59 Comments

1. Gary Rosen:

Of all the pious criticisms of the wall, the sickest are those that compare it to the Berlin Wall. There could not be two more different reasons for building the two walls. One was built to prevent innocent people from seeking freedom. The other was built to give innocent people the right to live.

Jul 10, 2005 - 7:46 pm 2. markus:

Those who criticize the wall ought to clearly state they are not opposed to building the wall on the green line.

Israel in fact could have, and should have, built such a barrier FIFTY-SIX YEARS AGO, at the conclusion of the War of Independence.

Jul 10, 2005 - 7:55 pm 3. Ari Tai:

re: UK on alert.

If I were one of the injured or a family that lost someone I’d sue Bob Geldof for everything he has for causing even one policeman to be out of place that day. His call for “tens of thousands of people” to descend on the G8 meeting to “show them that enough is enough” was the height of irresponsibility, even treasonous, in a time of war.

Who can honestly deny that one more bobby on the beat wouldn’t have stumbled onto something suspicious and turned this bloody attack into a defeat.

Shame on him and those like him.

Jul 10, 2005 - 7:58 pm 4. Rick Ballard:

How were the Israelis to know how desperately vile the Palis were fifty five years ago? The depth of their depravity took some time to manifest itself.

Jul 10, 2005 - 7:59 pm 5. Kyda Sylvester:

I can’t say I am wildly sympathetic.

I can’t say I’m tangentially sympathetic.

This is elsewhere but it’s worth linking again.

Jul 10, 2005 - 8:16 pm 6. richard mcenroe:

Rick Ballard ó Even for Palestinians, the vileness had to be cultivated, by the Soviets and the European and Arab states who saw them as a weapon against Israelin specific and the Jews in general. But the Soviets are gone, and the Arab states from Lebanon to Jordan to Kuwait have discovered the the Palestinians they have shaped are a weapon against them as well, and have turned their backs on them except as propaganda tools. Only the Europeans who still see them as a focus for their own historical antisemitism offer them continued financial and material support. But as long as they do, the Palestinians have no future except in fire.

Jul 10, 2005 - 8:36 pm 7. markus:

Rick — Israel in 1949 was well aware of the emnity toward them by the 750,000 Palestinians who had been forcibly removed from their homes in the War of Independence.

Jul 10, 2005 - 8:39 pm 8. Kevin P:

Roger:

In a weird way there is more logic behind the Palestinians protests about the wall and the IDF activities then there is behind many western critques. The Palestinians believe they are at war with Israel and so the anything goes mentality, which I believe is wrong, at least contains a certain animal logic.

So many of the western attackers of Israel want it both ways. They say yes, the suicide bombers are wrong and there will be no peace until they stop. They ripped into Israel when they went in to the Palestinian areas and said you must leave. The Palestinians used the homes near the borders to build tunnels, stock ammo, and build bombs, and launch attacks. When the Israeli’s bulldozed those homes to clear a safety area that made it harder for the bombers and tunnelers to get into Israel proper they once again tore into Israel. Now Israel is in the slow process of pulling out of Gaza and dismanteling some ofthe Settlements( the settlements were a mistake and israel has paid dearly for them,IMHO). The Palestinian’s have no way to guarantee that these areas will not become advanced staging grounds for future attacks. And although some Palestinian groups have hinted that they will try to stop the attacks they don’t have the ability or the will to do it.

So what options have the critics given Israel to stop the missle launches, the tunnels, or the suicide bombers? They can’t go into the Palestinian areas and use military occupation. They can’t clear out a DMZ zone with the bulldozers. They can’t attack from the air. And now they can’t put up a defense wall.

So the reality of the critics staements about the Palestinian attacks on Israel is that they don’t like the attacks but that anything that Israel does to stop them is worse then the attacks themselves. I guess they think that Israel should just sit there while groups who state that their main goal is the elimination of the state of Israel attack them. Any defense measures are considered barbaric and Israel can’t strike back and they can’t do anything to keep them out.

Jul 10, 2005 - 8:51 pm 9. mrp:

Any possibility that the frequency of the Pali attacks might have been attenuated by the removal of Saddam Hussein from power?

From the linked article:

McGeough quoted the Arab Liberation Front’s Ma’amoon Tayeh as saying the extra $15,000 would encourage more suicide-bomber volunteers to “confirm the legitimacy of our national questions.” Why?

“Saddam Hussein considers Palestine to be a governate of Iraq and he thinks the same of the Palestinian martyrs as he does of Iraqi martyrs ÔøΩ they all are martyrs for the whole Arab nation,” Tayeh was quoted as saying.

This Arab realm is the same one Saddam has invaded and battled on various fronts for 30 years. Whatever ÔøΩ desperate and brainwashed Palestinian kids aren’t known for their nuanced view of recent Middle East history.

In other news, the recent resignation of Prince Bandar bin Sultan as Saudi ambassador to the United State has to be one of the most under-reported items in months.

Jul 10, 2005 - 8:56 pm 10. Rick Ballard:

Richard,

You seem to deny that the Palis had a choice in the matter. I would assert that their condition today is a result of their initial choice to believe the Arab rulers who assured them that Israel would be destroyed. When those same Arab rulers aligned themselves with the Soviets the Palis chose to believe them again. Their own choices brought them their misery and until I see a picture in a Pali textbook showing the state of Israel and identifying it as such, they can continue to rot in their misery.

It’s still their choice.

