried about over-population? Beato te. I am, which I suppose makes me non papabile.

As I mentally survey the present state of the world, from the viewpoint of space and a semi-civilized existence, it doesn't look to me as if it's working out.

Robert--

Le smoking is on the way, posthaste.

It looks a lot like the jacket Mischa Auer wears (playing the role of "Bohemian Agitator") in the following clip (at 4:14):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9s4uEY8CZg

HUGH FITZGERALD FOR SECRETARY OF STATE!
He has it right.

Hugh, Cornelius, et. al.,

All this debate about numbers (whether there are 1.5 million or 3 million Arab Muslims on the West Bank) is irrelevant. Most of them are illegal migrants.

Here are the facts: in 1948 Ramallah and Bethlehem were almost 100 percent Christian. Today Bethlehem over 3/4 Muslim and Ramallah has less than 2000 Chrstians. Since the Muslim increase in these two cities was from a starting point of zero, this is not due to higher Muslim birthrates.

Instead, ALL OF THE MUSLIMS IN BETLEHEM AND RAMALLAH ARE ILLEGAL SQUATTERS! Their parents and grandparents were not even Palestinians but simply Arabs from the surrounding countries.

The same demographic is also occuring in Israel proper. The booming Muslim population in Nazareth is mostly the result of illegal immigration that is swamping the original Christian population and is threatening to swamp the Jewish population. This is not due just to birthrates although that is a major factor.

Israel is no different than any other country. Just like in California or France, whenever you have a rich prosperous nation offering generous welfare benefits bordering poorer backward nations, the richer country will have an illegal immigrant problem. Sadly, Israel is little better at controlling its borders than the US or France.

However, just like any other country, Israel does have the right to expell illegal aliens who threaten its security. If it doesn't, the very survival of the original Jewish and Christian populations is threatened.

"The question begs to be answered:

What does Israel do with the 3 million Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza?

1) Expel them en mass, violating both the UN charter and the Geneva Convention

2) Perpetuate their status as stateless people devoid of citizenship living in a legal limbo

3) Grant them independence

4) Grant them Israeli citizenship"

interesting choices, assuming Israel has choices to make, the Muslims however have a different agenda...they only have one real solution...eliminate the Jews one and all...the Muslims do not intent to allow the Jews to have a choice...

Cornelius, you wrote above: "but fact is, this problem (the Arab / Israel conflict) is a festering sore that continues to be a source of conflict in the world..."

Didn't you mean to say, this constant wound, this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy?

Cornelius wrote: "As Draconian as mass expulsion is, I don't entirely reject it out of hand. It is certainly preferable to the destruction of Israel, if those were the only two options available."

Now we are making progress Cornelius. Because these are the two options available. Like the Sudeten Germans were allied with the Nazis, these Arabs are allied with Israel's enemies, dedicated to Israel's annihilation. What would you do Cornelius, with an enemy living in your house, dedicated to your annihilation? I know what I would do. What would you do?

My heterodoxy from liberal dogmas aside, I think this consevative shibboleth, this "Texas Anthill" assertion deserves scorn and derision--dividing the world's population into units of three or four, then dividing that number into the area of Texas yields nonsense. If a "family unit" is alloted an area less than an acre, and that seems plausible and tolerable, you are ignoring the space that any human collectivity needs for sanitation, transportation and commerce, food production, security and governance, utilities and communications, among many other things. A ridiculous notion!

This is more reading than a Russian novel, and some of it is a little bit over my head. It is remarkable how most of the topics on jihadwatch elicit simple expressions of agreement, but when it comes to Israel the debate becomes intense. I don't think there can ever have been another country in the world that was so disagreed about.

As to Hugh's original point, about Israel's situation changing, all I can say about that is: I sincerely hope he is right. But the struggle to enlighten the world about its Islam problem goes on, doesn't it? Jihadwatch is greatly needed. The need for it doesn't seem to be diminishing, as far as I can see.

I'm no expert, and one of them might be able to tell me this is absurd, but I have always wondered if a possible solution to the problem of the status of the "Palestinians" might be some kind of federated status for the "West Bank" (excuse my using the convenient terms) such that the Israelis living there had Israeli political representation, and the Arabs their own representation and political channels. Sort of a variation of the "Jordanian Option" which was terminated in the eighties.

As to that, I have a question. When Jordan took the West Bank in 1948, they granted Jordanian citizenship to all the Arabs living there. (Apparently neither Jordan nor the Arabs on the ground considered their really being "Palestinians" any issue at all at that time.) But I want to know this: do they still have it? Are they in fact (and in law) Jordanians?