Jul 10, 2005 - 9:05 pm 11. Kyda Sylvester:

Do you think the Palis understand in what low regard they are held by their fellow Arabs?

I remember when Arafat was under “house arrest” (and didn’t even have running water although they did let him bathe in preparation for Colin Powell’s visit–LOL) and would cry out plainitively and in vain for his fellow Arab leaders to do something. During the first Gulf War, the biggest concern among the afflulent Kuwaitis who spent the duration disco-ing the nights away in Cairo was whether their Palestinian servants would still be around by the time they got back (oh well, I suppose we can always get more, but then we’d have to train them and what a bore). And let’s not forget King Hussein. The Palis get no respect from either George Bush or Ariel Sharon, the two most important people in their lives, and everyone else counts them as useful idiots. Sad.

Jul 10, 2005 - 9:25 pm 12. markus:

Rick Ballard — ” would assert that their condition today is a result of their initial choice to believe the Arab rulers who assured them that Israel would be destroyed.”

Can you give me one reason why the indigenous Arabs of Palestine would have or should have been enthusiastic over the prospect of losing over half of their country, in order to provide a homeland for European survivors of the Holocaust? Can you name me one single other nation or tribe or group of people who has in fact behaved the way that you wanted Palestinians to behave, under similar circumstances?

Jul 10, 2005 - 9:26 pm 13. richard mcenroe:

Rick ó I don’t deny it at all. But if we want to resolve the Palestinian issue, with live Palestinians left over, we have to find some way to cut off or counter the resources going to the fanatics. Otherwise, calling for the putative “moderate” Pali elements to reject the extremists would be about as effective as the Kurd uprising after Gulf I…

Jul 10, 2005 - 9:27 pm 14. Rick Ballard:

Markus,

The UN set the boundaries of Israel and the Arabs chose not to respect them. I don’t expect the Palis to be cheerful at all. I don’t care if they are cheerful – ever. Being on the losing side of a war has consequences and some of those consequences are never changed. The Arabs could have petitioned the UN for redress in ‘49. Instead they chose war. And then chose war again, and then again. They have continued with low level conflict through today. They sow terrorism and you expect me to care what they reap? Try someone else.

Richard,

We aren’ going to resolve the Pali problem. It’s not in our power. It has to come from the Palis and if they choose not to fight the thugs keeping a boot on their necks, giving those “moderates” money isn’t going to help much. Let the Israelis finish the wall and let the Palis stew. It remains a consequence of their own decisions.

Jul 10, 2005 - 9:41 pm 15. Kevin P:

Marcus:

You are ignoring the 450,000 to 600,000 arab jews that went to Israel from the surrounding arab countries. The vast majority of them were not allowed to sell their lands or take any of their money with them. And they had been living under the dhimmi laws and had been subjected to periodic pograms when the local Turkish or arab leaders decided that the local populace needed a scapegoat to take their frustrations on and to provide a distraction from the leaders own mistakes.

And when you say “their country” you run into some problems. There never was a seperate Palestinian State. For centiuries they were under Turkish Rule. At the time of independence Gaza was part of Egypt and the West bank was part of Jordan. During the British mandate there was talk of putting the entire area under a “Greater Syria”. In fact the palestinians Arab brothers didn’t begin talking about a Palestinian State until after the wars with Israel. So to say “their Country” is a bit of a stretch.

Kevin Peters

Jul 10, 2005 - 9:47 pm 16. Doug S.:

mrp: Prince Bandar resigned *10 days ago* and we’ve barely heard a peep about it?? This is big news. I don’t know what the long-term consequences will be, but there will be consequences. Bandar did such a good job for such a long time of putting a civilized veneer on the Saudi regime in the US that his absence will be felt. Two big questions: Who will replace him, and can he be anywhere near as effective at hoodwinking us about the true nature of his government? And why the sudden resignation, and leaving with so little ado? Like I said, I don’t know what to make of this, but something important is going on here.

Jul 10, 2005 - 9:57 pm 17. markus:

Kevin — no, Kevin, the expulsion of Jews from Arab nations occured AFTER the Arab dispossession from Palestine.

You are correct that the indigenous Arabs of Palestine didn’t call themselves Palestinian, and lived under nominal Ottoman rule for centuries. Nevertheless, the fact remains that they were the MAJORITY GROUP in the entire area. So I ask again the question I asked Rick: what other group of people in history has ever charitably relinquished half of its land to a foreign group, as you expect the indigenous Arabs to have done?

Joan Peters attempted to answer my question, in her book From Time Immemorial, by claiming there where almost no Arabs in Palestine prior to initial Zionist colonization. Unfortunately, her book really was shown to be fiction.

Jul 10, 2005 - 10:05 pm 18. Kevin P:

Markus;

At least we are talking land, not country. The fact that the arab jews lost their land and all their belongings after the Palestinians did makes no difference. Palestinians lost land and were not paid for it. Arab Jews lost their land , were not paid for it, and were not allowed to take any money that they had with them.

Read “the Missing Peace” by Dennis Ross. After the initial Camp David offer of a Palestine that was seperated into 3 cantons on the west bank and a partial return of Gaza was rejected, and wisely so because it was such a swiss cheese affair Arafat could have never sold it, Clinton and Ross gave Arafat a better deal . Clinton only had weeks to go and he wanted this done. He got Israel to sign on. It included all of Gaza. It included 95% of the west bank and it was all contiguous. This was the best offer that any Palestinian had ever been given by any country in that region. Turkey,Eygpt, Syria, and Jordan had never ever offered any Palestinian state before and this could have been the first Palestinian state in the history of the world. Remember palestine was divide between all those Arab countries before.It was not a seperate country. As usual, Arafat turned it down.

As much as the Arabs hate it, Israel is a fact. The only chance the Palestinian people had for their own seperate state was thrown away by Arafat. The surrounding Arab countries treat the Palestinians like dirt and they never talked about “Palestine” until they lost the various area’s to Israel in the wars. They don’t let the palestinians leave the overcrowded camps and settle in their countries because they want to use Palestinian misery as a propaganda weapon against Israel. It would be similar if we had kept the Vietnamese and Cuban refugees that came to America stuck in the army camps and never let them enter our society.

As far as Joan Peters goes I never brought her up so I am not going to defend her.

Kevin Peters

Jul 10, 2005 - 11:09 pm 19. Gary Rosen:

Markus:

“the expulsion of Jews from Arab nations occured AFTER the Arab dispossession from Palestine.”

The “Arab dispossession” occurred AFTER Israel, which had accepted the UN partition, was invaded by ALL its surrounding Arab neighbors bent on annihilating the Jews. Israel was fighting for its existence, and it is questionable that Palestine was manifestly safer for Jews than for Arabs in 1947-48. By the way, what is your evidence that the Arab states, who collaborated with the Nazis in WWII, would have been so welcoming to their Jewish populations if only those mean Jews hadn’t been so bad to the poor Palestinians?

You also, typically, mischaracterize Peters’ book.

Her point was that 1) Palestine was sparsely populated in the 1800s just before Zionist “colonization” – this is borne out by European accounts of the land which almost uniformly describe it as “barren” and “desolate” and 2) many of the Arabs living there as of 1948 were recent immigrants (or descendents) and did not have families tracing their history back there “from time immemorial” (hence the name of the book) or any further than the Jews.

As for calling her book “fiction”, it is extensively sourced and footnoted. This does not automatically mean it is an accurate depiction of the situation, but it does mean that debunking the book takes more than waving your hands which is all I have ever heard. Who, exactly, has undertaken this detailed debunking of her claims?

Jul 11, 2005 - 12:39 am 20. Yehudit:

“Nevertheless, the fact remains that they were the MAJORITY GROUP in the entire area. So I ask again the question I asked Rick: what other group of people in history has ever charitably relinquished half of its land to a foreign group, as you expect the indigenous Arabs to have done?”

To talk about “Palestine” as a “country” whose citizens were “invaded” by Europeans is so false in so many ways I don’t know where to start.

The last time Israel was a sovereign nation before the current state od Israel was when it was a sovereign Jewish state for roughly a thousand years before the Roman Empire totally devastated it. Today we call this ethnic cleansing. Jews continued to live in the Gallilee to the present day, after they were massacred and expelled and taken as slaves from the rest of the country. They repeatedly returned to Jerusalem whenever the ruling power – Christian or Muslim – would allow it. They were repeatedly ethnically cleansed.

The northern part of Judea continued to be such a center of Jewish life that the entire Oral Law was redacted there, although the Palestinian Talmud was eventually overshadowed by the Babylonian one, since the Babylonian community of scholars was wealthier and had more influence throughout the Jewish world.

Jews were also ethnically cleansed from what is now Saudi Arabia, which they inhabited long before the rise of Islam. The name of “Medina” is an Aramaic word, not Arabic.

Jews have written and spoken Aramaic and Hebrew for at least 3000 years continuously all over the world. The global Jewish community is one people. Most of our texts and customs date back to Israel and its climate and food and particular places like Hevron and Beit Lehem, and are 90% the same for Jews all over the world. The archeology done there confirms this over and over.

To characterize us as “European invaders” – when we were repeatedly, over centuries, driven out of our homeland, and treated as semitic foreigners by Europe for 2000 years – is a falsity of enormous proportions. But it is clear that the consistent Arab propaganda of the last 100 years, the deliberate and repeated falsification of history, has worked on you.

The Palestinians and their puppetmasters of the Arab block are cuckoos who push our egg out of its nest and replace it with their own. Which is what the Wahabis are trying to do now in Africa, and to Muslims all over the world whose customs deviate from the rigidities of Saudi Arabia It is what they tried to do in Europe during the Middle Ages.

But we have repeatedly tried to be fair. We respected the Palestinian claims alongside ours, even though by any measure they are much less solid. Jordan was supposed to be the Palestinian state. When the UN again partitioned the remains and gave even more of it to the Arabs, the Jews said okay. Whatever borders Israel now has are due to winning several wars of extermination. But Israel is even willing to trade some of that land, for real peace, and did so in Sinai so they actually have a track record, unlike the Palestinians and Arab bloc, which never honored any agreement or made a good faith effort to negotiate, and which have been engaged in a longstanding campaign to eliminate all Jewish claim to the area. (Which worked so well that you have no idea of the history of the place.)

Jul 11, 2005 - 1:40 am 21. Yehudit:

Coincidentally, I happened upon an article about the British contribution to the falsities, which I excerpted here.

It’s a good description of how a propaganda war works.

They also use Christian theology in their propaganda, exactly the way the Nazis did.

Jul 11, 2005 - 1:46 am 22. markus:

Gary — on Joan Peters book, here is a critique from the New York Review of Books by Yehoshua Peroth. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249

And, in case this has more cred. for some readers here, I found a critical review from some Ayn Rand type magazine:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2135

Yehudit — I will read your links and do some research and consideration before I respond further. One thing however: wasn’t zionist acceptance of the initial UN partition based on the need for a new Jewish state to have a Jewish majority, rather than concern for non-Jewish claims to the land. Given the tremendous Arab presence in the area, a Jewish state would only be possible if it was tiny and extremely circuscribed (as the UN partition provided for), or if enough Arabs were removed from the territory of the new state (as occured during the war of Independence). The reason that saying “Jordan is Palestine” is false now is the same reason it was false in 1940 or 1945: it wasn’t where the Palestinian Arabs lived for the most part.

Jul 11, 2005 - 6:53 am 23. Buddy Larsen:

Anyone who wants to question the morality ofhe whole sequence of the UN and the formation of boundaries really ought to begin with the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood, in Berlin, during the Nazi ascendancy.

Murdering of Jewish farmers in “Palestine” began in the 20s and reached high pitch in the 30s, long before the UN effected partition. These pogroms and steadily-increasing orchestrated terror acts against indigenous Jews was part and parcel of what the Nazis were doing in Europe.

Markus, the Nazis lost the war. Their allies, too, lost the war. It’s as old as time, when a tribe makes war against another tribe, and loses, there are consequences (indeed, if there weren’t, war would be endemic, perpetual, suicidal).

As Yehudit points out, the Jewish response to attack has always been far less than what could have been. Classic “measured” responses–sufficient to defend, but no more. It goes without saying that a shoe on the other foot would’ve meant a Holocaust II.

Flailing sub-issues that flow from a big central issue, without referral to that big issue in the flailing, is intellectually dishonest. And thus without point.

Jul 11, 2005 - 7:33 am 24. Buddy Larsen:

And you should contemplate true mercy. Excusing, and removing the consequences of actions–from any bad behavior–just encourages more of it, and keeps the “beneficiary” of the false “feel-good” mercy from ever dropping a misery-making ideology and moving on to something healthier and better.

Jul 11, 2005 - 7:44 am 25. PJ:

Markus,

They, the “Palestinians” and their Nazi allies, lost WWII. I’m sure I don’t have to link the picture of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem shaking hands with Hitler to prove they were allies. After the war, the Jews were not safe in Europe or in Arab/Mulsim-dominated Middle East.

Yes, I feel bad for those who lost their homes. I also feel bad for the people killed at HIroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden and Wounded Knee and Gettysburg but I don’t condone any killings of Americans to avenge their deaths.

Today is today. If Arafat had used even half of the foreign aid we have poured into his “state” instead of stealing it and buying Paris couture for Suha, every one of those displaced persons could today own a farm, a house, a business, a car, have education for their children. But their leaders stole it. Their leaders have abused them in the most cynical of ways, using the myth of the fabled Palestinian state to steal from them and oppress them. It is time for them to get rid of their gangster leaders and get on with life.

Jul 11, 2005 - 8:08 am 26. Buddy Larsen:

And, just in case you need it spelled out for you, Arafatism–the true enemy of the ordinary Pali–flourished under the protection of people such as yourself. You have some clean up to do. You should start.

Jul 11, 2005 - 8:14 am 27. RogerA:

Kyda makes a good point about the “esteem” in which the Palestinians are viewed by the Arab world. During a tour as a defense contractor in Saudi Arabia the muslims from around the ME that worked with Vinnell Corp fequently shared their distaste for the Palestian co-workers.

Jul 11, 2005 - 8:24 am 28. Kevin P:

Markus:

When Arafat was trying to overthrow the King of Jordan he had no problem saying that Jordan was also part of Palestine. So the former leader of the people you are arguing for contradicts your idea on Jordan.

The Arab countries that surround Israel and the western apologists for the PLO have used and abused the People of Palestine for decades. Many in the west support the cause while the people live in misery and are reduced to sending their teenage boy’s and girls into Israel with bombs wrapped around them so they can kill themselves and kill Israeli women and children. I dare you to read the Ross book. Of course Israel has made many mistakes. But if Arafat had accepted the final Clinton offer, not the split up Canton map that is often shown to be the final offer and is a lie, The Palestinian people would have there own State, something their arab brothers never allowed them, they would have billions in foreign aid pouring in and they would have a chance of a decent life instead of another 30 years in the misery of the camp being fed on the propaganda myth that they will remove Israel from the map instead of food.

Western diiletantes stroll around American universities waltz around campus in their kaffiyeh and chant solidarity slogans with the “people” but all they are doing is extending the peoples misery and the continuation of the violence. The only way to rectify the “land” situation using your reasoning is the removal of Israel, and there are many Palestinians who share your view. If the western sympathizers and the Palestinian leadership think they are ever going to suicide bomb Israel into submission or ever get anything better then the final Clinton offer they are deluded and they are just making the misery of the refugee camps the permanent status of the Palestinian people.

Jul 11, 2005 - 8:32 am 29. Buddy Larsen:

“Radical Chic”–what a stupid, ignorant, bloody, murderously irresponsible fashion statement.

Jul 11, 2005 - 9:47 am 30. Katherine:

Forgive me for being a voice of an evil imperialist, but historically (at least as I understand the White Manís history) if a nation attacked another nation and lost, the losing nation would typically forfeit the territories that the winner managed to take over. This was always the law. Thus, I find all those complaints against Israelís territorial gains rather strange. They were attacked ñ unprovoked. They beat the living daylight out of the invaders and they took over the invaders territory. Why is it even a question whom to the conquered land belongs? Are the rules of war changed because the Jews (Allah forbid!) were victorious?

Jul 11, 2005 - 9:12 pm 31. markus:

Katherine — ” They were attacked ñ unprovoked. They beat the living daylight out of the invaders and they took over the invaders territory. Why is it even a question whom to the conquered land belongs?”

Because in this case the conquered people cannot be assimilated into the victorious country without either:

a) that country becoming a binational state.

b)that country becoming a Jewish supremacist state.

c) shipping them out of the conquered lands, perhaps on boxcars.

Give the Arabs inhabitants of “Judea” and “Samaria” seats in the Knesset and the same rights as Israeli Arabs and I doubt that too many people, least of all Palestinians, would have any problem with Israel holding onto the territory it won in a defensive war.

Jul 11, 2005 - 10:02 pm 32. Gary Rosen:

Markus wrote:

“shipping them out of the conquered lands, perhaps on boxcars”

Wow, you’re so clever and subtle, Markus, with your nasty little Israel = Nazi insinuation!

Jul 11, 2005 - 10:41 pm 33. Kevin P:

Gary:

Don’t you realize that in the world of the progressive left Israel is the “new” Nazi Germany.Go to all the progressive sites and it is a constant refrain. For decades it was the two state solution. It was non-negotiable. When it became clear that Arafat, who also demanded a seperate Palestinian state and told his people that the Jews would be pushed into the sea at the same time, showed that he was never going to sign any deal the One state became the new idea. Of course the results are the same and the thing that Arafat wanted all along. Israel off the map.

La-Na’am. No-yes in arabic. This had been Arafats style his whole life and it was a great policy for him, he became a national hero and a very rich man. He never intended to take the two state deal, he never gave up on his original goal, stated repeatedly, no Jews in Palestine. Of course there are hundreds of qoutes saying the exact opposite and this is how he suckered evry US President and Israeli PM and most of the Arab rulers he dealt with. Say anything,do anything, there was little connection between his words and actions.And now the latest thing on the progressive left is the very thing that Arafat wanted. Palestinian control of Israel, then no Israel. Of course to achieve this the groundwork must be layed so that explains the constant Israel-nazi rhetoric. If enough people think that israel and nazi Germany are the same thing then they won’t be so concerned when the Jews are pushed into the sea.

Kevin Peters

Jul 11, 2005 - 11:39 pm 34. markus:

Gary and Kevin P:

I strongly agree with Christopher Hitchens that one secular state west of the Jordan, call it Manhattan-on-the-Jordan, a state for Jews as opposed to a Jewish state, would be ideal. Also, utterly impractical and impossible for the next hundred years, minimum.

Comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa or Nazi Germany is inaccurate and unfair and SOMETHING I HAVE NEVER DONE. The reference was to possible moves by Israel that have not occured. IF it annexes Judea and Samaria into its territory without extending rights to non-jews in those territories, or creates permanent “autonomous” Arab bantustans in the area, as Katherine asserts it has the right to do, THEN the South African comparison would become apt. IF it implementes forced “transfer”, THEN Nazi analogies would be PARTIALLY apt. Both moves would be moral disasters for Israel, and for Jews in general, and this is why only Jewish extremists advocate them anymore. (Although the bantustan-idea unfortunately was fairly mainstream until Intifada II and demographic research made the concept of a Palestinian state a theoretical fait acompli.)

Supporters of Israel justifiably take great pride in the relative freedom that Israeli Arabs have vis-a-vis their Arab brethren living under Arabic dictatorships. They need to realize that this pride is also an argument against the occupation of Judea and Samaria. Immediately after the 1967 war, David Ben-Gurion said that Israel must be willing to return the conquered territories in exchange for peace. A great pity it has taken his countrymen so long to realize he was right.

Jul 12, 2005 - 6:59 am 35. Gary Rosen:

Markus:

“Comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa or Nazi Germany is inaccurate and unfair and SOMETHING I HAVE NEVER DONE.”

Bullshit. You’re a liar, because you just did it right in this thread. The addition of the phrase “perhaps in boxcars” added NO substantive content to your post and could ONLY have been intended to recall the Holocaust. How stupid do you think we are?

Jul 12, 2005 - 8:12 am 36. markus:

Calm down, Gary. It is true that phrase added no substantive comment, and was only included to piss off you and other obnoxious, arrogant people reading it. But it is a MATTER OF FACT that I did not compare Israel to Nazi Germany. I was talking about Israel planning and implementing forced TRANSFER of Arabs, something that it has never done. You need to withdraw your accusation.

Jul 12, 2005 - 8:24 am 37. PJ:

If the Palestinians could show they wanted to live in peace in whatever national configuration, it would have happened long ago, Markus. You act as though there was some magical political action on Israel’s part that would end the carnage.

The PLO wants total destruction of Israel. Even leftist Joshka Fisher gave up his PLO infatuation after a conference in North Africa in the early 80s when he realized that all the high-falutin’ talk was a smokescreen: it was all about killing Jews.

Yours is the passion of the true believer; I live in reality. I am not a Jew but I know killers when I see them. Do you truly believe that if Israel gave back all the terroritories the intafada, the suicide bombers, the incitement to religious hatred in education and the media, would stop?

Jul 12, 2005 - 8:31 am 38. markus:

PJ — “Do you truly believe that if Israel gave back all the terroritories the intafada, the suicide bombers, the incitement to religious hatred in education and the media, would stop?”

I think it would sharply decline, and the opprobrium that Israel faces from the rest of the world as a result of its occupation would sharply decline as well. And with a solid, defined internationally legitimate border, Israel would be able to protect itself much better against the terrorism that remained (as it has very effectively protected itself against would-be Gaza terrorists, as a result of the wall surrounds Gaza.)

Jul 12, 2005 - 8:41 am 39. Kevin P:

markus:

What a weak defense of your statement.You wrote it to get a rise out of us. Why would it get a rise out of it? Because it was an obvious reference to Nazi Germany. Otherwise it would not have generated any response. The sophistry of your argumant is so obvious. If boxcars wasn’t meant as a nazi ref, why else would it get a rise out of us, which is what you said you wanted to do. You make a Nazi comparison to get a rise out of us, then lie that you were making any nazi hints. Your very words indict you.

Israel is willing to give land for peace. All they need is a willing partner who will promise to stop atttacking them. Sadat and Egypt prove this. Stop the suicide bombings and the PLO can have peace. Arafat never intented to make a peace. Maybe the new leaders do, we will see. The longer the PLO plays their yes-no game the longer the Misery of their people will continue.

Kevin Peters

Jul 12, 2005 - 8:41 am 40. markus:

Kevin, Gary –

FACT: I made a reference to Nazi Germany to get a rise out of you guys.

FACT: I did not compare Israel to Nazi Germany.

Jul 12, 2005 - 8:45 am 41. PJ:

“I think it would sharply decline” – the societal apparatus of indoctrination in hatred of Jews and Israel and Christians for that matter would not decline.

“Opprobrium that Israel faces from the rest of the world as a result of its occupation would sharply decline as well.” So what if bad or stupid people hate you? By this reasoning, all the Hitler appeasers of the 1930s were correct and should have been emulated?

“With a solid, defined internationally legitimate border, Israel would be able to protect itself much better against the terrorism that remained.” How exactly would a new border help? Do you think that the UN would send in troops to kill Pali bombers? would the International Red Cross and the ISM stop supporting terrorism?

I take the PLO at their own word–they want destruction of Israel.

Jul 12, 2005 - 9:00 am 42. Kevin P:

markus:

the discussion was about israel and the palestinians. YOU brought in the Nazi talk. You didn,t use the nazi terminology about gary or anyother poster. you brought it in while discussing Israel. It is a cheap debating tactic and your denials are weak. This isn’t court. You brought the nazi talk in for a purpose and it isn’t a quirk of fate that it was brought up in a talk about the israeli-palestinian discussion. In the arab media and in the more anti-israel talk circles Israeli-Nazi talk is all over the place.The fact that you were more subtle in bringing it into the discussion does not hide what your purpose was. Your boxcar reference wasn’t directed at any poster. It was used in your words about Israel. Your weasel words do not hide the truth. Your denials are a sign of your character.

Kevin Peters

Jul 12, 2005 - 9:09 am 43. markus:

PJ — A real, internationally recognized border and SECURITY WALL between Israel and “Judea” and Israel and “Samaria” would make it much, much more difficult for Arabs to slip in to Israel with bombs strapped to themselves…just as the wall around Gaza has stopped almost all suicide bombers from GAZA.

Kevin — I resent you saying that I’m using “weasil words”, when in fact I’m being brutally candid.

I raised a comparision between a well-known act of Nazis and an OPTION that some Israelis have considered but that the state of Israel HAS REJECTED.

I also admitted that the purpose was to demonstrate my underlying contempt for you and others reading this blog — contempt that I am sure you and my other targets admit was completely mutual, even before that comment. Doing this was immature on my part, and I’m should have kept the impulse in check. I’m trying to convince you and others of the moral necessity of two state solution, and the fact that Israel bears some responsibility in addition to the Palestinians for the fact that such a solution has not been implemented yet. I ought to have limited my confrontion with you to these arguments, without revealing my underlying feelings, not toward Israel, but towards those who uncritically and, to my mind, dishonestly defend it. I’m sorry for that comment which actually diminished and distracted from my argument.

Jul 12, 2005 - 9:41 am 44. markus:

One more thing, Kevin — “YOU brought in the Nazi talk.”

Now, that’s “bullshit” and “a lie.”

Go to the top of this thread and do a word search on the word “nazi”. You’ll see that the Nazi comparison was brought up several times by Gary and Yehudit, in regard to the Arabs, before my comment, and by PJ, afterwards.

So saying Palestinians are nazi-like is cool, but saying “Kahane was right” policies are nazi-like is not?

Jul 12, 2005 - 10:04 am 45. Kevin P:

Markus:

The fact that you would bring in subtle comparisons to nazi germany in a discussion of the Israeli-Palestine shows more about you then I think you realize. I have never said Israel was perfect. I have stated many times that Sharons visit to the arab mosque area was a cheap political trick. It does not justify the second intifada, which was nothing like the first which was more street generated and closer to a political protest. Some Sharon defenders try to say it just pointed out what was the reality of what the palestinians were planning to do but I still think Sharon should not have given them a cheap excuse and therefore bears some responsibility. I also stated early in the thread that the Settlements were a mistake and have made a peace settlemnt harder.

Arafat could have had a viable seperate Palestinian State. If there ever is a settlement it will be alnmost identical to what the final offer that Clinton and Ross offered him. It was 100% of gaza, it was 95% of the west bank and it was contiguous.It also included some of the arab communities in Jerusalem. It is the best the palestinians will ever get. Arafat either had no intention of accepting any two state solution or he didn’t have enough political control of the groups that want israel removed completely to guarantee a end of the war, Either way Israel has little option besides the wall to stop the suicide bombers.Occupation failed, airstrikes failed, bulldozing a clear area failed as long as the border was porous. Hopefully the new leadership of the palestinians will not follow arafats pattern. The wall will come down if the suicide bombers, the missle launches, and the tunnel making stop, Until then the Palestinians will live in misery and will be continued to be used a living sacrafice for the political goals of groups who don’t give one damn about their suffering. From arab governments who support the suicide bombers to western groups who rationalize this self defeating strategy.

kevin Peters

Kevin Peters

Jul 12, 2005 - 10:10 am 46. Kevin P:

Markus-

Kahane is a pariah in jerusalem. He was arrested and put in jail for his connection to terrorist plans. He is a fringe member of Israel. David Duke ran for The U.S. senate but he does not represent any major group in the US he is a nutjob who is allowed to participate in politics like everyone else. He is called a terroist by the bulk of Israel. He speeches in the Knesset are shunned. His racist idea’s will never be implemented and they are not representitive of the Israeli body politic.

Hamas and Hezzbollah are major players in Palestinian politics and war plans. They are heroes to large sections of the Palestinian people and they can bring down any possible moderate Palestinian plans. They have their own armies. Kahane has a collection of wingnuts who have little to no power. And if they carry out any terrorist acts they will be put in jail and they will not be let go to go to war as arafat did with his prisoners.

Jul 12, 2005 - 10:29 am 47. markus:

Kevin –

You and I basically agree on what a fair, viable solution would be, as do do most fair minded people.

But a few points need to made, I think: many Israelis and U.S. supporters DISAGREE with you and me and Clinton and Ross. And prior to the outbreak of Intifada many more disagreed with us. All of these groups are just as much an obstacle to peace as the Palestinians, given their political power. As long as the territories were docile, the idea of a two-state solution itself was a far left-wing idea in Israel from 1967 until the late eighties. And in 2000, it was the refusal of Barak to take the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem off the Camp David negotiating table that lead to the downfall of his government in the summer of 2000.

Also, my memory is that what really got the intifada cooking was not the Sharon visit by itself, but rather, the IDF using live ammo a few days later on a protest rally near the Western wall, in response to some stone throwers.

I agree that the Kahane movement is on the fringe in Israel, but I was responding to a comment that Katherine — repeating a fairly common assertion -in which she claimed Israel had a right to the territories and suggesting it was only because it was a Jewish state that this right was not anknowledged by others. What I was pointing out was that if SHE IS CORRECT, the Kahane/”Nazi” option is one of only three possible alternatives the state of Israel. I stand by the observation, and note that no one has addressed or refuted it, while again saying that I regret not deleting the part about the boxcars.

Jul 12, 2005 - 10:45 am 48. Kevin P:

markus:

No one has responded to it because no one was suggesting it but you. I will let katherine defend her self but she was talking about the general idea of war and land and I saw nothing in her words that was suggesting the nazi option. After WWII part of Poland was given to the USSR and part of germany was ceded to Poland. Katherine may think otherwise but I got the impression that she was saying that the idea that the constant threats of anialation and the various Arab wars againt Israel has consequences. I saw no boxcar, nazi ideas in there at all. You can have the last word but I think it is a stretch to think Katherines words suggested the Kahane option so I think it is stretch to introduce it into the conversation.

kevin Peters

Jul 12, 2005 - 11:51 am 49. markus:

The last word is Shalom.

Jul 12, 2005 - 2:38 pm 50. Kevin P:

amen

Jul 12, 2005 - 3:20 pm 51. PJ:

Markus,

I brought up Nazis because the Islamists of the day were actual bona fide allies of the Nazis; it was not an unfair allusion at all.

I’m sorry that you feel contempt for us here, or maybe it was just a temporary angry moment, but at the risk of angering you further, you only address the wall, not the state-sanctioned inculcation of hatred for Jews in PLO-land and their stated goal of obliteration of Israel.

I don’t want to beat this thread to the ground, but the wall is a side issue. Changing the boundaries will do nothing of substance to solve the underlying issue, which is the existence of Israel.

Jul 12, 2005 - 4:46 pm 52. Kevin P:

P.J.

A current reminder of what israel has to negotiate with. These are the words of senior hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar in a recent interview with the italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera. When asked if Israel went back to the 1967 border if hamas would recognize the right of Israel to excist.

“hamas would definetlynot be prepared for coexistence with Israel. It can be a temporary situation for 5 to 10 years. But in the end Palestine must return to become Muslim, and in the end term israel will dissapear from the face of the earth”. yeah, that sounds like a peace partner.

kevin Peters

Jul 12, 2005 - 5:06 pm 53. Buddy Larsen:

Kevin, why, with a career invested in an organization which exists to kill Israel, would he say anything else?

Jul 12, 2005 - 5:22 pm 54. Buddy Larsen:

Hamas and Hezbollah are “root causes”. Capone gangs selling death instead of booze. Sins on the face of the earth. Demons praying for Armageddon to release them from their misery.

Jul 12, 2005 - 5:27 pm 55. markus:

PJ — I don’t know what to do about the Arab hate, and about Hamas and others who refuse to accept any Jewish state. Do I understand the initial emnity of Palestinian Arabs toward the initial Zionist colonizers? For the most part, I do, as did Ben-Gurion and many other Zionists. Do I understand the refusal of many Arabs to let go of those grievances and embrace martydom generation upon generation? Not at all. I would argue (and hope) that removing the IDF and the settlers from the daily lives of Palestinians , and forcing Palestinian leaders to take responsibility for their people’s well-being (as Sharon is doing with the Gaza pullout) will tend to marginalize the extremists and rejectionists, by giving Palestinians something to do besides blame Israel for their problems.

But even if I’m wrong and Palestinians fail to marginalize their extremists, I would argue that Israel is better off protecting itself from them behind smaller, more secure, internationally recognized borders, than trying to hold on an ‘Eretz Israel’ teeming with those committed to its destruction.

Jul 12, 2005 - 7:38 pm 56. Kevin P:

Buddy:

it is the willfull ignorance of some on the left that scares me. What this man said is Hamas policy and it is the cornerstone of their political philosophy. But many on the left pressure Israel to treat them as if they are just an opposition political party. it makes no sense but Israel must leave Gaza, just to relieve the worldwide political heat that is dumped on them. My guess is that Hamas, after a month or two, will start major terrorist operations out of Gaza and it will give Israel the political cover to finish the security wall. I could be suprised but much of the progressive left will still blame Israel for defnding itself. they will pressure israel to make a deal and they will ignore the comments made above. They will talk about the good social services Hamas provides. It’s like sayiong if the KKK had a good free lunch and breakfast programs for the poor it would be ok to ignore their sick core values.

Kevin Peters

Jul 12, 2005 - 7:41 pm 57. PJ:

Thanks for the well thought out answer, Markus.

The difference between my position and yours is that I do understand why some Arabs can’t let the grievance culture go: it’s the official position of every Arab or Palestinian governmental or social agency, from Hamas to Abu Mazzen, reinforced by physical intimidation and pervasive propaganda in every aspect of life.

Withdrawal might bring things to head, but I think the result will be uncontrolled terror and then an all out war. So let’s hope that you’re right.

Jul 12, 2005 - 7:56 pm 58. Kevin P:

Markus:

I think it is good that the conversation has cooled down.And no matter what argument is made on the palestinian-israeli question can never be 100% consistent. The only chink in your argument is that everyone of your arguments to go back to the 67 borders will be used by Hamas to eliminate the state of Israel. They are almost identical.When you argue that the land was stolen and it must be returned that goes for much of the pre 1967 lands of Israel also. And of course many Palestinians will want to carry it back to 1948 also. Why are those arguments good for going back to 1967 but not for going back to 1948? Or even 1919. That is the logic behind the right of return.

I think your heart is in the right place. But to expect Israel to forget all of the threats of elimination and just hope that the Palestinians have given up, let alone many of their neighbors, on the original charter of the PLO is wishfull thinking. Israel will never give up Jerusalem. They may allow limited autonomy in some of the arabic neighborhoods of east jerusalem but they will not go back to pre 1967 borders. The fact that they were kept away from the Wailing Wall is too fresh a memory and they will never let it go.And the talk of making Jerusalem a UN protectorate will never go down either. The UN has proven it can do a fine job when passions are cool but when bullets fly the blue helmets either leave or hunker down, They don’t enforce against a concerted effort. Remember the UN was in Sinai before the 1967 war and Israel depended on them to keep Egypt out. When Egypt pushed, the UN folded.

The majority of Israel has accepred the idea of a Palestinian State. Some Palestinians have too but many have not and so far the moderate Palestinian factions have not shown that they have any controll of the ones who still dream of Jew free Palestine.

Kevin Peters

Jul 12, 2005 - 8:54 pm 59. markus:

Kevin — I appreciate this more civil exchange as well.

Israel has a right to exist within its pre-1967 borders, or some semblence thereof, for two and only two reasons:

1. Her people wish to continue living there, under an Israeli flag. And they have fought for this and won.

2. Everyone within these boundaries — Jew and non-Jew — is accorded basic civil and political rights, and with the rarest exceptions wishes to remain citizens of the State of Israel.

Israel has an equivalent right to hold on to Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Mecca, Medina (thanks for reminding us of the Jewish history there, Yehudit), the North Pole, the entire dark side of the Moon if she wants to — as long as the essential above conditions exist within those areas as well. And of course they don’t.

On refugees and “right of return”, international law (Geneva Convention) and general standards of “just war” are pretty clear: if civilians leave their homes during a military conflict, they are allowed to return when the war is over. The law in general is on the side of the Arabs, and people ought to admit this and stop offering counter-examples of unjust forced transfer as some sort of justification.

Israel, however, is also completely entitled to ignore these abstract standards in this case. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson “international law” and international standards of justice are not a suicide pact.

On Jerusalem, both sides are entitled to fight for what they think God gave them for as long as they want. I think that the final Clinton-Barak formulation was pretty good, but frankly I agree with you that the Israeli center is probably in no mood to accomodate that.

Frankly, I’d be sympathetic to keeping Arab Jerusalem under Israel rule, as a “this is what you lost when Arafat rejected Barak” reminder. On the other hand, if this happens, for that reason, or to appease the Orthodoxy, and it ends up keeping Hamas and the martyrs brigades in business and turning the town into a mini-Kashmir, it would be a stupid thing. In reality, final status talks on Jerusalem aren’t going to go anywhere until there is about a thousand times more trust between the two peoples than there is now. Discussing Jerusalem is like discussing where to put the cherry on the top of the cake when it hasn’t even been baked yet.

Jul 13, 2005 - 10:50 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: